Critique #1

Discussions on Equipment, Locations and Tips for getting the photograps you want of Vermont scenes.Note: You must be registered in order to post. If you have trouble registering, use the contact us form on Scenes of Vermont's home page.

Moderators: bm, Andy, admin

Andy
Site Admin
Posts: 1493
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Saginaw, Michigan
Contact:

Critique #1

Postby Andy » Mon Nov 07, 2011 6:09 pm

A conversation with "deaner" on the foliage forum inspired me to try this. I have learned that the foliage forum (much like the season itself) works up to a "peak" and then dies until next season. Que Sera Sera (spelling is, I am sure, atrocious).

When I asked Tim if he would set this forum up, I had hopes of keeping it going througout the year. Sometimes I see faint glimmers of that "light." So, here is an idea: I would like participants to feel free to post an image here for critique.

I want to define "critique" though. We get all the "nice images," "beautiful," etc., we need elsewhere. I would like commentary on what makes a photograph strong or weak, what can make it better, what works and what doesn't work, etc. It IS possible for it to be honest and straightforward and still be polite.

I will start and see if there are any takers: I looked for an image that I have taken (happens to be of Vermont) that I do not think is particularly strong, to stimulate some true thoughts about composition, exposure, choice of subject, color, etc. Here it is (lets hear your thoughts):Image
Andy

If it sounds too good to be true, its probably . . . .


abby
Moderator
Posts: 1802
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:01 am
Location: southeast massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Critique

Postby abby » Mon Nov 07, 2011 6:30 pm

Great idea Andy. I'd like to see this critique thread take off and be a place to come and visit year round. As you know, :wink: I am a big believer in honest critiques and have found it to be one of the best ways for me to learn and take my photography to the next level.
I'll be the first to bite at your posted image. What I love about it are the saturated colors. I also love the blue of the sky echoed in the blue of the water below. I like your forefront interest in the water with the lilly pads and grass to draw your eye in to the "big ta-da" of the foliage and it's reflections. The reflections themself are beautiful. You were blessed with some nice still waters when you took this shot.
The only thing that I could find fault with is the left hand side portion of the image which is in shadow. Don't know if that shadow could be opened up or not.
Carol

Andy
Site Admin
Posts: 1493
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Saginaw, Michigan
Contact:

Re: Critique

Postby Andy » Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:39 pm

Thanks, Carol. I do have a PS "re-touched" version of this image. This one is more or less out of the camera, with standard sharpen and curves type tweaks. I agree that the left side is in shadow (what the old-timer film shooters would refer to as "blocked up"). There is a pretty good reason for this and am wondering if anybody will comment on that :) .

Maybe after some others weigh in, I can post a re-worked version.

Hoping others will join in by posting images.
Andy

If it sounds too good to be true, its probably . . . .

deaner1971
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 12:01 am

Re: Critique

Postby deaner1971 » Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:23 am

See, this is where I get nervous about critiques because everyone has their own personal preferences.

I like the composition very much but I can see why people call darker areas on a photo "black holes" because it does keep drawing your attention and pull you away from the normal progression through a picture. I put up a sheet of paper to "crop" that portion and I think the picture still works.

The foliage feels a little bit over exposed but that is likely the trade-off versus losing all of the detail in the shade. That could also just be my preferences as I think I might under-expose my photos.

Your shot's left side still feels more "complete" than when I did a crude crop on my screen. The trees rise up and close the left side and none of the lily pads on that side are only partially captured so it gives the feeling that you saw it all on that side. The right side is open but that works as that is the side that starts the motion of the viewer through the picture.

That darkened side and what to do with it has bedeviled me at Emerald Lake for about a decade now. It is in the narrow valley that Manchester and Danby occupy (a bit north of Manchester on 7) and you end up with a right side fulling lit by morning light but the left side (and about half of the lake) still in shadow. You succeeded far better than I have with dealing with that problem so I still have to say this is a good shot.

