Constructive Criticism please!

KevinPutman · May 5, 2011

1

2

3

Ps.
I'll have another Time Lapse video up in about an hour ^-^

tirediron · May 5, 2011

What is your intent/thought-process with these images?

KevinPutman · May 5, 2011

Create something that's appealing to look at, properly exposed, and is correct as far as technical aspects go,
i suppose.

Also,
as for #1,
I've shot that log at least 4 separate times.
So just trying out a different POV.

reedshots · May 5, 2011

can't see #1, # 2 is out of focus, # 3 looks like the focus point is out in the water somewhere lost in the distance. over all not good

KevinPutman · May 5, 2011

You can't see the first one?

Light Guru · May 5, 2011

Well Kevin If all the photos I have seen of yours these are the best. #1 is definitely the most visually appealing. Like has been said the focus if a bit soft on them. And #1 does shoe some rather noticeable chromatic aberration on the rocks.

Matata · May 5, 2011

1. Horizon is tilted (look at the angle of the water)
2. Seems a bit soft and nothing really pops out. Clouds are dull, rocks don't have much detail
3. Better of the bunch but could use more interesting things to look at. Maybe boost the color and contrast?

Light Guru · May 5, 2011

Oh how cute Bitter has a crush on my last post.

KevinPutman · May 6, 2011

Thanks guys=]

Also,
55 views in less than an hour?
Geeze.

MissCream · May 6, 2011

Sorry guy, not exciting... at all. Water and rocks. Lay on the ground, get dirty, then start shooting.

Stryker · May 6, 2011

Horizons are tilted to the right on 1 and 3, horizons are in the middle on 1 and 2, rocks are a bit pinkish on 2, soft focus and cant seem to find the focal point on all 3.

Don't look at the number of views, but on the number of positive feedback. If you have 1 or 2 positive comments, the photo may be good enough. The critics here are hard to please...

Light Guru · May 6, 2011

MissCream said:
Sorry guy, not exciting... at all..

If you go back and look at what Kevin has posted in the past, they are exciting. Its important to compare them to what he has done before, when you do that you can see that he has made improvements and that these photos are much more interesting that his past ones.

Comparing ones photos to those of other people does help us learn, but comparing them to our own past work also helps us learn.

Shadowbox · May 6, 2011

Well sorry I am not so critical I guess, after reading these response, I don't think I have much to offer in CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. The first one was a bit dark, but I love the third photo- which was striking and beautiful in my opinion. In the first photo my eye is drawn to the sky, and the hint of pink. I'm not a huge fan of photo two, but I don't hate it either. The reason is more because of how dark it is and I just don't like rocks that much. Wow the clouds show up gorgeously on your photos! I love that, for my pics they are always over exposed. Good job overall in my amateur inexperienced opinion. I think that you have to remember, it's not just professional photographers who will see your work, it's also average people and most people aren't as picky as professionals when it comes to what they like.

SabrinaO · May 6, 2011

All underexposed, and they are all out of focus. Did you get a tripod yet? The pictures do nothing for me. You should have interest in the foreground, midground and background of each picture. A bunch of underexposed/out of focus trees and broken rubble rocks in the foreground does not interest me.

KevinPutman · May 6, 2011

SabrinaO said:
All underexposed, and they are all out of focus. Did you get a tripod yet? The pictures do nothing for me. You should have interest in the foreground, midground and background of each picture. A bunch of underexposed/out of focus trees and broken rubble rocks in the foreground does not interest me.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say they all seem oof because of my Fstop being wide open. (Except the moss on the last one, that was simply because I didn't focus right up close. I thought it would be better to have the mid/far range parts of the picture in focus, rather than the upclose/mid range.

The underexposure was due to shooting when it was so close to nighttime. (The sun had already set). I had to significantly bump up the brightness in PP.
I refuse to shoot anything over ISO 200 on my Canon, and rarely will go over 100, due to the amount of noise it puts out. And I needed to leave my exposure time shorter, to combat the camera shake.

Which should answer your question, No, I haven't gotten a tripod yet. Bear with me. I'm thinking as of now I'll need a gorilla pod before an actual tripod, because I take most of my shots close to the ground. Although both would be great.
I'm making due without.

As for interest,
how am I supposed to find something interesting in the foreground, midground, and background, when there is nothing interesting to shoot?
The subject of #1 is the log. It's almost to the midground. The rocks provide interest in the foreground. And the background would be the sky. There's not much more "interesting" things to shoot out at a lake in Nebraska. No pretty flowers, no interesting wildlife. I'm making due with what I've got.

But thanks for your feedback guys.