Only the Brave - Honest Photography Feedback

[chrismarr]

End of Autumn by Chris Marr, on Flickr

I'm new to woodlands so happy to hear it all

[Craigwww]

I'm keen to try some woodland photography myself.. not so easy when you live and work in Saudi though.

I love the composition, colour and the tone of the image. Makes me long to be back in Scotland actually.

If that was my image, I would be tempted to add some highlights to some of the red leaves, really bring out the contrast and suggest a bit of sunlight back lighting them. It may be deemed 'cheating' though and it doesn't appear there was much direct sunlight in the shot.

[singlecoil]

Nice picture. Personally I would have been inclined to remove the two somewhat eye-catching fallen branches, just to avoid the distraction and to give viewers the feeling they could walk around in there without having to worry too much about trip hazards.

[chrismarr]

Never even thought about the fallen branches, good point.

It was quite a foggy little day so no chance at all of sunlight, it's woodland right behind my house so I shall be watching and waiting for a return.

[Craigwww]

chrismarr said:

Never even thought about the fallen branches, good point.

It was quite a foggy little day so no chance at all of sunlight, it's woodland right behind my house so I shall be watching and waiting for a return.

Did you do much processing ?

[Fastchas]

Lilleshall in the 34 degree heat of 2015.
Straight out the camera (may have sharpened it a notch), shot on tripod.
I have nothing else saved to show on the PC I'm working from!

Edited by Fastchas on Tuesday 21st November 15:01

[chrismarr]

Craigwww said:

Did you do much processing ?

A wee bit, this is unedited just resized.

[spence1886]

DavidY said:

I am actually genuinely interested in the critique, both objectively and subjectively


160107 Vale Royal Sluice sm by David Yeoman, on Flickr

I don't mind the photo either way, but it is improved with the underlying context. I also think you chose the shutter speed well as it retains the movement and violence to be expected from water rushing through a sluice gate.

Having said that it doesn't sit well with my (OCD) eye for some reason. At a guess I would say you needed to take a small step to the right. There is something about the angles (too much wall on the right?) which I cannot get comfortable with... i think the issue is exacerbated by the fact that it is a perfectly level shot.

[Craigwww]

chrismarr said:

A wee bit, this is unedited just resized.

One tip I got from a video on YT on Woodland photography, said that you should try and shoot from an angle that minimizes any sky seen through the trees as the contrast between a bright sky and moody woodland makes processing very limited due to the dynamic range and due to the complex nature of the shapes where the sky is exposed.. impossible to correct properly. I guess what he was saying is that, if you have a bright sky, try and find a woodland where the land rises behind the trees and shoot a little lower, thus avoiding the blown highlights. Doesn't seem much of an issue in this shot but you would probably blow out the highlights if you attempted to lighten the image.

Just a tip and not an issue in your finished image.

[DavidY]

spence1886 said:

I don't mind the photo either way, but it is improved with the underlying context. I also think you chose the shutter speed well as it retains the movement and violence to be expected from water rushing through a sluice gate.

Having said that it doesn't sit well with my (OCD) eye for some reason. At a guess I would say you needed to take a small step to the right. There is something about the angles (too much wall on the right?) which I cannot get comfortable with... i think the issue is exacerbated by the fact that it is a perfectly level shot.

Thanks for the feedback, your OCD is not wrong, you can just see more of the perpendicular sluice gate face on the right hand side, so I'm not dead centre!

[227bhp]

DavidY said:

My comment was 'just as non-serious' so here goes, fill your boots (I am actually genuinely interested in the critique, both objectively and subjectively)


160107 Vale Royal Sluice sm by David Yeoman, on Flickr

Considering the water only; I've seen much worse, but it hasn't captured what the eye sees, isn't that the essence of (generally) what a photographer is trying to achieve? Everything else is clear.
I think we've been fed this cotton wool for so long that it's become accepted and people think it's great, I'm sorry i'm not one of them. I've just Googled 'Waterfall' and there is a lot of poor pictures out there.
Serious question; Is it difficult to capture water well along with sharp surroundings?

[RobDickinson]

227bhp said:

isn't that the essence of (generally) what a photographer is trying to achieve?

No.
In some fields ( reporting/documentary/possibly sports/wildlife) its a key attribute but ...

First the camera never sees things as you do. you are always at an approximation

Second photography is about more than recording what your eye would see. I make pretty landscape/astro pictures, very few are anything like what you would have seen at the time with your own eyes due to abusing the mechanics of photography, exposure time,s colour, depth of field etc.

