CRITIQUE #11

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 #11

Postby Andy » Sat Jan 14, 2012 6:59 pm

Here's another one. Have at it. :-)

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 #11

Postby abby » Sat Jan 14, 2012 7:25 pm

Hi Andy,
Thanks for posting another image for critique. Guess I'll be the first one to bite at this one.
I like the sense of drama in the sky. I like that you have 2/3's sky and 1/3 land.......you followed the "rule" of not putting the horizon into the center of the image as you have pointed out to me in some of my images in the past.
One of the comments one of our judges at camera club mentioned was having 2 subjects in a frame doesn't give the eye a chance to rest because it bounces back and forth between the two. I think you need a third barn here. :-)
Also, the highly saturated colors are a bit too much for my liking.
Carol

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

Re: CRITIQUE #11

Postby deaner1971 » Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:02 am

Andy,

Thanks for putting a new one up.

I think this is just personal preference but the forboding skies always make me search the picture for a Kansas farm girl and her little dog too. Unless you are on the leading edge of a storm and can get the first thunderheads against a blue sky, the clouds just feel a bit dour.

If you clip the top 1/3 of the picture, you get the darkest part of the clouds which serve as a counterpoint to the yellow of the crops but I feel like there is a bit too much of the non-decript whiteness in the top of the current picture. That does change the picture into a panoramic, and not everyone likes those speciality shots so that might be "glass half full" kind of change.

I also agree on the over-saturation critique. The dark weathering spots and the somewhat eroded roof on the barn to the right both suggest that aging is present but the coloration says "freshly painted". I don't mind seeing them weith a bit less color and showing their age in color as well as in the aforementioned ways.

I think the over saturation also causes the field to bleed a bit and make the details dissappear.

That being said, I do see a need to give the lower half some strong color to compensate for the dark and somber sky.

What about backing off on the saturation, upping the contrast and chnaging it to a black and white? I am just thinking the contrast might show the layers of clouds I expect exist just above the treeline and reduce the flatness of that part of the background.

Finally (I must be cranky today as I feel I am being very critical, sorry) I would edit out the power lines in the background. I fel like they stand out against the dark trees, especially the bottom power line and just need to go.

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

Re: CRITIQUE #11

Postby Andy » Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:30 am

Thanks, for your comments, Carol and Dean. I have been waiting to say anything more until I thought everybody who might have something to say weighed in, so as not to influence the direction of the remarks in any direction. I just learned that Al has been traveling (poor guy HAD to go to Yellowstone for a Winter photo shoot :P ), so I won't wait any longer.

I shared with Carol privately yesterday, that I got lazy when I converted this raw image to jpeg to post here and did it on my laptop screen. I haven't recently calibrated it and even when I do, it has an awful cast to it. Looked at it on my calibrated monitor and see what you you mean about the saturation. Looks almost "neon" :oops: . Looks a bit like somebody who just got PS for the first time and went wild with the saturation slider. Both the reds on the barns and the grass look pretty unnatural. I am attaching a "re-work" which I hope looks more natural. One point, though, is that I am at work and didn't have the raw image to work with, so my changes are to the jpeg that was posted. The details in the image are breaking down pretty substantially, which illustrates my mantra about working with raw and tiff/psd files for image editing. So the re-work is mostly for the compositional suggestions.

Image

Dean, I like your suggestion re: the crop. I think it balances the top and bottom nicely and preserves the dramatic sky. The light wasn't really nice that afternoon (though you can see some side lighting on left back sides of the barns), so the entire image does have a bit of a dour look to it. Note sure I like that. This one is probably not a "wall hanger" anyway (as I have said before, I post images for critique that I think I or somebody else can learn from by discussing weaknesses--and sometimes strengths--and how to overcome/present them. I am not posting my "best" work here).

Carol. As above, agree 1000% on the saturation (see, Al? I can be reasonable :P ). Interesting comment re: the third barn. Wouldn't that give me 3 places my eye couldn't rest?? :twisted: Seriously, while I understand the point, I don't really agree with your camera club member's observation. First, I agree that a well-placed third barn could strengthen the composition -- Generally we see nicer compositional balance in odd numbers. I know I follow that rule often when landscaping my yard. In this case, I think the big barn/little barn and their distance apart works o.k. I do think placing the bigger barn closer to the center of the image, while keeping the smaller barn farther from the center, would have resulted in better balance in the image and therefore a more pleasing composition. In this case, the viewer may feel a bit unsettled because it looks out of balance with too much weight in the left side of the image.

Any thoughts?
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 #11

Postby autzig » Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:56 pm

Andy, of course I agree with Carol about the saturation. Your toned down second image is much easier on the eyes. Dean's comment about the sky was very good and you improved the image markedly with that crop. The key reason the crop improves the image is that it was cut in two...the sky making up the top half and the barns and field making up the bottom half. Half and Half photos usually don't work nearly as well as one divided in thirds like your final image.

I just don't like all the space between the barns. What do you think about cutting out a bit of the center area? I also think the barn on the right is a bit too tight against the edge. You can do a lot with Photoshop, but in the field, I think I would have walked to the left, positioning myself so that the small barn appears closer to the large one.

Yes, I just got back from my trip to Yellowstone. Didn't have phone or internet service most of the time so I couldn't browse the SOV site. All I had time for was photography. Too bad for me. I hope to have some photos posted on my site tomorrow or Wednesday. I'll start a thread giving the link when it is done.

Al

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

Re: CRITIQUE #11

Postby Andy » Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:04 am

Thanks, Al. I'm in agreement with all of your comments. This shot is of a couple of farms I drive by every day on the way to and from work. It was essentially a "grab" shot. The sun poked out through the cloud deck and lit the scene really nicely and I did a U-turn and pulled onto the gravel shoulder. But by the time I got set up, the mostly nice sun was gone. In the morning, the sun is in the wrong place (and these days, its dark as I drive by). In the evenings, it is also dark these days, but for most of the year, the sun is still too high when I drive home. There is actually a third barn (just for Carol), but I need to spend some time walking around and working the scene. One of those places that is halfway to my office, where I rarely go, and rarely think of except during the work day. Normally, I am not dressed appropriately for traipsing around the field. But I agree, I need to move around and look at the scene a litte better. I actually think that by just walking up the road, closer to the larger barn, I could close up the space between the two, and give it a more 3-D look instead of the flat, across the image look it has now.

This has given me lots to think about. This is a great series of threads on this forum. I only wish we could get some of the "lurkers" that we know are out there :shock: top participate.
Andy

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

bbolding
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:03 am
Contact:

Re: CRITIQUE #11

Postby bbolding » Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:21 am

Andy - I think cropping out a lot of that sky is helpful...I would leave a bit more....I think there needs to be a bit more of the grayblue. Also, if I would just clone out the right barn and give a little more room to the left of the big barn if there is any in file...and that would make a fair image...and I think you need to find a "middle ground" in you saturation adjustments...blowing out the color channels never helps your photographs.
"The best camera, is the one you have with you"



Return to “Vermont Photography Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest