Brutal Friday Critique - are you ready? Well punk are you?

Archibald wrote in post #19458760
Wow, you did a fantastic job on post-processing that image. Good work.

Thank you sir!
Harry

harryv wrote in post #19449479
.
Please take a look at this shot, the only thing I know about landscape photography is, there's a rule of thirds that can be broken, I think.

Hosted photo: posted by harryv in
./showthread.php?p=194​49479&i=i42623525
forum: Critique Corner

.
I really like this image!

It does not look crooked or off-level to me at all, as someone suggested. . I like that the bridge is down off the center line enough so that the image doesn't look like a distracting 50/50 split. . In fact, I think the framing is perfect.

It needs all of that yummy negative space at the top and at the bottom, so I would not be cropping any of that off. . The water in the foreground gets darker the further you go toward the bottom of the frame, and so the darkest water of all spanning the bottom of the image anchors the composition quite nicely. . Cropping that nice dark portion off just doesn't make any sense. . And then at the top of the frame, in the top right corner, the sky has a nice bright area that provides for some really nice variation from the darkness on the left side of the image. . That brighter patch of sky at the top right corner is really important to the composition, as it helps to keep it off balance. . Cropping any of that off would be a pity.

I would not crop out the distracting white building. . Instead, I would clone it out. . Why? . Because the image needs all of the positive space it has on the left side of the frame, to keep it out of balance with the positive space on the right side of the frame. . If you crop off the part with the white building, then the amount of positive space is the same on each side of the image, and having that level of symmetry would not look good. And it would be a pity to lose that tree on the very edge of the frame. . My eyes are happier when there is an imbalance between the left side and the right side. . So keep all of that delicious landform on the left edge, just clone out the distracting white building, because it is incongruous with the rest of the aesthetic.


.

harryv wrote in post #19450509
I have two screens so I was able to view both side by side, I deffinatly see the improvement the crop revealed, also helped me see why Anton called it, "out of balance", which mine is. Thank you for taking time to help me.
Harry

.
Out of balance is GOOOOOOD. . When I shoot, I am usually looking for ways to make the composition out of balance, so that I don't end up with bilateral symmetry in my photo. . I think your original image is superior to any cropped version. . The very top of the frame and the very bottom of the frame were so important to the overall aesthetic, and losing any of that negative space hurts the image.

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19458911
.
I really like this image!

It does not look crooked or off-level to me at all, as someone suggested. . I like that the bridge is down off the center line enough so that the image doesn't look like a distracting 50/50 split. . In fact, I think the framing is perfect.

It needs all of that yummy negative space at the top and at the bottom, so I would not be cropping any of that off. . The water in the foreground gets darker the further you go toward the bottom of the frame, and so the darkest water of all spanning the bottom of the image anchors the composition quite nicely. . Cropping that nice dark portion off just doesn't make any sense. . And then at the top of the frame, in the top right corner, the sky has a nice bright area that provides for some really nice variation from the darkness on the left side of the image. . That brighter patch of sky at the top right corner is really important to the composition, as it helps to keep it off balance. . Cropping any of that off would be a pity.

I would not crop out the distracting white building. . Instead, I would clone it out. . Why? . Because the image needs all of the positive space it has on the left side of the frame, to keep it out of balance with the positive space on the right side of the frame. . If you crop off the part with the white building, then the amount of positive space is the same on each side of the image, and having that level of symmetry would not look good. And it would be a pity to lose that tree on the very edge of the frame. . My eyes are happier when there is an imbalance between the left side and the right side. . So keep all of that delicious landform on the left edge, just clone out the distracting white building, because it is incongruous with the rest of the aesthetic.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19458914
.
Out of balance is GOOOOOOD. . When I shoot, I am usually looking for ways to make the composition out of balance, so that I don't end up with bilateral symmetry in my photo. . I think your original image is superior to any cropped version. . The very top of the frame and the very bottom of the frame were so important to the overall aesthetic, and losing any of that negative space hurts the image.

.

Thank you Tom, I appreciate you taking time to comment, It really helps the learning process to have many as views and commentaries as one can get. I welcome different and opposing views because it allows me to see my image in different ways that I might not have otherwise. It's funny, I didn't view the building as distracting but that's because I see it almost everyday, so when I hear others call it that I can look at it through different eyes so the speak. What a great way to learn!
Thank you again,
Harry

I am a day early but I may not be around tomorrow.

Talk to me about composition, framing, etc

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nMy​k4f

Hi, Chuck! Very nice scene, wish I were there!!

I think you have an interesting subject in this photo, the pier and the building at the end. There is a second subject, the woman in the chair. She is well balanced in the composition. But IMO she is not an interesting subject. She is just your average beachgoer relaxing on the beach with a bunch of unattractive stuff around her. Now it may be that this person is special to you. If so, that makes it a special photo for you. But that does not make it an artistic image.

Apart from these two main subjects, I really like the texture of the beach, even if it is not pristine golden sand.

You have a lot of negative space in the photo. You don't need all that sky. And you don't need all of the sand either. So I would crop pretty heavily to get a stronger emphasis on the interesting parts of the scene. There are things you could have done with the secondary subject to make it more appealing, and perhaps make it the primary subject, all depending on your aims.

There are possibilities as well if you could come back when there is more interesting light - for instance at sunrise or sunset, or when a storm is brewing.

Just some ideas off the top... there will be many different ideas and possible directions to take with this scene.

When I developed it I cropped it twice.

This version is the most.
https://flic.kr/p/2nMw​bsN

This version is middle.
https://flic.kr/p/2nMr​m8k

chuckmiller wrote in post #19461056
When I developed it I cropped it twice.

This version is the most.
https://flic.kr/p/2nMw​bsN

This version is middle.
https://flic.kr/p/2nMr​m8k

Yep, I like both of those.

The "most" version includes more beach than sky, and I think that is effective.

Stathunter,

Wow, what a thread. 75 pages 1118 post of some of the best advice, suggestions, and help for your fellow photographers. How utterly unselfish! You are the man. Now, with that being said, I would like to toss one out there for you to dismantle and and either reconstuct or place in the appropriate waste can. I just don't have time to do so tonight (way past my bedtime).
Take care sir.

chuckmiller wrote in post #19460965
I am a day early but I may not be around tomorrow.

Talk to me about composition, framing, etc

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nMy​k4f _MG_7001-Edit by Chuck Miller, on Flickr

The balance of this picture is heavily weighted on the left. It feels like it's going to tip over. The empty space on the right just fades off the page and there's nothing to keep the viewer from following it.

That's what makes waterscapes tough. Land is dark and dense. Sky and water are bright and empty. And just for information in the scene, you need a significant amount of both.

I try to anchor my empty space. Maybe try moving into the foliage a little bit to find a frame. Overhanging palm fronds, an umbrella, something in the foreground you can put on the right to anchor that edge.

Another option is to move back and put on a longer lens. This will compress your perspective and move your subjects closer together. Let that pier be a heavier anchor.

Your asking about this picture makes me think you see the problem, as well as the potential. The answer is almost always, move your feet and look again.

For this particular image in post, I'd burn down the corners, a lot. Vignette the heck out of it. Tastefully, of course.

The thing that I would change (solely due to the person in the chair) is the height. That person makes it seem that this is taken at normal head level which is boring. Go down to get more personal, or up to give a different perspective.

chuckmiller wrote in post #19461056
When I developed it I cropped it twice.

This version is the most.
https://flic.kr/p/2nMw​bsN

This version is middle.
https://flic.kr/p/2nMr​m8k

This image would be hard for me to decide on the crop too, there are several parts I like. To me it has the feel of a snap shot of your vacation spot as it is in the first post. I'm just now trying to learn landscape photography so I can't help with a constructive critique other than agreeing with Archibald on the potential the area has. I myself if it were possible, would go there at different times and weather conditions. Also would be a great spot to try some long exposure photography. Keep um coming I really like this thread!

Harry

Feedback appreciated.

aezoss wrote in post #19462404
Feedback appreciated.

Hosted photo: posted by aezoss in
./showthread.php?p=194​62404&i=i52812948
forum: Critique Corner

So, I understand what's happening here and that helps the image make sense, to me anyway. Now if I didn't know what was going on, the trainers face in the shot would have added more drama. Maybe next take the shot from the angle that would show all three faces.

Harry

harryv wrote in post #19462729
So, I understand what's happening here and that helps the image make sense, to me anyway. Now if I didn't know what was going on, the trainers face in the shot would have added more drama. Maybe next take the shot from the angle that would show all three faces.

Harry

Thanks for the reply. That's the shot I missed, twice. Had a hard time keeping up with the dogs. Manic zooming plus trying to keep the AF point near the dog or handler's eye was tricky. 10% keepers, if that. Mainly out of focus eyes. I need to hit the gym.

Here's one with both pup and handler.