Your Comments PleaseModerators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators
Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent. Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature. Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread. Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
Previous topic • Next topic
8 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Your Comments PleaseNo details but I thought I would throw this one up for critique.
Oneputt - If you used a light tent for this shot I would say that the back light (or top!) is too strong. To get a good product shot there needs to be a fairly even light throughout, for when it goes to print one has to consider the highlights and shadows more carefully.
Nicely composed shot. Chris
-------------------------------- I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
Okay this is coming from someone with zero experience in photographing or critiquing this type of thing, but I'm going to give it a go anyhow.
1 I think I'd like to see a little space in between the different products so that they breathe. This would allow us also to see the Nikon Nikkor Label on the 80-200, and help the angle viewfinder (it looks like it's attached to the lens or something. Also the apeture numbers on the 80-200 are slightly out of focus. 2. I like the black on white, and the light rolls off the brushed look of the lenses, but something about it hurts my eyes a little, don't know what it is, but maybe the stark contrast, or maybe I'm stark mad. 3. I wouldn't mind seeing the actual glass. I love to look at the glass at the end of a lens, and it would kiss a lovely light reflection I think. 4. The reflector thing on the SB 800 is slightly yellowish/dark when I would rather it be really white with lighter shades (if that makes any sense at all). 5. You've done a really good job, and it is far superior than anything I could output at the moment, and I appreciated this chance to look at it with a critical eye. Hope it helps somewhat.
Thanks guys for your comments. The reason I put it up was because it was my first shot at anything like this. The lens were just laid out on a white pillowcase with fairly strong natural light from the rear and a normal fluoro light about five feet above the lens. I used the kit lens to take the pic.
Chris what do you mean by a tent, do you mean a semi enclosed area?
Oneputt, I'm no expert either but I'd agree that there needs to be a bit more spacing. Also, I'd tilt the SB800 head up a bit so you can read the label, rotate the 80-200 so Nikon is visible and position the lens caps so that "Nikon" is the right way up. Otherwise, I like the detail.
Cheers Peter my karma just ran over your dogma
For the most part, I do like the image. I think it's a bit too shiny on the back part of the lens.
What I don't like is the frame or the font. Producer & Editor @ GadgetGuy.com.au
Contributor for fine magazines such as PC Authority and Popular Science.
Previous topic • Next topic
8 posts
• Page 1 of 1
|