Please Critique - As it says, "Always room to improve."

[thinkricky]

I admit this is a double post. BUT I posted this in the People Gallery and got no response. I am pretty new at this.

Please give me some tips.

Gear: Nikon D3000 35mm f1.8

#1

#2

#3

#4

 

[SCraig]

The first one is pretty good but there is something white in the background that make him look like he has bunny ears.

The second has a big unfocused "Something" (a head maybe?) in the upper right corner.

The third has the top of a head missing and something gold growing out of the older subject's shoulder.

Overall you are using your depth of field pretty well but you need to watch your backgrounds. It's hard to do inside where there is always so much clutter and so little room to move around, but that's when it is especially important to watch for things growing out of your subjects.

The last one is underexposed and an arm is missing. The background is pretty busy to which detracts from the image.

 

[thinkricky]

Hmm. Never noticed or even thought about the background. Thanks! I'll keep that in mind. A little tough to do when it's on the go but I'll see what I can do.

Does the background ruin it? Or just the only problem with these photos?

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Does the background ruin it?

Depends on your intention.

Fine portraiture? Then yes, it matters.

Family snaps for the memory book? No, it doesn't *really* matter.

 

[SCraig]

Does the background ruin it?

Depends on your intention.

Fine portraiture? Then yes, it matters.

Family snaps for the memory book? No, it doesn't *really* matter.

What he said.

Look at your first photo. Other than the "Bunny Ears" there really isn't that much in focus so the eyes aren't drawn to anything in the photograph except the boy, and the background just adds some ambient color to the image. Now look at #4, and to a lesser extent #3. Cluttered background drawing the eyes all over the place except onto the underexposed subject. Sometimes you want the background to come through, sometimes not, but it's always something that you have to be aware of.

 

[KmH]

Investiagte 'White Balance' and the fundamentals of photographic lighting.

Digital Photography Tutorials

 

[kundalini]

I admit this is a double post. BUT I posted this in the People Gallery and got no response. I am pretty new at this.

Please give me some tips.

Please do not double post. Bump the original thread instead.

 

[thinkricky]

I hear you! Thanks for the tutorial site. I will go through that. Backgrounds. Who knew!

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Bump the original thread instead.

LOL, he did, and that failed. LOL

 

[Kerbouchard]

Well, since you double posted, I'll double post, too...

No response... Thanks for the help guys. Been a big help.

Ok. The white balance is all over the place.

In terms of underexposure from the least worst to the worst...3, 1, 2, 4

Your DOF is too shallow for #2 at the angle that you shot it at. It actually takes a lot of skill to effectively use an aperture of 1.8 when you are that close. It just doesn't work at all. In #4, you missed focus, probably because of your DOF.

I mean, really, what critique do you want? You set your ISO to 800, you put your camera on aperture priority and set it at 1.8. You used your camera like a P&S.

My advice, buy an SB700 or SB600. It will open up a lot of options, allow you to control the lighting, and won't force you to shoot with settings that are unmanagable.

FWIW, I've been busy with a newborn son, a toddler, Christmas, and work. I had opened this thread to give positive feedback. Your second post contributed to the tone of this reply. But anyway, now you know why you didn't get immediate feedback. Most people probably didn't want to be rude or were to busy living their lives to wait for you to post a thread.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Bump the original thread instead.

LOL, he did, and that failed. LOL

That wasn't a bump...it was like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater.

 

[thinkricky]

Well, since you double posted, I'll double post, too...

You can be upset if you want. Nor do I care if you are upset with my impatience. With 130 views I had hoped for a little bone. But still nothing. Yes, maybe I did use it like a point and shoot. I am new. Which is why my second post was in the beginner area. Someone linked me to a tutorial site that I will use.

I too work and have a toddler 3 year old and a 5 month old. So cry to someone else. I try to contribute where I can when I can. You are not the only one on this forum. I am pretty aware of composition and art but new to photography. If you are upset why I double posted then fine. I just wanted some answers quickly so when I take more shots today I have something to think about.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Well, since you double posted, I'll double post, too...

You can be upset if you want. Nor do I care if you are upset with my impatience. With 130 views I had hoped for a little bone. But still nothing. Yes, maybe I did use it like a point and shoot. I am new. Which is why my second post was in the beginner area. Someone linked me to a tutorial site that I will use.

I too work and have a toddler 3 year old and a 5 month old. So cry to someone else. I try to contribute where I can when I can. You are not the only one on this forum. I am pretty aware of composition and art but new to photography. If you are upset why I double posted then fine. I just wanted some answers quickly so when I take more shots today I have something to think about.

I'm not upset. I responded to your post the first time I saw it. Actually, I didn't know you had double posted until after I had responded. It was then I noticed Bitter Jewlers post a four minutes before mine. I put some thought into my response and it took me more than 5 minutes to type. His response link to the new thread wasn't there when I started typing. In any case, I attempted to give you reasons why your photos didn't turn out great, recommended a course of action, and even tried to give you insight as to why you didn't get responses sooner. I also let you know what issues there were with the pictures you posted.

I merely posted the same response here since Bitter Jewler said that was where the thread was currently at.

Knowing everything I know now, and based on your latest response, I wouldn't have bothered to respond in the first place.

Good luck to you in your photographic endeavors.

 

[thinkricky]

Understood. It was my sarcasm that pissed you off. Thanks for your input.

 

[thinkricky]

Is it a pretty common rule not to cut off any limbs or head off of the subject?