Take Me Away -- Critiques and criticism

[DavidVote]

Edit: Felt like large was largely culprit in awkward framing... Lets shop him out..

Well.. I needed to take my camera out and this was a shot that I got when passing these two guys. Would this constitute as street photography?

Critiques and criticism please. Thanks.

 

[Designer]

Yes, I know how that is when you've got to get your camera out, and sometimes I'm in a hurry.

The one on the left is a girl.

You do "street" your way, and I'll do it my way.

 

[weepete]

I think the concept is ok, with the ferry in the background and the blur brining your attention to the subjects well. Unfortunately everything else is off. There's blown out highlights in the sky, underexposure, poor framing, bad positioning of the subjects (or yourself), quite a bit of noise and I'm afraid that just kills this shot for me. It's in the tried and didn't work genre for me.

Sorry.

 

[DavidVote]

I think the concept is ok, with the ferry in the background and the blur brining your attention to the subjects well. Unfortunately everything else is off. There's blown out highlights in the sky, underexposure, poor framing, bad positioning of the subjects (or yourself), quite a bit of noise and I'm afraid that just kills this shot for me. It's in the tried and didn't work genre for me.

Sorry.

Tbh, I don't like the blur. I think it's too much especially on the 50mm. The framing I agree is quite a bit off and it seems the larger figure and me are responsible for that.

I'm not sure how to fix the blown highlight, the scene was quite high in dr and it was attempted to be exposed in the middle. The shot came out clean but I like grain so I added in grain.

 

[pgriz]

Looking at the image, it doesn't convey much to me. At least for me, "street" implies a human figure (or human-oriented setting) and its relationship to the surrounding environment. In this case, I don't get much of a connection between the two people and scene behind them. The ferry "may" give a storyline, but it is sufficiently out of focus and out of the way that the connection to it feels somewhat forced, if it was intentional. For the image to work as a silhouette study, there needs to be some reason for the silhouettes to be where they are (in the image) - and in this case the background doesn't say why they are there.

 

[DavidVote]

Looking at the image, it doesn't convey much to me. At least for me, "street" implies a human figure (or human-oriented setting) and its relationship to the surrounding environment. In this case, I don't get much of a connection between the two people and scene behind them. The ferry "may" give a storyline, but it is sufficiently out of focus and out of the way that the connection to it feels somewhat forced, if it was intentional. For the image to work as a silhouette study, there needs to be some reason for the silhouettes to be where they are (in the image) - and in this case the background doesn't say why they are there.

Thanks, agreed with pretty much everything you said there, especially after you pointed them out. Thanks for not focusing on criticising the technical side of things but instead focusing on the composition and the more critical mistakes.

 

[pgriz]

David, I tend to critique the image, and much less the technical tools you used to achieve it. A good image grabs my attention before I'm even aware why. There are many really good images that suck technically, but work because not all "deficiencies" are negative. So the technical side of things, to me, is the means to achieve a goal, but they are NOT a goal in and by themselves.

 

[Designer]

.. the more critical mistakes.

O.K., what did I miss?

Is there something more critical than the composition?

 

[DavidVote]

.. the more critical mistakes.

O.K., what did I miss?

Is there something more critical than the composition?

I'm not too sure what you are getting at....?

Oh wait, I think I got you meant

"and the more critical mistakes"

 

[Designer]

Thanks for not focusing on criticising the technical side of things but instead focusing on the composition and the more critical mistakes.

Just wondering what you consider more critical, mistake wise, than the composition.

 

[DavidVote]

Thanks for not focusing on criticising the technical side of things but instead focusing on the composition and the more critical mistakes.

Just wondering what you consider more critical, mistake wise, than the composition.

Ohhhhhh, yeah. Just another example of my poor English. Sorry. But I meant composition AND the more critical mistakes. The more critical mistakes doesn't tie back to the composition but ties back to the matter before that, so I'm thanking him for his criticism on composition + critical mistakes.

I'd thought using the composition as its own in the sentence rather than slapping it into the more general "critical mistakes" would give it the most importance,

 

[Designer]

Never mind. Your English is not so bad that I can't understand what you wrote, but perhaps you can't understand yourself.

 

[DavidVote]

Never mind. Your English is not so bad that I can't understand what you wrote, but perhaps you can't understand yourself.

"you can't understand yourself"



Mixed feelings for you

 

[sashbar]

So. Who is asking whom there?