C&C this noob right here

xmikookx

TPF Noob!
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Location
new york
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Okay so I'm actually very nervous to see people's comments, but I won't mind harsh criticism. (I might cry though :()


DSC_0922.jpg
 
Try to include the shot information when asking for C&C.

Camera: Nikon D80
Shutter Speed: 1/320
Aperture: f/5.6
ISO: 100
Focal Length: 55mm
Photo Editor: PS CS4

The image is kinda busy for me. Flower has some blown out petals. Colors are nice and vibrant. Don't care for the foreground leaves getting in the way of the flower.
 
Woah! how'd you get that information? sorry if i sound stupid.
thanks for the comments.
 
Its called EXIF data. If you are using Firefox, you can download a plugin. Then all you need to do is right click on the image and click on View Exif.

As for CC, the colours and saturation are nice but I dont care for the composition. The flower might be better placed more to the left of the image. Also, as mentionned, the foreground leaves distract from the image instead of enhance it, so I'd get rid of that.
 
im not sure if bigtwinky is referencing the same exif plugin for firefox, but the one that i've seen recommended on here and the one i have is called 'FxIF'.

for example, on your image when i right click and choose 'Properties' i get

fxif.jpg
 
Try to include the shot information when asking for C&C.

Camera: Nikon D80
Shutter Speed: 1/320
Aperture: f/5.6
ISO: 100
Focal Length: 55mm
Photo Editor: PS CS4

The image is kinda busy for me. Flower has some blown out petals. Colors are nice and vibrant. Don't care for the foreground leaves getting in the way of the flower.

I disagree with the desire for shot information for C&C. The pic is good or not good independent of the ISO, the shutter speed or the aperture. Rembrandt's paintings were not judged on the chemical formula of the paint that he used.
 
As a viewer, I guessing your main subject is the bee and the secondary subject is the flower.

The bee is in the shadow of the flower. Whether it's the flower it's in or not doesn't really matter, but your subject does not pop due to the deep shadow.

The flower is severly compromised by 1) the foliage in front and 2) the harsh sun at 11:51AM. The ends of the petals are blown and lost detail.

Two solutions I can think of off the top of my head is to 1) use a diffuser to soften the light and even out the shadows. and 2) use some fill flash to accentuate the bee. Typically on shots like these, I really like to see some detail of the bee. Unfortunately on yours, there are none.

Keep at it.
 
I disagree with the desire for shot information for C&C. The pic is good or not good independent of the ISO, the shutter speed or the aperture. Rembrandt's paintings were not judged on the chemical formula of the paint that he used.
One of the reasons I like to see the exif data included is for the benefit of other beginners...if they like the way a given picture came out, they can try to similar shot settings for their own photos.
 
Rembrandt's paintings were not judged on the chemical formula of the paint that he used.
How can you be so sure? :lol:

Beside his paintings have been judged on his use of light and other elements. Essentially, the equivelent to shutter speed, aperture, ISO, and composition.
 
I disagree with the desire for shot information for C&C. The pic is good or not good independent of the ISO, the shutter speed or the aperture. Rembrandt's paintings were not judged on the chemical formula of the paint that he used.
One of the reasons I like to see the exif data included is for the benefit of other beginners...if they like the way a given picture came out, they can try to similar shot settings for their own photos.

That, and if the picture is technically wrong, a more experienced person sees the exif and says "here, this is what you did wrong"....
 
Rembrandt's paintings were not judged on the chemical formula of the paint that he used.
How can you be so sure? :lol:

I'm older than dirt.

Beside his paintings have been judged on his use of light and other elements. Essentially, the equivelent to shutter speed, aperture, ISO, and composition.

Not exactly. The judgment to which you refer was based on the appearance of the end result. No one knows how he got there.
 
I disagree with the desire for shot information for C&C. The pic is good or not good independent of the ISO, the shutter speed or the aperture. Rembrandt's paintings were not judged on the chemical formula of the paint that he used.
One of the reasons I like to see the exif data included is for the benefit of other beginners...if they like the way a given picture came out, they can try to similar shot settings for their own photos.

That's the scary part. It encourages newbies to simply mimic the mechanical settings used by others. Using similar shot settings will not produce similar photos any more than using similar camera models will.
 
I disagree with the desire for shot information for C&C. The pic is good or not good independent of the ISO, the shutter speed or the aperture. Rembrandt's paintings were not judged on the chemical formula of the paint that he used.
One of the reasons I like to see the exif data included is for the benefit of other beginners...if they like the way a given picture came out, they can try to similar shot settings for their own photos.

That, and if the picture is technically wrong, a more experienced person sees the exif and says "here, this is what you did wrong"....

An experienced photographer is capable of making that determination without the EXIF data.
 
Hmm...

So if a subject is much too underexposed, you can tell without exif if the shutter speed was too fast? Instead of the aperture being closed up WAY too far? Or the ISO being much too low?
 

Most reactions

Back
Top