# Critique please...?



## YoungPhotoGirl (May 13, 2014)

Don't have shooting info available at present time sorry.


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (May 13, 2014)

Did I post this right? I have no views?


----------



## W.Fovall (May 13, 2014)

that is a picture of a doggie...


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (May 13, 2014)

W.Fovall said:


> that is a picture of a doggie...


sure is  Any improvements in the PP?


----------



## W.Fovall (May 13, 2014)

looks good... im on my phone though so your pic is only 3" wide... maybe dont cut off the paws next time...


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (May 13, 2014)

W.Fovall said:


> looks good... im on my phone though so your pic is only 3" wide... maybe dont cut off the paws next time...


Ok I do have a wider one with the paws in, might give that an edit. I want one to hang on my wall


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (May 13, 2014)

W.Fovall said:


> looks good... im on my phone though so your pic is only 3" wide... maybe dont cut off the paws next time...


Editing's okay though?


----------



## W.Fovall (May 13, 2014)

looks good.. i might run a brush over the eyes to make them a bit whiter on the edges.. and a bit brighter on the iris...


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (May 13, 2014)

W.Fovall said:


> looks good.. i might run a brush over the eyes to make them a bit whiter on the edges.. and a bit brighter on the iris...


Ok cheers !


----------



## Braineack (May 13, 2014)

it's cute.  it's a bit overexposed.  

Did you add a lens flare in post?


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (May 13, 2014)

Braineack said:


> it's cute.  it's a bit overexposed.
> 
> Did you add a lens flare in post?


Sure did, you think I should leave it darker?


----------



## Rosy (May 13, 2014)

i would reduce some glare, it draws attention away from the subject which happens to be beautiful.  LOVE me some doggies


----------



## tirediron (May 13, 2014)

As a general suggestion:  Work on getting the basics down pat before moving into the artistic; in other words:  Get your exposure, composition, etc nailed and then try the 'artistic' approach to processing.  Walk before you run.  As well, the gallery section (where I have moved this thread) is the appropriate location for posting images for C&C.


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (May 13, 2014)

tirediron said:


> As a general suggestion:  Work on getting the basics down pat before moving into the artistic; in other words:  Get your exposure, composition, etc nailed and then try the 'artistic' approach to processing.  Walk before you run.  As well, the gallery section (where I have moved this thread) is the appropriate location for posting images for C&C.



I completely understand the basics,
I have been doing photography as a business for over 3 years now.
Artistically I do like this,
I might use the wider photo as someone suggested, I do enjoy suggestions too as it gives me a different outlook.
But I definitely achieved the colour and exposure that I wanted to.
It's a good thing art is opinion, I want me photography to be art, not "technically correct".
I don't obviously just take photos out of focus for art, but I'm happy to blow the colours or exposure for the sake of the picture


----------



## Braineack (May 13, 2014)

YoungPhotoGirl said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > it's cute.  it's a bit overexposed.
> ...




or remove it altogether.


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (May 13, 2014)

Braineack said:


> YoungPhotoGirl said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...



Why?


----------



## yahgiggle (May 13, 2014)

YoungPhotoGirl said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > As a general suggestion:  Work on getting the basics down pat before moving into the artistic; in other words:  Get your exposure, composition, etc nailed and then try the 'artistic' approach to processing.  Walk before you run.  As well, the gallery section (where I have moved this thread) is the appropriate location for posting images for C&C.
> ...




Well said lol ;-)


----------



## tirediron (May 13, 2014)

YoungPhotoGirl said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > YoungPhotoGirl said:
> ...


It's your image; if your vision is realized, that's all that really matters (unless it's paid work, and then the client is what matters), however to be completely frank, I look at it, and see what I would consider a cute 'cell-phone snap' of the family pooch.


----------



## BGeise (May 13, 2014)

YoungPhotoGirl said:


> Why?



The lens flare makes the background very distracting. Not to mention very blown out. I think it would be nice maybe even a little underexposed. 

Also if you are asking for critique. Try not to take it as a personal attack. We are only trying to help and give you our opinion on what you may or may not have missed.


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (May 13, 2014)

tirediron said:


> YoungPhotoGirl said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...



A cellphone snap? I have never, ever seen a cellphone provide a photo like this. If you know which cellphone takes a competely in-focus photo which is sharp and nicely PP'ed please tell me the brand and I will trade my camera in


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (May 13, 2014)

BGeise said:


> YoungPhotoGirl said:
> 
> 
> > Why?
> ...



I asked for critique on my image, not sides at business, clients or my equipment. Hence getting a little annoyed sorry lol


----------



## BGeise (May 13, 2014)

YoungPhotoGirl said:


> A cellphone snap? I have never, ever seen a cellphone provide a photo like this. If you know which cellphone takes a competely in-focus photo which is sharp and nicely PP'ed please tell me the brand and I will trade my camera in



Samsung S5


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (May 13, 2014)

BGeise said:


> YoungPhotoGirl said:
> 
> 
> > A cellphone snap? I have never, ever seen a cellphone provide a photo like this. If you know which cellphone takes a competely in-focus photo which is sharp and nicely PP'ed please tell me the brand and I will trade my camera in
> ...



LOL


----------



## BGeise (May 13, 2014)

YoungPhotoGirl said:


> I asked for critique on my image, not sides at business, clients or my equipment. Hence getting a little annoyed sorry lol



No one did until you mentioned it. I just feel you were a little harsh to braineack and tiredon. When they gave you their opinion


----------



## yahgiggle (May 13, 2014)

BGeise said:


> YoungPhotoGirl said:
> 
> 
> > Why?
> ...




i think shes taking on the critique. the problem is only when she has been personally attacked for her lack of knowledge witch we all don't really know what knowledge any user really has. so we should not comment on that we should only comment on the things we feel would improve there shot. theres not alot of people with cell phones getting shots like this. most are standing up looking down, so to me she does have some clue,


----------



## BGeise (May 13, 2014)

YoungPhotoGirl said:


> I completely understand the basics,
> I have been doing photography as a business for over 3 years now.
> Artistically I do like this,
> I might use the wider photo as someone suggested, I do enjoy suggestions too as it gives me a different outlook.
> ...



He didn't make any personal attack on her. He just said try to work on the basics then move to the art pics. They will be much better in the long run.


----------



## W.Fovall (May 13, 2014)

[emoji173]&#65039;[emoji173]&#65039;[emoji173]&#65039;[emoji173]&#65039;[emoji173]&#65039;[emoji173]&#65039;[emoji173]&#65039;[emoji173]&#65039;[emoji173]&#65039;[emoji173]&#65039;[emoji173]&#65039;[emoji173]&#65039;[emoji173]&#65039;[emoji173]&#65039;[emoji173]&#65039;[emoji173]&#65039;[emoji173]&#65039;[emoji173]&#65039;[emoji173]&#65039;[emoji173]&#65039;


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (May 13, 2014)

BGeise said:


> YoungPhotoGirl said:
> 
> 
> > He didn't make any personal attack on her. He just said try to work on the basics then move to the art pics. They will be much better in the long run.
> ...


----------



## tirediron (May 13, 2014)

OP:  Please bear in mind that this is an image to which you have a personal and emotional attachment; no different than a happy snap of a child to a mother; she sees the child that she love, others will see an infant with his face covered in food and drooling.  The rest of us do not have the attachment you do, and are looking at it, more or less objectively.  I don't think anyone here has made any sort of personal attack, however if you feel that they have, please use the 'Report message' feature (the small triangle below the profile avatar) to report the offending message to the moderating staff.


----------



## yahgiggle (May 13, 2014)

BGeise said:


> YoungPhotoGirl said:
> 
> 
> > I completely understand the basics,
> ...




Thats the personal attack, would you not take that as a personal attack been told this when you have been taking photos for years and know the basics inside out?


----------



## MikeFlorendo (May 13, 2014)

Personnally I agree that the background is distracting to my eye.  The  flare draws my attention away from the subject.  Besides that I like it.  It's all subjective though and it's going on your wall not anyone elses and if you like the flare keep it.

As for someone saying get the basics down first I don't know how they would know you don't unless they know you very well.  I will admit I am very new to photography and I do not have "the basics" down and yet I can still take a decent shot here and there.  Photgraphy as an art is subjective and no one knows if you inteneded it to be that way since you may like the shot as it is.  How could someone know that everything done in that photo wasn't intentionally?

Assumption about skill & knowledge of photograpghy should be left out of photo critiques.  If you have doubts about what was done on a photo ask why did you do it that way before assuming it's a lack of skill.  Just my 2 cents-


----------



## TamiAz (May 13, 2014)

I have to agree the flare is very distracting..It takes your eye away from the cute dog. Also, the white balance looks a little too warm.


----------



## tirediron (May 13, 2014)

yahgiggle said:


> BGeise said:
> 
> 
> > YoungPhotoGirl said:
> ...


OP, if you felt that this was a personal attack on you, I apologize; it was not meant to be.  When I viewed the image, the added "flare" and the extremely narrow DoF, combined with the distracting element (door frame?) behind the dog's head indicated to me that this was an image taken by someone who was working too hard on their artistic skills before they had polished off their technical ones.  As you say that is not the case, the fair enough, it's simply a case of you and I having different opinions on the way a particular image could/should look.


----------



## MikeFlorendo (May 13, 2014)

Photogirl can you do an edit without the flare and post it?  Perhaps it's not better?


----------



## bace (May 14, 2014)

I think this photo is great. My suggestion is stop looking for c&c here. There's always someone who think you're taking work away from them. So they try to keep you down. Just go take it. Stop worrying about what other people think. If you like it, other people will!


----------



## Braineack (May 14, 2014)

bace said:


> I think this photo is great. My suggestion is stop looking for c&c here. There's always someone who think you're taking work away from them. So they try to keep you down. Just go take it. Stop worrying about what other people think. If you like it, other people will!



dont let the bastards keep you down.


----------



## Rosy (May 14, 2014)

wow...that was interesting


----------



## Braineack (May 14, 2014)

Rosy said:


> wow...that was interesting




whoa. My point of view is interesting; stop trying to take work away from me.


----------



## TamiAz (May 14, 2014)

bace said:


> I think this photo is great. My suggestion is stop looking for c&c here. There's always someone who think you're taking work away from them. So they try to keep you down. Just go take it. Stop worrying about what other people think. If you like it, other people will!



I disagree..Getting C&C is a way to grow and improve your work. If you aren't able to take the C&C and use it to improve, then don't ask for it. Obviously, she thinks her picture is fine, so she should have never asked for C&C. She could have just posted it in the gallery. I really don't think anyone is concerned about her taking work away from them.


----------



## Rosy (May 14, 2014)

Braineack said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > wow...that was interesting
> ...



SORRY - just did.  Hacked into your email and stole all your clients.  It's all John's fault - blame him!


----------



## Braineack (May 14, 2014)

well that's the last time I go looking for C&C!  and here I thought I was improving my technique...


----------



## Designer (May 14, 2014)

YoungPhotoGirl said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > As a general suggestion:  Work on getting the basics down pat before moving into the artistic; in other words:  Get your exposure, composition, etc nailed and then try the 'artistic' approach to processing.  Walk before you run.  As well, the gallery section (where I have moved this thread) is the appropriate location for posting images for C&C.
> ...



I'm responding the sentence that is in *bold*.

IMO, when one creates an "art" photograph, it behooves the poster to either explain the purpose of the art or let the art stand on its own as self-explanatory.  

So in this shot we see what we see, but we do not know your intent regarding the desired reaction by the viewer.  If you want a "dreamy" feeling, then you should say so.  If you want a "sentimental" picture, then you expect the casual viewer to feel the same sentiment as you do, which is unrealistic, IMO.  If you don't know what reaction you want in the viewer, then how can you make an "art" photo that elicits a certain reaction in the viewer?  

Meanwhile, most of us do not perceive the emotional reaction you desire, so we comment on the technical side of the photograph.  Little did we know that you made the technical "errors" on purpose.


----------



## BGeise (May 14, 2014)

Designer said:


> I'm responding the sentence that is in bold.
> 
> IMO, when one creates an "art" photograph, it behooves the poster to either explain the purpose of the art or let the art stand on its own as self-explanatory.
> 
> ...



Well put


----------



## yahgiggle (May 14, 2014)

BGeise said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > I'm responding the sentence that is in bold.
> ...




Who here posts a photo and says every little thing they did was done on purpose no one so why would you expect her to
also she was taking everything and everyone's comments fine, the problem only started when she was told to learn the basics, but of cause you guys would know all this if you had read the whole post, comming in 1/2 way and putting your 2 cents in without reading everyone's comments just makes you look like ass holes. lets not be ass holes and start helping people, what was wrong with as asking her what her intent was meant to be with how her photo looked. then if we can offer help do so if not move onto other posts where we can help.


----------



## TheFantasticG (May 15, 2014)

YoungPhotoGirl said:


> Ok I do have a wider one with the paws in, might give that an edit. I want one to hang on my wall




Can I see that one??


----------



## pgriz (May 15, 2014)

Looking at this image, your affection for the dog is clear.  From the point of view of a stranger that doesn't know the dog, there are a few things could help create a stronger bond.  In no particular order...
1)  The dog's gaze is off to the left.  It would have helped create a better link with the viewer if the dog's gaze was at the camera/viewer.
2)  The focus was on the dog's eyes, but this ended up putting the nose somewhat out of focus.  If the point of focus would have been just in front of the eyes, then they would have been within the depth-of-field, while the front would have been more clear.
3)  The perspective could have been a little better if you had shifted the camera about half a foot or so to your left, so that the bright spot on the left would have been minimized, and the image would flow better from the head of the dog towards the rest of its body.  
What has worked in this image is the shallow depth-of-field (with the caveat of #2 in mind), the low level, and the brightness that surrounds the dog, making the image look dreamlike.  Overall, if the camera was at the point that the dog seems to have been looking at, the image would have been stronger (in my opinion, of course).


----------

