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

aezoss wrote in post #19462820
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.

Hosted photo: posted by aezoss in
./showthread.php?p=194​62820&i=i18535266
forum: Critique Corner

I understand that for sure, I have the same setup and never could get proficient at capturing fast moving subjects.
Harry

chuckmiller wrote in post #19460965
.
Talk to me about composition, framing, etc

.

.
Personally, I would have moved in WAY closer to the person on the chair and had her occupy a LOT more of the frame, while keeping the rest of the scene framed about the same way you have it here. . To the way I think and the way I see things, the person in the chair is either the whole reason for the photo, or they are a distraction. . Either have her featured very prominently, or exclude her from the frame altogether.

Hopefully, you shot this scene in many, many different ways and have a gazillion different versions of the image, taken from different positions and different focal lengths. . Would be interested in seeing some of the other image you took of this scene, especially the ones that are a lot different from this one. . Not just different crops, but photos of this same scene taken from very different physical positions, to place emphasis on different things.

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19464381
.
Personally, I would have moved in WAY closer to the person on the chair and had her occupy a LOT more of the frame, while keeping the rest of the scene framed about the same way you have it here. . To the way I think and the way I see things, the person in the chair is either the whole reason for the photo, or they are a distraction. . Either have her featured very prominently, or exclude her from the frame altogether.

Hopefully, you shot this scene in many, many different ways and have a gazillion different versions of the image, taken from different positions and different focal lengths. . Would be interested in seeing some of the other image you took of this scene, especially the ones that are a lot different from this one. . Not just different crops, but photos of this same scene taken from very different physical positions, to place emphasis on different things.

.

I couldn't do any of this. My wife and I were walking along the street with the grand daughter in a stroller and i walked down to the beach for only a moment. I had no time for varying positions etc etc plus the woman in the chair was a stranger out enjoying her solitude. So technically this is a snapshot, not a composed photo. It seems that I never get to stalk a scene from all sides.

I couldn't evaluate it from all sides but I think this photo/snapshot turned out okay. I was backed up to a building and didn't have a choice of lenses either.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nMy​zr3

stathunter wrote in post #8537902
Hey gang,

I spent the morning critiquing photos for a consulting project I am working on -- and I am ready and willing to give you Scott's brutal critique of your work/photo in a quick summary get to the point fashion, at no cost to you - unless you want to buy me food

I will offer brief tidbits on how to improve your image - if I think you have any hope.

Go ahead and post.

Here mine


#1

Photo from peteraustralia2021's gallery.

Photo from peteraustralia2021's gallery.

Photo from peteraustralia2021's gallery.

peteraustralia2021 wrote in post #19465100
.
#3

Gallery photo:
posted by peteraustralia2021 originally in forum: People

.

.
Goodness gracious!

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19465145
.
Goodness gracious!

mberger3 wrote in post #19465515
Second that!

.

Thank you so much

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19465145
.
Goodness gracious!

.

Second that!

peteraustralia2021 wrote in post #19465100
Here mine


#3

Gallery photo:
posted by peteraustralia2021 originally in forum: People

.
I was completely blown away by the model herself, to the point that scrutinizing other aspects of the photo was difficult/impossible. . Which means that you did a great job as the photographer, to show her in a way that is so stunning and takes the viewer's breath away with her gorgeousness.

But after viewing this several times over the course of a few days, I can now start to think about other aspects of the image.

One thing that stands out to me ... the brightest, boldest, most highly saturated color in the frame is the chartreuse grass in the background. . It cuts a visually obtrusive swath through an otherwise dark, muted area. . Hence, it grabs the viewer's eye and pulls attention to itself and away from the gorgeous model. . Was this intentional? . Did you really want that grass to be so much brighter than everything above and below it? . Did you want the chartreuse color to be so vibrantly saturated? If not, then why is it this way?

Everything about our photos should be intentional. . We have the ability to make everything in the frame to look the way we want it to, through shooting a certain way, or through editing. . The only reason a color should be so vibrant and bright is because we want it to be that way. . If we don't want it that way, then we can select that color channel and reduce saturation and darken it to make it blend in more with the surrounding background.

The sheer brightness of the sky under the bridge is also an aesthetic problem for me, but I'm not sure there's an editing solution that is as quick and easy as fixing the chartreuse grass. . I guess the best thing would have been to position her and yourself so that that bright sky patch wasn't right behind her, and wasn't shining through her hair the way it is. . Or at the least, you could have given a lot less exposure to the image so that it wouldn't be so blown out. . But you seem to have exposed for your subject, at the expense of the background, and that is somewhat forgivable when the subject is such a special one.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19466237
.
I was completely blown away by the model herself, to the point that scrutinizing other aspects of the photo was difficult/impossible. . Which means that you did a great job as the photographer, to show her in a way that is so stunning and takes the viewer's breath away with her gorgeousness.

But after viewing this several times over the course of a few days, I can now start to think about other aspects of the image.

One thing that stands out to me ... the brightest, boldest, most highly saturated color in the frame is the chartreuse grass in the background. . It cuts a visually obtrusive swath through an otherwise dark, muted area. . Hence, it grabs the viewer's eye and pulls attention to itself and away from the gorgeous model. . Was this intentional? . Did you really want that grass to be so much brighter than everything above and below it? . Did you want the chartreuse color to be so vibrantly saturated? If not, then why is it this way?

Everything about our photos should be intentional. . We have the ability to make everything in the frame to look the way we want it to, through shooting a certain way, or through editing. . The only reason a color should be so vibrant and bright is because we want it to be that way. . If we don't want it that way, then we can select that color channel and reduce saturation and darken it to make it blend in more with the surrounding background.

The sheer brightness of the sky under the bridge is also an aesthetic problem for me, but I'm not sure there's an editing solution that is as quick and easy as fixing the chartreuse grass. . I guess the best thing would have been to position her and yourself so that that bright sky patch wasn't right behind her, and wasn't shining through her hair the way it is. . Or at the least, you could have given a lot less exposure to the image so that it wouldn't be so blown out. . But you seem to have exposed for your subject, at the expense of the background, and that is somewhat forgivable when the subject is such a special one.

.

Yes, you are straight to the point and thank you for the compliments on my photo. Indeed, the background is a bit distracting. If i move to the right, all the ending lines from the bridge will intersect at her. I was planning to reduce the grass saturation & the sunset brightness as well but it turned out lifeless. Thats why i leave it that way.

It's a promo image for the Action Thriller Mack's Revenge
AKA a no budget student film
Take a peek here: https://youtu.be/VOl0r​f1ScsQ
Going for that badass cool guys look

I'm interested in getting comments on this shot, please.

Photo from Archibald's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (1193738)

Archibald wrote in post #19469966
I'm interested in getting comments on this shot, please.

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by Archibald originally in forum: People

I love the composition of this photo

The shadow and lighting blend well in this shot

The only negative thing here is the right eye (or left eye from her view) is too dark, it lacks of connection to the viewer

That was my thought as well, just a little more light on her right eye. The thing that most caught my attention was the look on her face. It caused me to wonder what she was thinking; I found it intriguing.

peteraustralia2021 wrote in post #19470077
I love the composition of this photo

The shadow and lighting blend well in this shot

The only negative thing here is the right eye (or left eye from her view) is too dark, it lacks of the connection to the viewer

yleefox wrote in post #19471530
That was my thought as well, just a little more light on her right eye. The thing that most caught my attention was the look on her face. It caused me to wonder what she was thinking; I found it intriguing.

Thanks for the comments. This was a bit of an experiment. Maybe the right eye needs to be brighter (or maybe darker?). Myself, I was attracted to the texture of her hair.