Composition Critique

[Dpsteak]

Hi all,

I would like some opinions as to whether you find this shot interesting. I have been trying to do some nature shots that aren't wide angle landscapes and originally thought I really liked this shot, but now am unsure and would like some more opinions. Is it a bit too busy? All comments appreciated! Btw, I've only posted a few images here and have noticed that they appear less sharp than when viewed on my computer or on flickr. Any ideas why? Thanks.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3371/3418704263_efe83f9b13_b.jpg

[Robert_Lay]

Unfortunately, it is not a "pretty" scene. When you are dealing with something that is as risky as this scene is, it would probably be better to back off and try to get a larger view.

From the standpoint of composition, it is hard to find what elements here are the main contributors - I say it is the water falling - first onto the slab and then onto the rock.

Your own subconscious is telling you that it's too busy, and that is why you posed the question.

In response to the issue of sharpness - consider that your image, as posted here, is first down-sampled to the quality of a 1 Megapixel camera and then has a moderate 4:1 compression by JPEG. The compression is absolutely minimal at 4:1. There is virtually no loss of detail there. It is primarily the fundamental lack of resolution that results in a "coarse" look, or as some would say, "fat pixels".

Any time you want your viewers to see a small representative sample of the actual sharpness your image has, just publish a small segment, say 200 x 200 pixels, at the full resolution - i.e., a full detail, 100% crop.

********100% Crop Using Photoshop Crop Tool*********
See my tutorial on making a 100% Crop with Full Detail in the following thread:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34606&page=2

********100% Crop Using Photoshop Rectangular Selection Marquee Tool*********
Select the marquee tool - then in the options palette select Style->Fixed Size - key in 200 px X 200 px. Click with the marquee tool anywhere in your image, and drag this around the screen to the desired location. Use Image -> Crop to make the actual selection. At this point you have a full detail, 100% crop of the original image which when posted will give the viewers the same level of detail that you see in your original.

[gitarmac]

To me the scene looks too busy, like there is no subject. I like the detail of the leaves though. I always have trouble balencing the tones.

[Dpsteak]

Thanks for the comments. I guess I need to listen to my gut a bit more :lol:. I understand what a 100% crop shows, however I am not sure if I phrased my original question right.

If I look at my photo on flickr, at it's large size which is 1024 px on the long side, and then look at my same sized photo here, the photo on flickr looks considerably sharper. Is there any extra compression when linking photos on this site? Thanks.

[Robert_Lay]

Thanks for the comments. I guess I need to listen to my gut a bit more :lol:. I understand what a 100% crop shows, however I am not sure if I phrased my original question right.

If I look at my photo on flickr, at it's large size which is 1024 px on the long side, and then look at my same sized photo here, the photo on flickr looks considerably sharper. Is there any extra compression when linking photos on this site? Thanks.

I don't agree with your conclusion. I put the Flickr version on screen in one window and the one on POTN in another window, side by side, and there is no difference whatsoever in color, detail, sharpness, brightness, contrast or anything. I know little to nothing about images hosted on Flickr, but it makes me think that there is something different about how you are comparing them. For example, you cannot use a program such as Photoshop to display one of the images and the Web Browser to display the other one, unless you are very careful about Color Space issues.

[aebrown]

IMHO, it is not interesting. I would think in this picture you want the "waterfall" to be the focal point of the picture, in which it is not. My eye is automatically drawn to the leaves (which are boring), they do not work in compliment to anything in the picture IMO. I think with better colors and a composition with the waterfall in the front and different colors and focus it would work better...IMO

[Dpsteak]

I don't agree with your conclusion. I put the Flickr version on screen in one window and the one on POTN in another window, side by side, and there is no difference whatsoever in color, detail, sharpness, brightness, contrast or anything. I know little to nothing about images hosted on Flickr, but it makes me think that there is something different about how you are comparing them. For example, you cannot use a program such as Photoshop to display one of the images and the Web Browser to display the other one, unless you are very careful about Color Space issues.

Yeah, so I feel a little stupid right now:oops:. When I was looking at the two pictures I thought they were the same size, but in fact the one here on POTN was larger, so the flickr version appeared sharper. Thanks for your input.

I appreciate all the input, I think in this case, I really wanted to make the scene into a good photo and I don't think the scene itself had a ton of potential to begin with. I'm not sure if I am allowed to post another image in the same critique thread, but here is another photo from the same location in which I thought I did a better job keeping it simple. Still not in love with it, but more so than the first one.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3546/3418702603_b468477ed9_b.jpg

[Robert_Lay]

I see nothing wrong with posting another picture in the same thread - especially since it's really your thread, and it's not really abusing any of Pekka's guidelines, so far as I can see.

You're new image is much better, in my opinion - more to the point and less distractions.