# How tough are ya'?



## manaheim (Aug 2, 2009)

I'm bored and I feel like giving some hard-core critique.   If you want some perspective, post your image on this thread and I'll tell you what I think.

The rules...

1. I'm not looking for fixer-uppers, post something you're proud of.

2. I'm not going to pull any punches.  I'll be nice, but I'm going to give it to you straight, so be prepared.

3. Give me a bit of a sense of what you were trying to do in your image, but please post this AFTER the image so I can look at the image first and then see if it meshes with what you were intending.

That's it.  Ready?  Go.


----------



## Peter_pan91 (Aug 2, 2009)

Hit me


----------



## Nikoncs4 (Aug 2, 2009)

New to digital photography, shooting with a d40 and upgrading to the d90 in a few weeks! Tell me how I did, its my first B&W photo so I'm sure theres much to be said. Thanks for the critic man!


----------



## manaheim (Aug 2, 2009)

Peter_pan91 said:


> Hit me


 
hmmm... interesting...

Ok.

You're trying for some symmetry, but when you go for symmetry you have to be extremely careful.  

First off, perspective becomes more important... for example, you're not looking STRAIGHT at the bench, so it's bit torqued in the image and needs correction.  Also your "horizon" here is off-kilter.  You also don't have the bench actually dead-center.  It's off a bit.  Like I say... if you're going for symmetry... it has to be TRULY symmetrical.  Note... you can fix ALL of this with a bit of post processing.

The flags are pointing in opposite directions, which is very neat, but they're different enough for you to take notice... mostly unavoidable.

There's a lot of dead space in here... the sky is washed out and dull... you chose to put more of the grass in (perhaps to compensate), but the grass is essentially featureless and not terribly interesting.   A single object in the foreground on the grass would have helped.

The somewhat portly gentlement almost goose-stepping onto the scene breaks the image completely.  Without him, you could be saying all kinds of things about patriotism... being alone... waiting for a returning seaman... whatever.  With him, it's kinda like... "errr, what's with the chubby dude walking funny?"  I think removing him would bring a lot of value to the image.

Overall, the image is tough... that blank sky is going to hurt.  That being said, making some perspective corrections and possibly (I hate to say this) cloning out the dude would help.

Good eye overall, however.  The scene has obvious potential.


----------



## camz (Aug 2, 2009)

Ok Manaheim..I want to hear what you have to say on a post we did yesterday regarding a model shoot. Here's the link. Give us a brutal honest critique. Btw I posted like 9 images so it might take some time :mrgreen: . The objective of the shoot is mentioned on top of the thread.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 2, 2009)

Nikoncs4 said:


> New to digital photography, shooting with a d40 and upgrading to the d90 in a few weeks! Tell me how I did, its my first B&W photo so I'm sure theres much to be said. Thanks for the critic man!


 
Hey there.

Unfortunately, I think the core scene is a bit weak.  The road is interesting, the thing up on the top of the hill has some small amount of interest to it, but neither of these two subjects is dominant enough or compelling enough to really grab you.  I think if you could have framed more of the curve of the road (shoot more to the right), that might have helped, but I'm not sure.  The sky is very cool and interesting, but I think the conversion has left it a bit flat.

That being said, you (like previous poster) have noted the items of interest and composed the scene reasonably well.  I just think in the end it wasn't as great as a spot as it might have been.  Color may help.  Not sure.

You may also be able to do a bit of creative cropping to bring a bit more attention to one part of the frame or the other.  You'd have to play... I might try cropping a good bit of top and left, though I would lament the loss of the sky.

On your conversion... with black and white images (or toned grayscale ones), you gotta boost that contrast.  Make sure a good bit of your photo is absolute black, and some portion of your photo is absolute white.  Sometimes you even want to push it further than that.

