A few shots from a beginner.

[lcddisplay]

Hi there!

My name's Maurycy and I'm new here I would like to ask the experts to have a look at my pictures. I'm curently using a EOS 1000D with a Helios 44m4 lens.

Polish forests:

1. This one is edited.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

2.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

3.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Thanks and best regards!

 

[BuS_RiDeR]

I find that the subject matter isn't very interesting... However, out of the three... I think #1 is my favorite.

 

[I X L R 8]

They don't grasp the concept of new folks with new cameras around here very well.

You see, when beginners just start out they want to see what the camera is actually capable of.
So they might shoot a beer can. Or a weed, in my case.
Naturally you will have the "Oh the subject is not very interesting" comments.

My advice would be to ignore this and continue to learn the camera and its functions even if you have to shoot a dirty baby diaper.

 

[Negative ISO]

My advice would be to ignore this and continue to learn the camera and its functions even if you have to shoot a dirty baby diaper.

+1 :thumbup:

 

[LaFoto]

Hallo Maurycy, and welcome to ThePhotoForum.

Don't mind the remarks on what subject better to photograph, such as beer cans or baby diapers ... it's a kind of running joke with some here but for you who you don't know the context, it must be totally confusing. So don't listen.

Your photos made me wonder "film???" immediately, and now I wonder why, for I went back to your text and it clearly reads "1000D", which does NOT suggest "film", after all. They still look like scanned film to me, and I'm really curious as to find out why this is so? :scratch:

All in all, they are not overly compelling, which means they don't capture the viewer's interest for too long.

Composition in the first is so that the image is divided into two halves, divided not by the horizon line as such this time, but by the row of trees, which has the same effect as if the edge of the field had been in the very centre of the image. So you had better either given the sky more prominence in your photo, giving it about 2/3 of the space of your frame, or the field. The decision is yours, you decide what to portray.

I find the second the most interesting here, as it is a bit gloomy and mysterious, but on the other hand it is also confusing, and not having a clearly defined subject, either. Yes, it is "woods", but the tall tree trunks have no beginning, no ending, there is no ground, no "anchor" for them, and we don't know where they lead to ... it's all quite random here...

The last is promising, but I feel that you gave what you focused on (foreground/bottom) far too little room within your frame. When the eye finally detects what is in focus in this photo, that particular element leads out of the bottom frame into nothingness.

So it seems like composition is something you need to work on.

 

[I X L R 8]

Hallo Maurycy, and welcome to ThePhotoForum.

Don't mind the remarks on what subject better to photograph, such as beer cans or baby diapers ... it's a kind of running joke with some here but for you who you don't know the context, it must be totally confusing. So don't listen.

Your photos made me wonder "film???" immediately, and now I wonder why, for I went back to your text and it clearly reads "1000D", which does NOT suggest "film", after all. They still look like scanned film to me, and I'm really curious as to find out why this is so? :scratch:

All in all, they are not overly compelling, which means they don't capture the viewer's interest for too long.

Composition in the first is so that the image is divided into two halves, divided not by the horizon line as such this time, but by the row of trees, which has the same effect as if the edge of the field had been in the very centre of the image. So you had better either given the sky more prominence in your photo, giving it about 2/3 of the space of your frame, or the field. The decision is yours, you decide what to portray.

I find the second the most interesting here, as it is a bit gloomy and mysterious, but on the other hand it is also confusing, and not having a clearly defined subject, either. Yes, it is "woods", but the tall tree trunks have no beginning, no ending, there is no ground, no "anchor" for them, and we don't know where they lead to ... it's all quite random here...

The last is promising, but I feel that you gave what you focused on (foreground/bottom) far too little room within your frame. When the eye finally detects what is in focus in this photo, that particular element leads out of the bottom frame into nothingness.

So it seems like composition is something you need to work on.

This is the only guy here who I think gives good and friendly critique.
Not snide about it, and tries to help.
Good post La.

 

[bigtwinky]

1- What did you edit in this image? I dont like the dry weeds or whatever it is on the right hand side. They are somewhat blurry and my eye keeps going to them. When shooting, be aware of everything in your frame, not just your subject...background, foreground, corners,... We often end up with blinders on when shooting and forget about what is around.
I kind of like the dreamy effect of the hazy trees in the background. So watch those foregrounds

2- The image shows a classic issue with alot of images... high dynamic range. This is when part of your image is bright and the other part is dark. While the human eye can adapt and capture detail, cameras cannot. That is why in your image you see some really bright spots but yet there are dark areas. Image wise, I dont see much interest in here. I see things like this sometimes as well and take the shot because I like the pattern and movement of the lines. What I do with these images is make them black and white. When the eye has no colour to look at, it focused on lines and patterns.

3- This is a good example of depth of field. You got the front in focus and blurred the back. Great thing to do with portraits. This is achieved with a wide aperture, long focal lenght and having relative distance between your subject and background. You even showed a good eye and didnt place the subject smack in the center as many people do. This is called the rule of thirds, which you applied. You might not know why, but you did.

I'd highly suggest getting a book called "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson. It is aimed at new comers. He writes very well, very simple, and goes through the basics of an exposure (shutter, aperture, iso) and throws in some basic composition.

You know, with a good, pleasant attitude and a good work ethic, you can go far. So keep shooting!

 

[bigtwinky]

This is the only guy here

Just an FYI, LaFoto, aka Corinna, is a woman