Could you please critique my critique? I do not offer them often so is that detailed enough/too detailed, etc...

Thanks again for starting this.

Andy
Site Admin
Posts: 1493
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Saginaw, Michigan
Contact:

Re: Critique

Postby Andy » Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:16 pm

Ok, I will post another version this weekend when I get on my computer ( the iPad is just too easy). Somebody else willing to post an image here for critique?
Andy

If it sounds too good to be true, its probably . . . .

faxmachineanthem
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 11:11 am

Re: Critique

Postby faxmachineanthem » Sat Nov 12, 2011 8:47 am

Hey Andy,
Good idea for a topic. Regarding your photo, I have a lot like that where I can't put my finger on why it doesn't do it for me. A few things I can think of in your photo.

Time of day. As has been mentioned, the lighting is a bit strong.

Lack of clear subject. This is a concept that's not too clear to me with regards to landscapes, because I don't always think of a landscape as having an identifiable subject. But as I look through my "portfolio" (really just a folder on my pc where I keep my best shots), all of my favorite landscapes have a subject more identifiable than the shot we're critiquing. Abby's shot is a good example of a landscape with a subject.

Balance. Even harder to define than subject. But after reading Freeman Patterson's Photographing the World Around You (highly recommended), I became much more aware of this concept. So now when I compose, I try to move my feet/camera/focal length until the subjects feel balanced to me.
Now to embarrass myself with my drawing skills. I see your photo as being like this:
Image

I feel it would be more balanced if it was like this:
Image

Of course to an extent you can only work with what the scene gives you -- you couldn't move the hills. So sometimes it's not possible to get the balanced shot, while sometimes you can improve it by moving.

Bryan

Andy
Site Admin
Posts: 1493
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Saginaw, Michigan
Contact:

Re: Critique

Postby Andy » Sat Nov 12, 2011 6:16 pm

Interesting, Bryan. I agree that balance is an important part of composition. So much so that I bought a couple books on drawing and art last year and began to study it. One of the principles I read about was the Idea of the balance lever (my own characterization). I actually see balance in both of your drawings. I think the foreground objects are important to add the balance in an image. The lily pads add that element in my view. You have included those graphical elements in your "preferred" composition, but they are certainly there in both.

Also agree that Freeman Patterson's books are well worth the read.

My own critique of my image is that the lighting is definitely harsh and the high contrast is definitely a problem here. It would really be an interesting exercise to find a subject we could all revisit after critique and try our own interpretations. I think you observation about moving your feet is really good. I woukd like to go back there and look for your preferred composition.

Great abstract observations about composition. Thought provoking and exactly what I am looking for in this thread! Thanks for the great input Bryan!
Andy

If it sounds too good to be true, its probably . . . .

Andy
Site Admin
Posts: 1493
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Saginaw, Michigan
Contact:

Re: Critique

Postby Andy » Sat Nov 12, 2011 6:27 pm

When you look at both of Bryan's drawings, there are diagonals that create dynamics. There is definitely something to be said for the "golden mean" which has a relationship to the the "rule of thirds" that we photographers like to "quote.". My mentor, James Moore uses spirals and the golden mean in his teaching methods, and espouses "seeing" these things when you are actually in the act of photographing.
Andy

If it sounds too good to be true, its probably . . . .

abby
Moderator
Posts: 1802
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:01 am
Location: southeast massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Critique

Postby abby » Sat Nov 12, 2011 8:49 pm

Hi Bryan,
I am impressed with your drawings! Seriously, good job and a very good visual example.
I see you feel as though the forefront interest would look better on the left hand side leading the eye to the hill and reflection on the right hand side. One of the teachers I had from a composition class spoke about the fact that we (people) read from left to right, and therefore, photographically speaking, an image feels more balanced and the viewer more comfortable when the eye is drawn from the left side into the right side of the image.
Carol