BTW, you have a bit of sensor dust... start from the upper right and move directly towards the part where the two cloud-lines cross.  You'll see a small darkish dot.  That's sensor dust.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 2, 2009)

camz said:


> Ok Manaheim..I want to hear what you have to say on a post we did yesterday regarding a model shoot. Here's the link. Give us a brutal honest critique. Btw I posted like 9 images so it might take some time :mrgreen: . The objective of the shoot is mentioned on top of the thread.


 
Whoa, check out the hair. 

Post your favorite one in this thread and I'll give you my thoughts.


----------



## Big (Aug 2, 2009)

First of the many shots to come taken with my new camera. I wanted to try doing some black and white shots but with a little more contrast. I had seen some examples or railroad tracks on here and since I live right next to a railroad, I wanted to go out and shoot something I have never shot before.


----------



## camz (Aug 2, 2009)

manaheim said:


> camz said:
> 
> 
> > Ok Manaheim..I want to hear what you have to say on a post we did yesterday regarding a model shoot. Here's the link. Give us a brutal honest critique. Btw I posted like 9 images so it might take some time :mrgreen: . The objective of the shoot is mentioned on top of the thread.
> ...


 
Yeah it's pretty wild. You should've seen the make up artist who got more time with her(trying to fix it) then we did because the wind blowing it all over the place lol. 

So here it is.  The objective is stylish and edgy.  All of these were done in natural lighting.

1





2


----------



## Peter_pan91 (Aug 2, 2009)

Ok, well, first of all thank you for taking the time to look at my photo, secondly i wanted to say that i posted this photo because i had mixed feelings for it and that you helped me figure them out. 

I wasn't going for strong simmetry and the man is strongly intended, but i guess it dosn't work for you, and i understand, let's just say that i am going thru an artistic moment in which i need human presence in all of my shots, plus it was a street ( people ) photography assigment for my class, so yeah, i needed somebody, it may just be that it's not the right somebody...

Peter


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 2, 2009)

I wanted to convey the size of the art piece with this one, as well as the multitude of colours. I think the child playing on it is a bonus. Technicalities of the shot: 24mm *1.6, 1/10, f/2.8, ISO 800 (the lights on the wheel cycled through the entire spectrum of visual light, so if I exposed any longer they started noticeably shifting to white).

I'm proud of it, and can't see things wrong with it (too close), so beat it to death manaheim.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 2, 2009)

Camz, honestly, I think these are extremely good and far better than I could ever do.

1. The shots bring out the sexiness of her, despite the fact that I don't personally find her that attractive.  Something particularly about the way her breasts are separated by the necklace is quite alluring.
2. The poses are interesting, but look relatively fluid and not at all posed.
3. The lighting is both interesting and complimentary... it's somewhat a shame that you don't have more detail in her hair, but where it's a darker part of the shot, I think that might have been unavoidable.
4. The power lines in 1 are kinda unfortunate, and yet you perfectly lined up her arms with the lines, which winds up being kinda cool. 
5. The lines in her skin under her arms in 1 is a -little- distracting.
6. The muted colors fit her complexion and clothes very well.

Seriously great stuff, IMO.  (keeping in mind, of course, that I am NOT a portrait photog)


----------



## Nikoncs4 (Aug 2, 2009)

Thanks alot for the reply man, you really know your stuff! I had the same feeling of showing off more of the road to the right to balance the photo. Thank you for you reply I will be asking you more of your opinions in the future.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 2, 2009)

Peter_pan91 said:


> Ok, well, first of all thank you for taking the time to look at my photo, secondly i wanted to say that i posted this photo because i had mixed feelings for it and that you helped me figure them out.


 
I'm glad I could help!



Peter_pan91 said:


> I wasn't going for strong simmetry and the man is strongly intended, but i guess it dosn't work for you, and i understand, let's just say that i am going thru an artistic moment in which i need human presence in all of my shots, plus it was a street ( people ) photography assigment for my class, so yeah, i needed somebody, it may just be that it's not the right somebody...
> 
> Peter


 
A _soldier_ would have been killer in this shot...  any kind of tradesman might also have been really interesting.  I think the dude himself was just too nondescript.

BTW, keep in mind (and this is for everyone), I'm just some random moron on the internet.  If you think my critique is off and you don't agree with it, just ignore me.  I tend to think I know what I'm talking about, but art is art.


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 2, 2009)

manaheim said:


> I tend to think I know what I'm talking about



Doesn't everyone?


----------



## manaheim (Aug 2, 2009)

Big said:


> First of the many shots to come taken with my new camera. I wanted to try doing some black and white shots but with a little more contrast. I had seen some examples or railroad tracks on here and since I live right next to a railroad, I wanted to go out and shoot something I have never shot before.


 
Hey big!

I'll be right up front and tell you that railroad track shots have really got to be something unique to get my attention, so whenever I see one I tend to be like "Oh look... a shot of a railroad track."  Overall, I have that reaction for this shot.

That being said, here are some of my impressions...

1. You have the track pretty much dead center, but it isn't PERFECTLY so.  If you go this route (in my book) you need to make sure it is dead-on with no perspective issues.  (I think the shot also isn't perfectly level)

2. That division between the two sides of forest in this shot is a bit weird for me.  The part of sky visible is small and oddly shaped and winds up being somewhat distracting.

3. I think where you have a shot of something straight trailing off into the distance and where the forest on either side lacks any particular interest (and where you appear to have had a nice sky) that the thing to do might have been to take this shot in portrait instead of landscape.  It would have accentuated the sense of distance, and if you kept the exact perspective, might have made your eyes trail into the horizon and then up into the sky, which would have been a cool effect.

4. Something makes me think that the angle on the tracks is too aggressive... I can't really see them trailing off that far.  I almost want to raise the camera up a bit while continuing to point down so I can see more of the actual track.

5. You have the horizon at dead-center which generally doesn't work as it doesn't lend visual tension to the shot, making it too easy to view and just move past.  Look up the rule of thirds.  (my portrait suggestion would help this also)

Just some thoughts.  Keep at it!


----------



## manaheim (Aug 2, 2009)

Nikoncs4 said:


> Thanks alot for the reply man, you really know your stuff! I had the same feeling of showing off more of the road to the right to balance the photo. Thank you for you reply I will be asking you more of your opinions in the future.


 
My pleasure!  Glad it was helpful!



musicaleCA said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > I tend to think I know what I'm talking about
> ...


 
  Yeah, but I do it with gusto!


----------



## Nikoncs4 (Aug 2, 2009)

how about this one?


----------



## camz (Aug 2, 2009)

manaheim said:


> Camz, honestly, I think these are extremely good and far better than I could ever do.
> 
> 1. The shots bring out the sexiness of her, despite the fact that I don't personally find her that attractive. Something particularly about the way her breasts are separated by the necklace is quite alluring.
> 2. The poses are interesting, but look relatively fluid and not at all posed.
> ...


 
Thanks for the kind words and the C&C....much appreciated. I never really noticed that the lines underneath her arms on #1 were distracting and will be editing going forward. Thanks bro!


----------



## PhotoXopher (Aug 2, 2009)

When you're done there I'd appreciate your input on this one:






I was going for depth and a little something to capture one of the main 'highlights' of my home town.


----------



## Big (Aug 2, 2009)

manaheim said:


> Big said:
> 
> 
> > First of the many shots to come taken with my new camera. I wanted to try doing some black and white shots but with a little more contrast. I had seen some examples or railroad tracks on here and since I live right next to a railroad, I wanted to go out and shoot something I have never shot before.
> ...


Haha, I knew you'd say something about the sky. It's just a natural thing that happened. I understand the rule of thirds but at the angle of the camera, I wasn't comfortable with lying down to compose it (there are passenger trains that run 60mph on those tracks so I free handed it). I appreciate your time!


----------



## manaheim (Aug 2, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> I wanted to convey the size of the art piece with this one, as well as the multitude of colours. I think the child playing on it is a bonus. Technicalities of the shot: 24mm *1.6, 1/10, f/2.8, ISO 800 (the lights on the wheel cycled through the entire spectrum of visual light, so if I exposed any longer they started noticeably shifting to white).
> 
> I'm proud of it, and can't see things wrong with it (too close), so beat it to death manaheim.


 
Oh, see, now this just isn't fair.    I saw you post this one a while back and I sat and stared at it and ground my teeth over it for a good 10 minutes.  I didn't comment on it then, and now you're forcing my hand! 

Ok... let's try it this way...

What I like...

1. I love night shots and the colors are fantastic.
2. It has that "What the freakin' hell is _that_?!" characteristic, which is always a win.
3. You _do_ get the sense of size due to the people around it, which is helpful.

What I have issues with...

1. It's essentially utterly dead.  There is no life... no motion... nothing.  It's an item flash-frozen in time.  Does it move?  Does it flap?  Does it just sit there?  There's so much on the thing... wheels... wings... lights... and yet, it is totally stagnant.  There are people on and around it... yet they seem to be stuck doing nothing.  It being dead-centered isn't helping this either, because dead-centering something in the frame implies non-movement in many cases.

2. The people blocking the rear wheels are kind of unfortunate because you cannot see the full person and the wheels seem to just mysteriously dissapear.  Might have been unavoidable.

3. I wonder if it is -too- dark.  A BIT more brightness would bring up some of the details... maybe capture some faces, etc.


So what would I have done?  Well, not totally certain, but some things I would have tried...

1. Try for slightly longer exposures to bring life to the object as it moved.  Blur those lights, get the motion of the people running it and the crowd watching it.

2. Try for different perspectives... much lower down to more accentuate the size.. ultra wide angle lens at very close proximity to make it look monstrous... etc.

3. Zoomed in on some of the people's faces, various details of the object etc... again, try to capture the life of the thing if you can.

4. Tried different crops... perhaps leave some dead space on the right, even better might be to try to get some people's faces caught by the lights if you can.


It's unquestionably an interesting ... item.   I would have shot it as well.  I just think you needed to get more aggressive making the photos as wonky as the object itself.


----------



## Peter_pan91 (Aug 2, 2009)

Yo noyze, that might make an awesome B&W if done properly!

just a thought,

peter


----------



## manaheim (Aug 2, 2009)

N0YZE said:


> When you're done there I'd appreciate your input on this one:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
This one made me laugh out loud. AWESOME shot. Just fantastic. I think you could give it some tweaks in post processing to make it really pop, but I LOVE the composition... the sky is stunning, the subject is very cool and visually pleasing (love these windmills- so neat), you have a repetition pattern going which is great, the greens are stunning with wonderful texture, etc. Just awesome.

Now... some possible improvements.

I _suspect_ you didn't use a circular polarizer. If you don't have one... _get one_. This would make the blues and greens REALLY hit you, cut down some glare from the whites, etc. You need need _need_ a CPOL.

If you have a RAW image of this, I would try to bring up the brightness a bit and get back some of the detail in the (corn?) fields below the windmills... It's just a bit dark, which is unfortunate. It's fine, but a touch off.

I would add about 20-25 points of saturation to the entire image to make the colors pop.

Working just with the jpeg, I found myself wanting to add about 5 points of brightness and 10-15 points of contrast. Don't overdo it, just amp it up a little bit.

I would probably give it a gentle sharpening pass to make those blades really stand out. Again, don't overdo it.

Very nice image. :thumbup: I'm moving! 

*EDIT:  Oh one more thing... I think it's angled about .4 degrees.  Give it a bit of a tweak.*


----------



## Peter_pan91 (Aug 2, 2009)

Hey manaheim, i see you're a architectural (?) photographer and you're from Boston so i thought you may enjoy this photo taken in waltham (MA):






I know it needs a little straightening but i am lazy, so let me know what ya think..

peter


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 2, 2009)

manaheim said:


> Oh, see, now this just isn't fair.    I saw you post this one a while back and I sat and stared at it and ground my teeth over it for a good 10 minutes.  I didn't comment on it then, and now you're forcing my hand!



Ground your teeth in what sense?  (I know I'm not being fair, but hey, you literally did ask for it. :lmao: )

Thanks for your points though. I really would like a full frame camera and ultra-wide lens for these situations. If I finally manage to scrounge that ultra-wide in my sig, it may help matters.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Aug 2, 2009)

Thanks man!

I definitely have a RAW version I'll try your suggestions with.

I appreciate the input 

I love shooting these windmills so I may just have to try your idea about the CP filter as well... ugh, add another item to the list of gear lol.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 3, 2009)

Peter_pan91 said:


> Hey manaheim, i see you're a architectural (?) photographer and you're from Boston so i thought you may enjoy this photo taken in waltham (MA):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Well, I think you said it yourself.   Straightening and perspective correction is most of what this needs.  Other than that I would boost the contrast and sharpen it.  I think it's a masterful shot.  Repetition, interesting lines that carry you in and out of the picture, great textures, abstraction without being abstract.  Awesome.

I'd be very curious to see the final product.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 3, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> Ground your teeth in what sense?  (I know I'm not being fair, but hey, you literally did ask for it. :lmao: )
> 
> Thanks for your points though. I really would like a full frame camera and ultra-wide lens for these situations. If I finally manage to scrounge that ultra-wide in my sig, it may help matters.


 
I ground my teeth because I was so on the fence about it, but I felt something was missed and couldn't totally put my finger on how to summarize it, so I moved on. 

Was it so big you needed something full frame and ultra wide???  It didn't look THAT big.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 3, 2009)

N0YZE said:


> Thanks man!
> 
> I definitely have a RAW version I'll try your suggestions with.
> 
> ...


 
Very glad to help.  Yeah, that's a NEAT subject.  Some shots at dawn and dusk would be cool also.

Gear is good!  one of the best things about photography is all the gadgets. lol


----------



## snowsoftJ4C (Aug 8, 2009)

Thanks!
Btw on the first one, I made a clone stamp mistake on the left side, and I am planning on fixing it soon.


----------



## Harris (Aug 8, 2009)

Go for it.


----------



## snowsoftJ4C (Aug 21, 2009)

bump nothing ever got graded (D)


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 21, 2009)

Put *one* image up and maybe manaheim will feel the compunction to chime in. I'll note something though: Your first image is cool, but it has noise. Get rid of the noise. All of it. It very much detracts from the image.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 21, 2009)

Harris said:


> Go for it.


 
Hm... _technically_ this seems fine enough.  A little blurry, perhaps... I'm guessing you weren't using a tripod, which you should do if possible, but it looks like this angle might not be best for that.

Also on night shots...

1. Manual focus. (often to infinity, but depends on lens and distance from subject)
2. Use mirror lockup if available.
3. Use somewhere around F8-F11 to create "star effects" on the lights.  (look at the night shots on my website and you'll see what I mean)

The problem with this shot, in my opinion, is that it's just pretty dull.

1. The buildings themselves aren't that interesting or varied.
2. There is essentially only one color of light.  (you may want to pull the yellow out, btw...)
3. The horizon is obviously the outskirts of the city, so the tallest buildings are wherever you are and then they flatten, so it gets pretty dull.
4. The sky is dead (not unusual in night shots, but made worse by other elements)
5. No traffic (also not necessarily unusual, but some traffic might have helped where there was nothing else)

That being said, I think you exposed this reasonably well which is often a problem people struggle with.  I can see detail in buildings and such and that is good.  Find a more interesting subject and make sure your focus is on and I think you'll be in good shape.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 21, 2009)

And yes, I would pick one image of the set. (snow)

That being said, a few comments...

1. Neat image, but seems overly centered and it makes a pretty powerful image kinda dull.  Also oversaturated, IMO.
2. Not bad but I think you may have missed the focus and the oversaturation doesn't help.  I also don't personally care for the orange, but that's a personal thing.
3. Again, oversaturated for my tastes.  The sky is very pretty, but I don't see a real subject here.  The shack thing sorta, maybe, but not really... there's just nothing to really focus on.
4. Best shot of the bunch I think.  Needs some more contrast and may be a bit washed out, but the expression is great and the angle is kinda "fun".  The image made me smile, so I got fun and happiness from it.  I _might_ crop in a bit, but I think it might be fine as is.  Not sure I feel about her head being cropped.  (part of why I think maybe you should push the crop a bit more)


----------



## ToddLange (Aug 21, 2009)

how bout this one?


----------



## Boutte (Aug 21, 2009)

What was i trying for? Idunno. The elephant is a little too centered I guess. Oops, that's your job isn't it?


----------



## PhotoPharaoh (Aug 25, 2009)

If you're still bored (and in the critique mode), I'd appreciate any comments on these 2 pics.
Some other pics of mine can be found here:
Picasa Web Albums - Na22ash - Croatia - Fav...

ps. I'm a beginner (very) and this is my first post on TPF or any photography forum... so bare with me 

cheers..
Rami


----------



## manaheim (Aug 25, 2009)

ToddLange said:


> how bout this one?


 
Whoops, I see I'm overdue on a few here.

Well, what's interesting here is you have a very majestic bird taken in a very dark and disturbing way.   That's an interesting perspective.

However, the image is a bit soft, and (probably obviously) dark... it appears more than you underexposed it than you chose to go dark with it.  In either case, it makes his midsection (all except his head and feet) very very dark and thus loses all detail.

He's also at a bit of an odd stance, and while he takes up a lot of the frame, he almost takes up too much... with him more in the light, you could have had a more typical majestic eagle shot, perhaps.  With him more in dark but set against a backdrop of some kind (think trees and all you see is darkness, a bit of tree, and an ominous head peeking out), you might have been able to play some sort of looming doom angle.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 25, 2009)

Boutte said:


> What was i trying for? Idunno. The elephant is a little too centered I guess. Oops, that's your job isn't it?


 
hehe, yeah maybe a bit... though it's fine enough I think.  It actually looks like some of the background here was washed out a bit... was it brighter in the background than on the subject?

Compositionally, it's probably fine.  You could spread apart the red arch and the elephant a bit more in the frame, perhaps... possibly turn a bit more to take more advantage of the path to carry your eye through the frame, but honestly in the end it's just not an exciting subject.  Pictures of fairly static objects like statues tend to be hard to make interesting unless you do weird things with angles, lighting, perspective, or juxtaposition against other items in frame.  (such as a statue that points to the heavens surrounded by very syemmetrical ceiling architecture or something)


----------



## manaheim (Aug 25, 2009)

PhotoPharaoh said:


> If you're still bored (and in the critique mode), I'd appreciate any comments on these 2 pics.
> Some other pics of mine can be found here:
> Picasa Web Albums - Na22ash - Croatia - Fav...
> 
> ...


 
Welcome to the forum.

I'm not much of a macro photog and I HATE pictures of bugs, so let me just toss that in as a warning. 

Generally with close up shots of bugs you're looking for some serious detail. I think the subject here is probably interesting... capturing ants at what they do. I might have tried shooting it from the right and getting in closer, but I also suspect this wasn't a macro lens (50mm perhaps?) (I can't check from here) so you may not have been able to get closer.

I actually really like the second one. The colors are beautiful, the silohettes are very pretty and not overdone (I can still see some detail in the objects), the crop is really nice and the slope of the land curving down and into the left hand of the frame is very appealing. I _might_ try boosting the saturation a little bit to make it pop a bit more (esp. if I were to print it), but I think it's a very appealing image as it is.

EDIT: BTW, it looks like you may have a lot of sensor dust... lots of little dots on that second image are visible.  You should get that cleaned.


----------

