Beginner looking for some C&C

[_Beasty_]

#1

#2

#3

Be harsh! Thank you.

 

[Kaymarie]

I am a beginner as well so I cant really critique but I really like the Coca-Cola picture good depth of field

 

[_Beasty_]

Thank you! Bump

 

[Postman158]

#1: Not sure what you're trying to convey.
#2: Its a little more interesting, not bad.
#3: It bugs me how you cut off the bottom of the coke bottle. Its also not in a very interesting spot, and the watermark really takes away from that image, or whats left of the image. I personally think it needs more contrast and vibrance.

Thats just my input, and I'm no pro. Good luck with your photography endeavors!

 

[Jeremy Z]

"Be harsh." That is a good way to actually get feedback. I think lots of folks don't like to comment because they're afraid they'll hurt the OP's feelings.

1. I really like it.

2. I don't like it. It is foot prints in the sand, but doesn't seem to be telling any story. No leading lines, nothing.

3. Meh. The paper label on the Coke bottle kind of draws the eye, like a bit zit or something. The background adds nothing to it. This is not something I would use to advertise my photography services. If you want to do a still life of a Coke bottle, I think you need to clean and maybe blur the background with a wide open lens, go outside your car, and find something that compliments it. I can't think of what though. Maybe a nice hamburger and fries?

3.

 

[BuS_RiDeR]

Maybe uts just me, but these all appear inderexposed to me.

 

[IgsEMT]

#1: Not sure what you're trying to convey.
#2: Its a little more interesting, not bad.
#3: It bugs me how you cut off the bottom of the coke bottle. Its also not in a very interesting spot, and the watermark really takes away from that image, or whats left of the image. I personally think it needs more contrast and vibrance.
Thats just my input, and I'm no pro. Good luck with your photography endeavors!

Ditto

On point on the watermark: and nothing against you personally but if you're beginner, what "photography" are you referring to? If you this worry that your images would be stolen, just put your name on it.

 

[Dominantly]

1. The scene had a high dynamic range that you didn't/couldn't capture. So what you ended up with is an uninteresting blown area behind the plant, a dark area with no definition besides some orbs, and a plant which is cropped tight with the highlights exposed for. What percentage of this photo is actually exposed properly? We're talkin single digits.

2. Sand is exposed well in my opinion. My issue is with composition, I dislike the fact the footprints start at the right of the middle of the frame and head away. I would prefer to see it framed so the footprints walk from the bottom left to the top right, and maybe a few more of them to boot.

3. No.

 

[IgsEMT]

Dom IS BACK

 

[Dominantly]

For a limited time only- while supplies last.

 

[CowgirlMama]

The backgrounds in #1 and #3 are distracting to me. I'm not a huge fan of the angle on the footprints. They seem warped.

 

[_Beasty_]

#1: Not sure what you're trying to convey.
#2: Its a little more interesting, not bad.
#3: It bugs me how you cut off the bottom of the coke bottle. Its also not in a very interesting spot, and the watermark really takes away from that image, or whats left of the image. I personally think it needs more contrast and vibrance.

Thats just my input, and I'm no pro. Good luck with your photography endeavors!

Thank you, in #1 I was trying to capture mainly the water on the leaf, I really didn't mean to capture so much of the backround but I didn't have any others that I liked because I messed them Up with focus or something else.
#3 I didn't really cut off TO much of the bottle, just a tiny bit, and I don't think I could of edited out the paper label on the lower right if I tried. Also the watermark I just through in for some practice, forgot to take it off before I posted it.

1. The scene had a high dynamic range that you didn't/couldn't capture. So what you ended up with is an uninteresting blown area behind the plant, a dark area with no definition besides some orbs, and a plant which is cropped tight with the highlights exposed for. What percentage of this photo is actually exposed properly? We're talkin single digits.

2. Sand is exposed well in my opinion. My issue is with composition, I dislike the fact the footprints start at the right of the middle of the frame and head away. I would prefer to see it framed so the footprints walk from the bottom left to the top right, and maybe a few more of them to boot.

3. No.

#1 I'm sort of confused as to what your trying to say here, remember, beginner.
#2 Thanks, I had one where there were four foot prints but you could see the edge of the water and I also didn't want to get sand on my camera soo...yeah
#3 ....?

Maybe uts just me, but these all appear inderexposed to me.

For the lighting it kinda felt like I was exposing them to long? I beleive I was using a 1/600 or 1/1000 shutter speed for most of them except the first one which was significantly brighter and I added some contrast in Photoshop

 

[_Beasty_]

Oops

 

[manaheim]

... "No."

It's amazing how many times that word pops into my head when seeing pictures on this forum. Glad I'm not the only one.

 

[cgipson1]

Beasty.. Thank you.. I think I have a new QUOTE for my SIG.....

but I didn't have any others that I liked because I messed them Up with focus or something else.