I dont see it as a requirement to portray anything as you would see it. Often without 'tricks' your composition can lie substantially compared to how it would have looked being there.

227bhp said:

Serious question; Is it difficult to capture water well along with sharp surroundings?

No. flowing water = longer exposures, this usually leads to wind affected foliage people often dont bother taking a second faster shutter speed to blend the two.

[Whoozit]

I'm in. This is Croyde beach at sunset a few weeks ago. It is one of my top three images ever, and the best work I can currently consciously produce as opposed to happy accidents.

[227bhp]

RobDickinson said:

227bhp said:

isn't that the essence of (generally) what a photographer is trying to achieve?

No.
In some fields ( reporting/documentary/possibly sports/wildlife) its a key attribute but ...

First the camera never sees things as you do. you are always at an approximation

Second photography is about more than recording what your eye would see. I make pretty landscape/astro pictures, very few are anything like what you would have seen at the time with your own eyes due to abusing the mechanics of photography, exposure time,s colour, depth of field etc.

I dont see it as a requirement to portray anything as you would see it. Often without 'tricks' your composition can lie substantially compared to how it would have looked being there.

227bhp said:

Serious question; Is it difficult to capture water well along with sharp surroundings?

No. flowing water = longer exposures, this usually leads to wind affected foliage people often dont bother taking a second faster shutter speed to blend the two.

Every picture so far in this thread is as the eye sees, but yes I know where you are coming from (Long exposure pictures of motorways at night and of the stars etc) For many that is where the skill lies - recording what we see. If I'm out and I see something that is worth picturing I do it, but because I have little idea and no equipment it generally doesn't reproduce what I am seeing as well as I hoped.

I think you've got your long & short exposures the wrong way round btw, short exposure would capture moving leaf and water very realistically, it's long that blurs. Also, there are no moving parts (apart from the water) in the chaps canal scene so it could have looked more realistic and the stonework a little sharper.

Edited by 227bhp on Thursday 23 November 12:58

[Tycho]

TheRainMaker said:

Comments all taken on board and I've done a few tweaks.

PH Updated by The Rain Maker, on Flickr

I really like the edits you made. In the original I felt that the rocks either side framed the picture and put a bit of distance between you and the elements but the edit really makes it feel like you are right in the midst of it.

[singlecoil]

Whoozit said:

I'm in. This is Croyde beach at sunset a few weeks ago. It is one of my top three images ever, and the best work I can currently consciously produce as opposed to happy accidents.

My first suggestion is for you to sort out a Flickr account and post it on there and link to it here, Thumbsnap tends not to show images at their best. From what I can see so far it looks like the sort of picture that needs to be viewed as a seriously large print. What do you have in mind for it?

[Whoozit]

singlecoil said:

My first suggestion is for you to sort out a Flickr account and post it on there and link to it here, Thumbsnap tends not to show images at their best. From what I can see so far it looks like the sort of picture that needs to be viewed as a seriously large print. What do you have in mind for it?

I have a Flickr account, just not current access to the original file to post this. I will do so in future.

It’s definitely in the list for large printing behind acrylic, I think it will look great. Long term, I’m working on a portfolio which could be exhibited. All fine art landscapes with common themes.

[singlecoil]

I'm not sure about this one. I'm happy with the lighting (though it looks best on a screen with good blacks and not overly bright) but I would like to hear some opinions

Chocolate and cranberry brownies by Elliott and Nolan, on Flickr

[Tuna]

singlecoil said:

I'm not sure about this one. I'm happy with the lighting (though it looks best on a screen with good blacks and not overly bright) but I would like to hear some opinions

Chocolate and cranberry brownies by Elliott and Nolan, on Flickr

Perhaps it's the angle you took it from, but it's not clear what the shape of the things is.. it looks like an amorphous blob that's suddenly going to grow a mouth and start talking to you!

I always enjoy your food photographs, so don't take that as a harsh criticism - I've got no legs to stand on - just an initial impression.

[DibblyDobbler]

Tuna said:

Perhaps it's the angle you took it from, but it's not clear what the shape of the things is.. it looks like an amorphous blob that's suddenly going to grow a mouth and start talking to you!

I always enjoy your food photographs, so don't take that as a harsh criticism - I've got no legs to stand on - just an initial impression.

+1 The lighting is fine but the composition needs a rethink IMHO