A little feedback please.

[Stevepwns]

So I took these this weekend. On my camera they looked great, so I was excited to get back tot he house and see what they looked like on the computer. Once I got home, they didnt look as good as I had hoped and editing them wasn't helping. Maybe its just me but I still feel like there is hope for them. Anyone want to give a crack at them or let me know what I did wrong?

These are the unedited raw pictures. I would like to get some feedback on this so I can improve on these types of shots. I haven't been very successful with them lately.

Thanks for taking a peak



Feedback-0513 by Jake aka Stevepwns, on Flickr


Feedback-0511 by Jake aka Stevepwns, on Flickr


Feedback-0512 by Jake aka Stevepwns, on Flickr

 

[Derrel]

Chaotic scenes like those are very difficult to make into good photographs, Steve. The first two have a kind of "far-away" look, where there is nothing that really catches the eye, and the focal length is short-ish, and makes the farther objects physically smaller on-film than the closer objects...and so there's not a lot of subject for the eye and brain to latch onto and evaluate...the overall feeling is of a somewhat chaotic scene...branches everywhere, a small stream, lots of brush, etc.etc..

The third photo shows the foreground tree somewhat large, and it occupies a very prominent space, stretching allllll the way across the frame. And yet, I can look at it for a few seconds and be done with the scene.

I'm not trying to rip on your skills...I think making a really interesting photograph out of that scene would take a TON of work. The beauty of nature, the smells, the sounds, the "day" spent there, all are no doubt wonderful things, and being charged up after taking some photos in a situation like that is something I am familiar with, but so is the feeling that, hey, the photos cannot measure up to the wonder that is nature. sometimes the EXPERIENCE, and the LOCATION, are so amazing that our photographic attempts to distill a scene fall far short. Such is the power of nature.

 

[Stevepwns]

Chaotic scenes like those are very difficult to make into good photographs, Steve. The first two have a kind of "far-away" look, where there is nothing that really catches the eye, and the focal length is short-ish, and makes the farther objects physically smaller on-film than the closer objects...and so there's not a lot of subject for the eye and brain to latch onto and evaluate...the overall feeling is of a somewhat chaotic scene...branches everywhere, a small stream, lots of brush, etc.etc..

The third photo shows the foreground tree somewhat large, and it occupies a very prominent space, stretching allllll the way across the frame. And yet, I can look at it for a few seconds and be done with the scene.

I'm not trying to rip on your skills...I think making a really interesting photograph out of that scene would take a TON of work. The beauty of nature, the smells, the sounds, the "day" spent there, all are no doubt wonderful things, and being charged up after taking some photos in a situation like that is something I am familiar with, but so is the feeling that, hey, the photos cannot measure up to the wonder that is nature. sometimes the EXPERIENCE, and the LOCATION, are so amazing that our photographic attempts to distill a scene fall far short. Such is the power of nature.

Yeah, I tend to agree with you. It was a great day. I think this is one of those times where I am reminded of my limitations and that I still have a lot to learn. I am sure a more experience person could have made for some great shots here. Thanks for the feedback.

 

[runnah]

Oo send me the raw for the first one.

 

[runnah]

Looks better in large view

 

[runnah]

Editing. There is lack a well defined subject that hurts the composition.

 

[cgipson1]

Steve... no real subject... no real interest! We have all seen things that looked cool at the time, but it just doesn't show up in the images...

 

[amolitor]

Subject isn't really necessary per se but it looks like there's no real visual hierarchy here either, which is really what matters. You can generally introduce such a thing with some burning and dodging. Put a lot of contrast in one place, and then less, elsewhere. Things that are just supporting surround, push down tonally more or less wholesale. Ansel Adams, Rembrandt, Vermeer, Weston, it's all the same bag of tricks.

 

[Stevepwns]

Steve... no real subject... no real interest! We have all seen things that looked cool at the time, but it just doesn't show up in the images...

Yup, thats pretty much my problem with these.

 

[amolitor]

Photographers are obsessed with "subject" in the sense of "the thing I am taking a picture of" to their detriment.

Your job as a visual artist is to impose visual order onto the scene, be that via "picking out a clear subject" or by other means. What's "the subject" in Moonrise Over Hernandez New Mexico, just as a for instance? If we suppose, for a moment, that there is not one, how HAS visual order been imposed?

 

[cgipson1]

Photographers are obsessed with "subject" in the sense of "the thing I am taking a picture of" to their detriment.

Your job as a visual artist is to impose visual order onto the scene, be that via "picking out a clear subject" or by other means. What's "the subject" in Moonrise Over Hernandez New Mexico, just as a for instance? If we suppose, for a moment, that there is not one, how HAS visual order been imposed?

I always thought that was more of a landscape (which IS the subject)... whereas the ones in question are a chaotic jumble of log and water! (nothing against you, Steve! lol!!)

 

[Stevepwns]

Photographers are obsessed with "subject" in the sense of "the thing I am taking a picture of" to their detriment.

Your job as a visual artist is to impose visual order onto the scene, be that via "picking out a clear subject" or by other means. What's "the subject" in Moonrise Over Hernandez New Mexico, just as a for instance? If we suppose, for a moment, that there is not one, how HAS visual order been imposed?

I always thought that was more of a landscape (which IS the subject)... whereas the ones in question are a chaotic jumble of log and water! (nothing against you, Steve! lol!!)

No problem, the more I look at them, I agree. I think I wanted them to be something because I had already decided that they were, before I looked at them on the screen.

 

[amolitor]

Yes, they are a chaotic jumble, and my point seems to have been lost.

 

[dylanstraub]

If your intent was to expose the viewer to something they might otherwise not have seen, then your fallen log picture succeeded. Having your work judged by professional working photographers who look at your work in a more clinical way ensures a different outcome.