|
Got a thin skin? Then look elsewhere. Post a link to an image that you've made, and invite others to offer their critiques. Honesty is encouraged, but please be positive in your constructive criticism. Flaming and just plain nastiness will not be tolerated. Please note that this is not an area for you to showcase your images, nor is this a place for you to show-off where you have been. This is an area for you to post images so that you may share with us a technique that you have mastered, or are trying to master. Typically, no more than about four images should be posted in any one post or thread, and the maximum size of any side of any image should not exceed 950 px.
Moderators: 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.
 by paulvdb1 on Sun Aug 14, 2005 7:48 pm
Got to spend an hour in the gardens on Saturday but unfortunately with the kids so I didn't get time to set up any shots properly. I'll still got a lot seem to have too much contrast as well particularly with my 50/1.8.
I thought these were neat seeing as I simply snapped them off PJ style - nothing particularly deliberate merely reflex shots as the shots occurred. I'd have loved to have spent the whole day in the park - I'm sure I'd have filled my 1GB card no trouble.
Shot from around 50m away with the Sigma 70-300 APO @ 240mm
Also shot from around 50m away with the Sigma 70-300 APO @ 120mm.
I like this one because it seemed an unusual thing to do with other people being much less enthusiastic lounging in the sun. I only noticed the lady watching later and thought it added to the photo to keep her in the crop.
-
paulvdb1
- Member
-
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 2:22 pm
- Location: NW Sydney
by sirhc55 on Sun Aug 14, 2005 8:35 pm
Paul - shot #2 is a capture that you will never get again - well done. The lady looking as she walks past does add interest  Chris
--------------------------------
I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
-
sirhc55
- Key Member
-
- Posts: 12930
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: Port Macquarie - Olympus EM-10
by stubbsy on Sun Aug 14, 2005 8:38 pm
Paul #2 is a good capture. #1 less so - First thing I noticed was the photographer - doh!
I was there last weekend and took a gazillion bat photos (happy with about 3) it's a good spot for pics.
-
stubbsy
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:44 pm
- Location: Newcastle NSW - D700
-
by paulvdb1 on Sun Aug 14, 2005 8:43 pm
stubbsy wrote:Paul #2 is a good capture. #1 less so - First thing I noticed was the photographer - doh!
I was there last weekend and took a gazillion bat photos (happy with about 3) it's a good spot for pics.
I thought #1 was interesting 'cause it was so casual. What you don't see are his team of assistants (3 of them at least!) that looked a lot less relaxed.
And I couldn't get any of my bats properly in focus. I realised when I got home that I had my 70-300 at f5.6 and there wasn't enough DOF to get good shots.
-
paulvdb1
- Member
-
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 2:22 pm
- Location: NW Sydney
by stubbsy on Sun Aug 14, 2005 8:45 pm
paulvdb1 wrote:stubbsy wrote:Paul #2 is a good capture. #1 less so - First thing I noticed was the photographer - doh!
I was there last weekend and took a gazillion bat photos (happy with about 3) it's a good spot for pics.
I thought #1 was interesting 'cause it was so casual. What you don't see are his team of assistants (3 of them at least!) that looked a lot less relaxed. And I couldn't get any of my bats properly in focus. I realised when I got home that I had my 70-300 at f5.6 and there wasn't enough DOF to get good shots.
Paul. I've gone back to the pic. I think why it doesn't appeal for me is not just that the geek in me wanted to check out the photog's toys, but rather tha fact the only face I really see is his. In 20/20 hindsight I'd say a slight shift of angle to see either or both of the faces of the happy couple would have made for a stronger image without destroying the casual nature that you very correctly strove for.
-
stubbsy
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:44 pm
- Location: Newcastle NSW - D700
-
by paulvdb1 on Sun Aug 14, 2005 8:55 pm
stubbsy wrote:paulvdb1 wrote:stubbsy wrote:Paul #2 is a good capture. #1 less so - First thing I noticed was the photographer - doh!
I was there last weekend and took a gazillion bat photos (happy with about 3) it's a good spot for pics.
I thought #1 was interesting 'cause it was so casual. What you don't see are his team of assistants (3 of them at least!) that looked a lot less relaxed. And I couldn't get any of my bats properly in focus. I realised when I got home that I had my 70-300 at f5.6 and there wasn't enough DOF to get good shots.
Paul. I've gone back to the pic. I think why it doesn't appeal for me is not just that the geek in me wanted to check out the photog's toys, but rather tha fact the only face I really see is his. In 20/20 hindsight I'd say a slight shift of angle to see either or both of the faces of the happy couple would have made for a stronger image without destroying the casual nature that you very correctly strove for.
Chasing 2 kids down the path limits the shot options a bit 
-
paulvdb1
- Member
-
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 2:22 pm
- Location: NW Sydney
by stubbsy on Sun Aug 14, 2005 8:56 pm
paulvdb1 wrote:stubbsy wrote:paulvdb1 wrote:stubbsy wrote:Paul #2 is a good capture. #1 less so - First thing I noticed was the photographer - doh!
I was there last weekend and took a gazillion bat photos (happy with about 3) it's a good spot for pics.
I thought #1 was interesting 'cause it was so casual. What you don't see are his team of assistants (3 of them at least!) that looked a lot less relaxed. And I couldn't get any of my bats properly in focus. I realised when I got home that I had my 70-300 at f5.6 and there wasn't enough DOF to get good shots.
Paul. I've gone back to the pic. I think why it doesn't appeal for me is not just that the geek in me wanted to check out the photog's toys, but rather tha fact the only face I really see is his. In 20/20 hindsight I'd say a slight shift of angle to see either or both of the faces of the happy couple would have made for a stronger image without destroying the casual nature that you very correctly strove for.
Chasing 2 kids down the path limits the shot options a bit
Yep - good hand held work then  
-
stubbsy
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:44 pm
- Location: Newcastle NSW - D700
-
Return to Image Reviews and Critiques
|
