Help Critique (Pics)

I took some shots at the beach today. There was no swell in the water so i have no wave shots
Was wondering if you guys could help me improve my shooting since Im new.
These shots were shot by my S3, 95% were taken in "Nature" mode.
Thanks for looking!

3rd one down, id crop off the sign, close up of the bird would rock.
at this size they need more sharpening.
good compisition, too flat lighting for truely great shots that day.

The images look very flat, they could be made more vibrant and given a bit more "pop" or if you prefer given a darker more sinister look by adjusting the curves and saturation in Photoshop. If you turn on the Image Editing OK flag, I am sure there will be people willing to share that with you.

With the exception of the first shot where you have a blown sky, the exposures seem OK. What I think you need to spend time on is composition. In most of the shots, the main subject and/or horizon is right in the center of the frame. Picture your frame as a Tic Tac Toe board and try to place the primary subject at the intersection(s) of that board. Also try to get the horizon in the lower or upper 3rd of the frame. This is called the rule of thirds and I think it is the most basic compositional exersise to start out with. There are times when the rule of 3rds is not necessary, but it is a great way to start learning about composition.

Stefan

Stefan A wrote in post #2468325
What I think you need to spend time on is composition. In most of the shots, the main subject and/or horizon is right in the center of the frame. Picture your frame as a Tic Tac Toe board and try to place the primary subject at the intersection(s) of that board. Also try to get the horizon in the lower or upper 3rd of the frame. This is called the rule of thirds and I think it is the most basic compositional exersise to start out with. There are times when the rule of 3rds is not necessary, but it is a great way to start learning about composition.

Stefan

I have to strongly disagree.
Having the eye to not use it is far more important than knowing how to use it.
Forcing the image into the rule is the ruin of many otherwise good photos.
I will agree that it works on some images and needs to be known but it can also be over
done.

The last one is the one it might have helped on but the others it would have made for less great photos.

strmrdr wrote in post #2468349
I have to strongly disagree.
Having the eye to not use it is far more important than knowing how to use it.
Forcing the image into the rule is the ruin of many otherwise good photos.
I will agree that it works on some images and needs to be known but it can also be over
done.

The last one is the one it might have helped on but the others it would have made for less great photos.

And I have to disagree with you. You need to know the rules, and how to apply them, before you can decide when they don't fit. For instance, the first image, IMO, would be stronger if the horizon was higher (rule of thirds), letting the pathway lead you into the picture. Likewise, the second would be stronger if the pier didn't run all the way to the right edge of the frame. As it is, it's leading you out of the picture (compare to the 5th, of which more later). This is even more so with the 4th image. The second would also benefit from stepping/zooming back so the pier didn't take up so much of the image. It's too open to dominate the picture, but moving back will make it appear a little "denser", which will help strengthen it too. The 5th would benefit from cropping either the top (sky) or the bottom (beach), letting the pier lead you into the sea or sky respectively, but at least leading you somewhere, not leaving you hanging. The sixth shot looks like a nice "record" shot, but doesn't particularly say a lot else. The flagpole(?) is a jarring element, but doesn't either resolve anything or pose additional questions; it just gets in the way. The gull in the seventh shot illustrates an unfortunate tendency we all are subject to, of focussing on what we perceive as the subject, and not realizing how little of the picture it occupies until we see the final result. A longer lens, or getting closer, are really the only answers to that.

Jon wrote in post #2468462
And I have to disagree with you. You need to know the rules, and how to apply them, before you can decide when they don't fit. For instance, the first image, IMO, would be stronger if the horizon was higher (rule of thirds), letting the pathway lead you into the picture. Likewise, the second would be stronger if the pier didn't run all the way to the right edge of the frame. As it is, it's leading you out of the picture (compare to the 5th, of which more later). This is even more so with the 4th image. The second would also benefit from stepping/zooming back so the pier didn't take up so much of the image. It's too open to dominate the picture, but moving back will make it appear a little "denser", which will help strengthen it too. The 5th would benefit from cropping either the top (sky) or the bottom (beach), letting the pier lead you into the sea or sky respectively, but at least leading you somewhere, not leaving you hanging. The sixth shot looks like a nice "record" shot, but doesn't particularly say a lot else. The flagpole(?) is a jarring element, but doesn't either resolve anything or pose additional questions; it just gets in the way. The gull in the seventh shot illustrates an unfortunate tendency we all are subject to, of focussing on what we perceive as the subject, and not realizing how little of the picture it occupies until we see the final result. A longer lens, or getting closer, are really the only answers to that.

the pier leaves the eye hanging in real life 2.
the 5th it leads the eye out into the ocean.
The pictures put me there which is what they are meant to do.
Forcing the image to fit a mold is not alwas right.
Letting the natural feeling of the place show is far better.
Study some of Adam's outdoor prints to see a master at work.

btw agree on the flagpole but there is nothing to be done about it and by paying it too much mind you miss the forest.

Wow, sure got a lot of replys.
Thanks for taking a look and giving me pointers guys, I appreciate it.
Im sure Ill have many more pics in need of critiquing in the future!
Hopefully I'll improve some by then too!

Yeah, I knew someone would disagree. I have read a lot of debate as to weather the rule of 3rds should be observed and so I knew not everyone would agree. But, it seems to me that the OP is a beginner photographer who wants to learn. Using the rule of thirds give a beginner parameters where to start. So the beginner is not just shooting aimlessly without any conscious thought about composition. As a beginner learns the rule, he can discover when it is appropriate or not. How can a person know how to not use it if they don't know how to use it?

I guess there are some people who don't need a set parameter to help them get going. Maybe it's you and maybe it's the OP. I don't know. But I feel as the rule of 3rds is such a traditional compositional technique, the OP should know about it.

I say this with confidence being that I recently got into the hobby about 1 year ago. I am not so far detached from my novice days that I can't remember what helped and what didn't. Using the rule of 3rds really made a difference in how I see a scene. But it has also helped me to know when not to use it.

I will not debate with you weather the rule makes a better photo - that is completely subjective. But photographers and painters have been using it for centuries - so I think it has some merit.

Stefan

Im willing to give that a shot.
What is it basically. Dont shoot the horizon?

Read my first post.

Stefan

Stefan A wrote in post #2469056
Yeah, I knew someone would disagree. I have read a lot of debate as to weather the rule of 3rds should be observed and so I knew not everyone would agree. But, it seems to me that the OP is a beginner photographer who wants to learn. Using the rule of thirds give a beginner parameters where to start. So the beginner is not just shooting aimlessly without any conscious thought about composition. As a beginner learns the rule, he can discover when it is appropriate or not. How can a person know how to not use it if they don't know how to use it?

I guess there are some people who don't need a set parameter to help them get going. Maybe it's you and maybe it's the OP. I don't know. But I feel as the rule of 3rds is such a traditional compositional technique, the OP should know about it.

I say this with confidence being that I recently got into the hobby about 1 year ago. I am not so far detached from my novice days that I can't remember what helped and what didn't. Using the rule of 3rds really made a difference in how I see a scene. But it has also helped me to know when not to use it.

I will not debate with you weather the rule makes a better photo - that is completely subjective. But photographers and painters have been using it for centuries - so I think it has some merit.

Stefan

no debate needed we can just shake hands and say well discussed. I agree it should be learned in moderation.
Happy New Years!!!

GCastorino wrote in post #2469236
Im willing to give that a shot.
What is it basically. Dont shoot the horizon?

one of the best ways to learn is pick a nearby object that interests you and shoot it from all angles and in different conditions and think of new ways to capture it.
this builds up your mental library of shots and settings that you can apply to other things.
5 shots a day over 6-12 months isnt too many.

Body placement and different stances and perspectives make for a better photographer.

I really like the first one.Although somewhat need of some contrast it is really a nice shot.nice work.And like someone else said if you ok'd image editing im sure there will be some that will show you some examples