Andy
Site Admin
Posts: 1493
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Saginaw, Michigan
Contact:

Re: Critique

Postby Andy » Mon Nov 14, 2011 8:25 am

Thanks for the critique, Dean, Bryan and Carol. Here is a bit of a re-work of the image I played with briefly. It addresses my own criticisms of the image (shared by you) regarding the shadows and the harsh light. My "opening up" of the shadows is crude, without using any layers, on a small jpeg version in PS. I am not sure its an image I want to spend lots of time with. Just trying to illustrate that it may be better with some work The transition from the part I opened up and the part that was already better exposed needs some work to make it more natural looking.

I also toned down the brightness on the foliage, which had the effect of making it seem more saturated (not an altogether bad think in my view).

Given the light conditions, it is NEVER going to have the impact it might have in "good light." But I continue to be amazed at what can be done with an image in the "digital darkroom."

Image

From a compositional standpoint, what Bryan said is beginning to grow on me. The right side of the image seems to just kind of flow out of the frame, without any balancing or anchoring point. One thing I tried was to crop closer to the rock in the water, attempting to make it an anchor point in the right hand frame. Not sure it worked. May not be able to "save" this image from a compositional standpoint. Thoughts??

Image
Andy

If it sounds too good to be true, its probably . . . .

deaner1971
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 12:01 am

Re: Critique

Postby deaner1971 » Mon Nov 14, 2011 8:37 am

Andy,

I need to get to work but I wanted to comment on the second picture. I am really struck by how the rock makes the spiral really kick in. The lily pads have a natural curve to them that flows perfectly into that rock. That leads right into the foliage and then into the strong greens of the lightened space to the left.

Wow, what a difference and thank you for sharing such a great example of a crop creating that wonderful spiral flow.

Probably more saturated than what I am used to but, as I have said, I often feel like I don't take mine far enough. The enhanced color really balances things though by making the whole images colors strong and well-balanced (especially the formerly blackened left side) so I do like the overall impact.

Really good example of what can be done and how to tweak a photo by making a bunch of small changes to it components.

Andy
Site Admin
Posts: 1493
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Saginaw, Michigan
Contact:

Re: Critique

Postby Andy » Mon Nov 14, 2011 1:37 pm

Al: Good to see you are no longer "MIA" :lol:

Great point. I think you and I have spoken about this before. We (I) often tend to think 2 dimensionally -- foreground and background. But most good landscape images have 3 -- as you have pointed out. The foreground, the middle ground and the background. And, as you also suggest, good composition means we need to be thinking about those elements when we are composing.
Andy

If it sounds too good to be true, its probably . . . .

autzig
Posts: 443
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Bloomington, MN
Contact:

Re: Critique

Postby autzig » Mon Nov 14, 2011 2:59 pm

OK. I'll write my critique of each of the posted files. I've already commented about how Andy used the lily pads to create the illusion of three dimensions. That is the strength of this photo. Others have commented on the harsh light and that is true. I would like this photo much better if it had been shot in warmer light. The low angle of the sun would have created shadows in the image while not creating such strong contrast in the shadow areas. I guess that isn't a critique of the photo exactly, but I think better light would make this photo more stunning.

I also think the second version of this photo is way too saturated. I know that Andy and I disagree on just how much saturation creates the best image. I prefer subtlety. He likes it bold.

Al

faxmachineanthem
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 11:11 am

Re: Critique

Postby faxmachineanthem » Tue Nov 15, 2011 7:19 am

Andy,
I do think the new crops make a big difference. Funny how that works.

Andy
Site Admin
Posts: 1493
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Saginaw, Michigan
Contact:

Re: Critique

Postby Andy » Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:05 am

Bryan: Thanks. Do hope you'll continue to participate here. I would love to see this become more than a seasonal forum!
Andy

If it sounds too good to be true, its probably . . . .



Return to “Vermont Photography Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest