|
|
Critique By:
Daniel Taylor (K:3495)
11/2/2003 1:10:48 AM
Jason - eliminating shake requires a firm tripod, remote or timed release (your hand pressing the shutter will blur the shot), little to no wind, and preferably mirror lockup. Also, a 500mm lens is pretty large/heavy, so you need to mount the lens on the tripod as oppsed to the camera body (you're probably doing this, but wanted to be sure). Otherwise any slight vibration, even from the shutter, will shake the lens front element (not to mention the stress on the camera body).
Also note that the moon is moving, so too long of an exposure will result in motion blur. Further, any atmospheric movement will blur things (i.e. clouds on a windy day).
My exposure for my moon shot (http://www.usefilm.com/image/223519.html) was 1/15s at f/16 at ISO 100. In theory the moon should expose well at "sunny 16" because it is an object directly reflecting sunlight. But I think 1/15s exposed better than 1/90s in this case.
Having said that...I actually think you have a good shot here. It has a creative feel to it and looks spooky.
Hope this helps!
|
| Photo By: Jason Stutes
(K:305)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Daniel Taylor (K:3495)
11/2/2003 12:55:53 AM
This needed some form of light source from the left. I don't know if a reflector would have worked as the light coming in the window doesn't seem that strong to begin with (maybe though, would have been worth the shot). A flash would be too harsh and unbalanced.
I like it, I just feel like there should have been some light/detail on the cat's back.
|
| Photo By: Rawabi Al-Nuaimi
(K:15659)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Daniel Taylor (K:3495)
11/2/2003 12:50:40 AM
I think this is pretty good. Others have commented on the few problems. Regarding the contrast I'm surprised nobody suggested using an assistent with a reflector on her right side (even a silver car window reflector would work) OR shooting much earlier/later in the day.
Great potential though!
|
| Photo By: Marianne Gordon
(K:507)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Daniel Taylor (K:3495)
11/2/2003 12:45:13 AM
Aside from possibly softening/removing the few blemishes, this is a great portrait. Not much to correct or critique :-)
|
| Photo By: Robert Vigon
(K:76)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Daniel Taylor (K:3495)
11/2/2003 12:26:02 AM
This photo doesn't seem to have a clear subject. The row of tractors isn't prominent enough to be the subject, while the trees and sky are clearly in the background. The trees can't hold ones attention because they have little detail in this exposure. The road and car also seem out of place.
I think I would have tried a different angle/position. Maybe turning to the left and positioning myself so that the row of tractors filled more of the frame, moving from left to right across the photo. Cut out the road, the background trees, etc, and try to compose just the tractors and the sky.
Another option would have been to shoot vertically with the back tractors, shooting wide and from a low level to try and sweep from the tractors (foreground) into the sky (background).
This would have taken some work to frame properly, but basically I would have tried to make the tractors (or some of them) the main subject, with the sky as supporting cast.
Hope this helps!
|
| Photo By: Vicki Bentley
(K:5080)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Daniel Taylor (K:3495)
11/1/2003 11:23:24 PM
Very good composition. I like how you isolated the subject and orientated the street in the frame. Very nice.
|
| Photo By: Maria Sousa
(K:1456)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Daniel Taylor (K:3495)
11/1/2003 11:21:08 PM
Beautiful colors, excellent composition. Makes me wish I was hiking down that trail. Great job!
|
| Photo By: Christian Barrette
(K:21125)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Daniel Taylor (K:3495)
11/1/2003 1:52:22 PM
I love fog shots. Excellent composition, great lighting. Really good job!
A couple possible variations on this shot: one person sitting by the water alone (on the part of the land sticking out, middle right). Or two people sitting by the water close together (not sure which position would have the most impact).
Of course it can be hard to do variations with foggy scenery as fog can be hard to predict.
|
| Photo By: Khoi Nguyen
(K:8700)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Daniel Taylor (K:3495)
11/1/2003 1:43:57 PM
A really nice flower shot with a creative twist. Curious...did you set out to capture a flower with a shape that would match this? Or did you decide to add the heart after seeing the flower shape?
Excellent work.
|
| Photo By: Khoi Nguyen
(K:8700)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Daniel Taylor (K:3495)
10/13/2003 12:51:13 AM
A very beautiful portrait shot. You've really captured the beauty of her face and skin. Awesome work.
|
| Photo By: Nebojsa Tomic
(K:973)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Daniel Taylor (K:3495)
10/13/2003 12:17:13 AM
All I can say is wow...what a beautiful image. Excellent work!
|
| Photo By: Milan KORMAN
(K:1052)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Daniel Taylor (K:3495)
10/13/2003 12:14:32 AM
Very nice shot for Halloween. I'd sleep with one eye open if those trees were in my backyard ;-)
It does appear a little noisy. Have you considered retaking the shot at a slower ISO and/or using NeatImage? (Or is the noise a jpeg conversion artifact?)
|
| Photo By: andrew vonbank
(K:2811)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Daniel Taylor (K:3495)
10/13/2003 12:11:44 AM
The composition here is superb and really makes this image. This is one of those images that seems to guide one's eyes around the scene. Excellent!
|
| Photo By: Lorenzo Lessi
(K:6589)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Daniel Taylor (K:3495)
10/12/2003 8:55:34 PM
Karen - I'm glad my comments here and else where have been helpful to you. You picked the right photography site when you came to Usefilm.com. Some of the other popular sites have good articles, but the forums tend to degrade into old arguments about this camera or that brand. Usefilm.com is much more centered on photography and images, not just equipment, and the people are very helpful.
I to still have a lot to learn, and am blown away by the creativity and vision I see in so many images at this site.
Feel free to e-mail me if you have any questions about any of my photos or about the basics of photography (while I can't claim to be as advanced as many on this site, I do have a decent grasp of the basics): daniel_l_taylor@taylor-design.com.
|
| Photo By: Karen Ramores
(K:177)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Daniel Taylor (K:3495)
10/12/2003 7:56:08 PM
Technically perfect, but beyond that plenty of emotional appeal. Awesome job!
|
| Photo By: Karen Siebert
(K:12076)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Daniel Taylor (K:3495)
10/12/2003 7:37:27 PM
Excellent portrait! Portrait photography is probably my weakest area...I look at this and can't help but envy your skill. Great job! I'm curious about the lighting in this image...did you use lights or a flash? Or was it natural lighting? The tones and exposure are perfect.
|
| Photo By: Karen Siebert
(K:12076)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Daniel Taylor (K:3495)
10/12/2003 12:54:51 PM
Karen - definetly stay away from no-name or "store brand" films. That's probably the primary reason the photo didn't come out the way you were expecting, and may be the reason why all your photos appear washed out. Places like www.bhphoto.com sell pro film cheaper than your local store sells consumer and no-name film, so you can save money and have good film. (I can't stress this point enough: choose your film carefully!)
My recommendation if you are just starting out is to get a light table, loupe, and some slide film, and start practicing with the slide film. When I look back on my first year of photography, my best photos were all shot on slide film, most using a tripod. If I could go back, I would have shot nothing but slides for the first year. You learn so much more and gain more confidence.
Because slides are not printed, you see exactly what you shot. If your exposure was off, you know. If your exposure was dead on, you see brilliant color and detail. If you do want a winner printed, even places like Walmart and Costco can do it now because they're moving to all digital printing systems with film scanners. (And if they screw up the print, you have an easy to see slide and can say "It should look like this!")
Choose one slide film and stick with it until you know it pretty well. I would recommend Fuji Provia F 100. Nothing against other slide films, but you want to simplify things when you're learning, so don't try a half dozen different slide films to start out with. If you order from B&H, order the cheaper imported version. ALL Fuji film is imported whether it says USA on the box or not, so you might as well get the cheaper rolls that B&H picks up directly in Japan. (For Kodak film always buy USAW, which is made in the U.S. for world distribution. Kodak charges the rest of the world less than they charge the U.S.)
I would love to see you go back to this exact same scene in the early morning/late afternoon and shoot it again with Provia and a tripod. I bet you'll be thrilled with the results.
Finally, I also recommend the Kodak Pocket Guide to 35mm Photography. Get it and keep it in your camera bag. It's sort of like a FAQ for photography, and explains a lot in a small space.
Hope this helps!
|
| Photo By: Karen Ramores
(K:177)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Daniel Taylor (K:3495)
10/11/2003 8:06:46 PM
As several people have pointed out, it looks as though there's too much contrast between foreground and background (sky) to record both adequately. Always remember when shooting that your eye can see detail across a much wider brightness range than film or digital. Beyond that, however, I have to wonder if there's another problem because the colors in the foreground just aren't good. Some questions:
* What kind of film did you use? There's a dramatic difference between films. I personally can't stand most consumer neg films, and generally only shoot slide film (Fuji Provia or Velvia; Fuji Sensia in a pinch) or Fuji Superia Reala. Slide film is great for a beginner because you see what you shot. When printing neg films, the local lab makes adjustments which can override what you captured on film so that the print doesn't look like the film.
* If this was neg film, did you scan the film or the print for posting? What's on your film may in fact look much better than this. One of my first thoughts was that this might be a bad print.
* What time of day was this shot taken? It looks like mid afternoon? If so that's usually the time when there's too much contrast between sky and surface for a good shot like this. This shot might work much better just before/after sunrise/sunset.
* How did you meter the scene, and are you sure your camera's meter is working properly? If all your photos are washed out, your camera's meter could be off and overexposing scenes. If you have a friend with an SLR, both of you meter the same scene and see what aperture/shutter speeds your cameras suggest. If yours suggests a much slower speed than his, that could be the problem. Also, have you set your camera for the proper film speed? (If your camera does this automatically then it's probably not the problem.
