Critique this please.

[bernhund]

Last year I joined my local camera club and to date, have only been an observer. This season I'm considering entering some competitions, but would like your input before I go and make a numpty of myself.
So here is a simple but pleasing image (for me anyway!) that I might enter. The title is 'The Look Out' at Samphire Hoe. I would appreciate honest opinions, good or bad, and any pointers that could improve it. (Albeit I can only manipulate what you see here). Cheers.

[bernhund]

AngusDavie said:

Nice shot,

Could i ask what camera you use and what settings you were using at the time? I used to work for Kodak a few years back and used to get involved in digital large format printing etc.

Looking at it without a colour balanced monitor i would say that you have slightly over exposed the shot as the grass in the bottom left hand corner looks (on this screen) like it is losing the colour, also the composition is good but i would have moved the building slightly more to the right so it sat maybe 3/4's of the way across in stead of 2/3's but that more personal preference really!

Thank you. I can't be sure right now about settings or camera, as I've loaded this post from my phone. I'll post those details when I get home tonight. Likely to be Nikon D80 or D7100.
I suppose composition wise, I've ended up with the textbook rule of thirds. But we know those rules are for breaking!
I like the punchy colours though, they remind me of the Cibachrome days!

[bernhund]

I'm purely looking for constructive criticism and not praise, even if anyone were to consider it praise worthy!
Good comments so far, and taken on board. The lighting is as it was a the time, which happened to be in passing, so early/evening light would have to be on another visit. The manipulation is minimal in that I brushed a tiny amount of sky darker just to the left of the white top of the building to try to give a 3d effect. I also saturated the colours a little. Lastly I removed a bench that was half in the picture. Sadly the bench was always going to be in the wrong place & when it wasn't, everything else was!
I can definitely see the improvement in chopping the sky down a bit and recognise that white fluffy clouds would be great. Almost surreal. But they simply were not there.

[bernhund]

budfox said:

This might feel harsh but to me there isn't anything memorable or notable about it. There's nothing wrong with it (and who's to say what's right or wrong?), but I find it to just be a reasonable photo of a reasonable subject.

It needs an angry sky, or breaking waves, or a dramatic sunset, or the moon behind using a 600mm lens or.... well you get the idea.

Good job for having the balls to ask though, I wouldn't.

That's a perfectly acceptable critique. I recognise that on another day and perhaps at a different time, the conditions would have been different and produced a more dramatic result. So I suppose one could argue that that's what photography is all about..different moods.
I think the picture is a bit boring myself, I must confess. But I do like it, and maybe just because it's not all powerful or moody. Just a punchy, simple shot that's inoffensive. It is its simplicity that works for me and there probably is a place for it (screensaver!!lol) somewhere.
I'm going to try to get back there sometime and see some different conditions. I'll post them up and see just how different this scene could be.

[bernhund]

For those interested, I looked up the details: Nikon D7100,1/200th at f7.1, iso 100, 35mm 1.8.

[bernhund]

Rogue86 said:

As a standalone image, I like it. But I dont think it would stand out particularly among other competing images.

This is VERY true. I'm the youngster at the club at 48 and the majority are retired people with lots of time and the green stuff.They can get out of bed at 4 a.m, go to their favourite spot, get the picture, come home for a snooze, then spend hours on PS! There are some very good images in the competitions, taken by people with all sorts of letters after their names. I work 6 days a week for minimum 10 hour days. I take pictures at the time I happen to have a camera with me! The sort of image I'm up against makes mine almost embarrassing, which is why I thought I'd look for criticism first.
Here's one member's website: http://www.smartdigitalimages.com/all-photographs

Edited by bernhund on Wednesday 7th October 20:33

[bernhund]

I'm taking all this on board guys, so thank you very much. Whether it will still be on board the next time I'm out with my camera is questionable!
So, I will put the image in the competition just to see how it is received. I'll let you know what the judge says.
Could you help me out with this one too please, as it's one that I have fiddled with in PS. I've not added anything that wasn't there, except cloned a bit of cloud into the top left hand corner where there wasn't any. Other than that, just made slider adjustments and heavily cropped. I think it has probably lost quite a lot of pixels in doing so. Again, I know it's not a winner, but is this more like what you'd expect?

[bernhund]

LongQ said:

Going back to the original image for a moment ...

I suspect it is one of those that is much more impressive viewed (and especially printed) large when all of the detail it undoubtedly contains - especially colour details - will attract the eye.

If it were my image I would be somewhat keen to try to do something the the straw coloured grass across the bottom - especially the longer growths. I find them distracting here as I do when I end up with something like that inthat my own shots. That may be a personal obsession of course. It's mainly about the uncontrollable randomness of the positioning in an image, not the fact that there are clumps of grass there. Obsession might be too strong a terms. An image like this seems to me to be stronger the simpler it is.

In that vein I think it would be better without the fence too. However I would guess that might not be so easy to remove and still retain exhibition quality for a large output format containing subtle detail. Maybe it could be toned down a little?

Once again the objective for me would be simplification of the overall image to allow the "assumed" subtlety of the colours in the sky the sea and the structure to take on the role of primary interest.

Just my opinion of course and reflecting my personal preferences.

Clearly there are likely to be any number of reasons why such eliminations from the image may not be good form.

I can see that now. The straw like grass just pokes its head above the parapet! If the entire plant could be seen, it may have been a different story. But as it is, it's just a distraction.
It's very useful asking for these opinions, as I've stared at the image so many times, I've become blinded. I'm in danger of just ending up with a blue canvas if I'm not careful though. Having said that, a couple of years ago Barnett Newman, a New York artist, painted one with a white line through it....it sold for $44m!

[bernhund]

Simpo Two said:

ecsrobin said:

Rogue86 said:

That image is much stronger.

Agreed. The choice of the lighthouse or the waves I'd go with the waves.

OK so we have a plan. Lose the bench, lose the grass, lose the fence, lose the lighthouse.

Is everyone OK with 66.67% sky and 33.33% sea?









Maybe lose the sea?

So a white rectangle it is then! But then I'd be told to turn down the highlights..