It definetly looks like this was the wrong time of day for this shot, but your comment that all your photos are washed out has me thinking something else might be the problem. If you have any friends knowledgeable about photography, you might want to have them check your process and your camera.
Attached is your photo with a little photoshop work.
Hope this helps!
|
| Photo By: Karen Ramores
(K:177)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Daniel Taylor (K:3495)
10/11/2003 1:14:53 AM
A very beautiful and unique shot.
|
Photo By: Roberto Arcari Farinetti
(K:209486)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Daniel Taylor (K:3495)
10/9/2003 11:14:05 AM
Fantastic light, color, and composition. I would buy this if it were in a store. Awesome!!!
|
| Photo By: Fred Strømme
(K:32)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Daniel Taylor (K:3495)
10/7/2003 12:04:03 AM
Awesome photo!
|
| Photo By: Sebastian Duda zolo2
(K:41)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Daniel Taylor (K:3495)
10/6/2003 11:57:38 PM
A great picture, so it's hard to be brutal. I wonder how Fuji Astia or Provia would render the scene? Also, I would be curious to see a tighter view of the homes and ocean, although I don't think that would be an improvement on this picture as much as a different picture altogether. Your composition is great in this one.
|
| Photo By: Scott Steeves
(K:209)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Daniel Taylor (K:3495)
10/4/2003 1:46:49 PM
I look at photos like this and realize just how far I have to go as a photographer. I don't think I would have even imagined this shot, much less known precisely how to capture it. Great work!
|
| Photo By: Lisa Paully
(K:1735)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Daniel Taylor (K:3495)
10/4/2003 12:53:39 PM
I actually really like this image, and can't find much to critique. The highlights are a little too strong, but this may have been a case where there was just too great a contrast between highlight and shadow to get it all on film. Maybe underexposing by 0.5 or 0.3 stop would have achieved the balance you wanted.
But you have a very interesting composition and managed to make a "plain" street look very good. I look at your photo and feel like I'm in the city. Good job!
|
| Photo By: K
(K:221)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Daniel Taylor (K:3495)
10/4/2003 12:48:01 PM
I have to agree with the previous posts. The subject isn't presented in a clear and interesting way. Also, there seems to be a significant color cast. Scanned film has to be color corrected.
But don't give up! Go back to the same location and try to capture the hydrant in a better composition. Maybe try early morning or late afternoon light. Better yet, try to find other hydrants with more interesting surroundings.
It may sound silly to keep shooting fire hydrants, but if you're able to make a good photo of a hydrant, you'll have gone through some of the process and skills required to make a good photo of anything.
|
| Photo By: Ayrton Gratto
(K:17)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Daniel Taylor (K:3495)
10/4/2003 12:43:41 PM
I find that negatives ALWAYS require considerable color correction post scan, so I'm not sure if the color cast is anybody's "fault". Plus negatives are balanced to a certain color temperature, yet you encounter many different temperatures of light (hence why digital users are so found of auto white balance). To me print film responds poorly to "off" color temperatures, where slide film often has the more interesting results.
I think the best technical improvement you could have made would have been a different film selection. I would love to see how Provia F 100 or Velvia 50 might have rendered this. In this situation with Provia and a tripod I would have bracketed +/- 0.5 stop.
The Kodak Supra line (Royal Supra now?) is also punchier with less grain, and is one of the few neg films I like. In my experience, slide films and Supra also scan better than consumer neg film. Sometimes I don't even need to color correct Provia, just set the levels.
Artistically, this is a good shot. I think it just needed a better film.
|
| Photo By: Hermen Pen
(K:9168)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Daniel Taylor (K:3495)
9/23/2003 9:21:19 AM
You could probably sell prints at a nice price per print. It's that good. I can't see any flaws or obvious improvements...an excellent shot.
|
| Photo By: Andrew Lahanas
(K:7062)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Daniel Taylor (K:3495)
9/19/2003 7:14:02 PM
Nice to see a fellow HB photographer. I'm really impressed that you got this shot without manual controls! Very nice.
|
| Photo By: Ryan Torres
(K:411)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Daniel Taylor (K:3495)
9/19/2003 7:10:48 PM
I love the night sky in this shot! Beautiful colors, good exposure. However, I do feel like the one tree shouldn't be in the middle. It seems like the moon and sky should take center stage, with the trees framing.
Still, a great shot.
|
| Photo By: Carl Aage Henriksen
(K:69)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Daniel Taylor (K:3495)
9/19/2003 10:23:26 AM
Awesome shot! I would have liked to have seen a non-tilted version as well, just for comparison, though I think I would have ended up liking this one better any way.
|
| Photo By: Jean-François Dupuis
(K:70)
|
|
