# Please review my pictures (first time on forums)



## USNaturePhotos (May 26, 2012)

Hey all,

I just found this forums and was wondering if you all could review some of my past photos. I just upgraded my lenses and camera, and am amazed at the difference from my old work.

5/26/2012 - US Photographs

Thanks,
Erik


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (May 26, 2012)

Welcome to the forum.


It's really best to post pictures you would like critique on. Visit the Gallery Section and wander through th posts to see how others do it. There is a sticky at the top of this forum section to help with posting pictures.


As for your images, you seem to center everything. Google photographic composition, and start on your long journey of learning the theories of composition and the elements of design, to improve your knowledge of the visual language.


Digital Photography Tips and Tutorials


----------



## USNaturePhotos (May 26, 2012)

Ya I spent three hours trying to post to your gallery, doesn't like me. I will work on it again later.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (May 26, 2012)

You don't have to use the gallery. You can use links between image tags.

[ IMG ] URL.jpeg [ /IMG ]


----------



## USNaturePhotos (May 26, 2012)

Ah nice!

Well here are my best three photos.


----------



## Cpi2011 (May 27, 2012)

I am so surprised after visit your post its rally amazing photos set. I like your post very much. Thanks a lot for sharing !!


----------



## USNaturePhotos (May 27, 2012)

Thanks man I appreciate it! I have a ton more work to do though. Any critique's or suggestions would be greatly appreciated!


----------



## Ernicus (May 27, 2012)

I like the bumble.  a bit over exposed for my liking, still cool though.


----------



## Jaemie (May 27, 2012)

I like the water in #2 and the warm haze in #3.


----------



## Buckster (May 27, 2012)

Ernicus said:


> I like the bumble.  a bit over exposed for my liking, still cool though.


?  Doesn't look overexposed to me, and the histogram doesn't indicate it either.  When's the last time you calibrated?


----------



## The_Traveler (May 27, 2012)

I think you need to spend more time deciding what is the important thing you are looking at and then follow these three rules:
       Put the important things in important places
       Compose to minimize dead space and things that distract from the center of interest - the important things
       Process to minimize faults and maximize good points.


#2 & #3 have no real center of interest - i.e. nothing that I know I'm supposed to be looking at.
#2 - nothing really is the center of interest, the yellows and greens are oversaturated and lose all detail
#3 the foreground is OOF; the background is in focus (I think) but obscured by brightness.

#1 is in reasonable focus (I think) but, the bumblebee draws my eye and the rest of the image just hangs around.
why not get in tighter to make the image more dynamic?


----------



## pgriz (May 27, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> I think you need to spend more time deciding what is the important thing you are looking at and then follow these three rules:
> *Put the important things in important places
> Compose to minimize dead space and things that distract from the center of interest - the important things
> Process to minimize faults and maximize good points.
> ...



A photographic degree in three simple sentences.  Very nice, Lew.  I'm tempted to adopt them for my first ever sig.  What do you say?


----------



## The_Traveler (May 27, 2012)

pgriz said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > I think you need to spend more time deciding what is the important thing you are looking at and then follow these three rules:
> ...



I would be honored that a skilled, intelligent and discerning photographer such as yourself thinks so. :lmao:

I've been using these three 'rules' as the basis of a presentation I have give to several (actually three but 'several' sounds more impressive) local camera clubs and have been struggling with the idea of writing the 'lecture' as a document with illustrations.  The presentation also includes a part of how to look at images and understand why they don't work and how to chart a post-processing path to improve them.   

It will be a lot of work (because I have to get permission to use examples I've just clipped from the web) and I am a little hesitant because I am concerned that, in blind egotism, I am over-estimating my abilities in analysis and critique (large yell of agreement from crowd along with cries of 'you are a jerk').

Any response?


----------



## USNaturePhotos (May 27, 2012)

Buckster said:


> Ernicus said:
> 
> 
> > I like the bumble.  a bit over exposed for my liking, still cool though.
> ...



The issue wasn't with exposure, it was the calibration. I forgot to make the change in Adobe to use my camera's landscape color calibration.


----------



## USNaturePhotos (May 27, 2012)

@The_Traveler - I have made some changes as you suggested. Thank God for 24 megapixels to work with! I fixed the cropping and the color balance and I think it looks 100x better.


----------



## Buckster (May 27, 2012)

USNaturePhotos said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Ernicus said:
> ...


LOLWUT?  "Landscape color calibration"?  That's a new one on me...


----------



## USNaturePhotos (May 27, 2012)

Buckster said:


> USNaturePhotos said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



Its a setting in Adobe Lightroom, it correlates with the picture style settings on my Canon


----------



## Buckster (May 27, 2012)

USNaturePhotos said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > USNaturePhotos said:
> ...


I'm looking at Lightroom on another monitor, and I don't see that anywhere.  Help me out - where should I be looking?

By the way, it still doesn't look overexposed to me on my calibrated monitors, and the histogram still doesn't indicate that it's overexposed either.


----------



## USNaturePhotos (May 27, 2012)

Buckster said:


> USNaturePhotos said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



Open Lightroom 4, click on develop, go to camera calibration, then click on profile. It'll grab all the color calibrations for the profile selected based off of the picture style you choose on your camera.


----------



## pgriz (May 27, 2012)

> I would be honored that a skilled, intelligent and discerning photographer such as yourself thinks so. :lmao:



You flatter me.  But I flatter easy, mainly because I'd like to believe it. 



> I've been using these three 'rules' as the basis of a presentation I have give to several (actually three but 'several' sounds more impressive) local camera clubs and have been struggling with the idea of writing the 'lecture' as a document with illustrations.  The presentation also includes a part of how to look at images and understand why they don't work and how to chart a post-processing path to improve them.
> 
> It will be a lot of work (because I have to get permission to use examples I've just clipped from the web) and I am a little hesitant because I am concerned that, in blind egotism, I am over-estimating my abilities in analysis and critique (large yell of agreement from crowd along with cries of 'you are a jerk').



Well, I've observed that being called a "jerk" doesn't even need to have any cause.  So, that kind of response can be sloughed off easily enough.

Joking aside, here's an idea that may help get your point across.  Flash an image to your audience and allow it to be visible for only 5 seconds.  Then have each person write down their impressions - what did they see first, where did they look after, what got their attention.  Have them compare their impressions.  I am willing to bet that the majority will have fairly similar reactions, and will describe more or less the same sequence, in the case of good images.  Poor images, on the other hand, will have much more of a scatter of reactions.  This will reinforce the idea that good images are usually simple, with a clear visual flow, and few distractions.  Oh, and don't use one of Guiness Man's images.  THOSE will have very predictable responses from most of the guys, and no-one will learn much.  

Some time back, I was fortunate to participate in a workshop by a very talented photographer, who specializes in studio and glamour work.  She had her participants take a series of photos and then each participant showed their best shot.  That was deconstructed to determine if the objective of the photographer was communicated.  Then, based on this feedback, a second series of photos was taken.  Again, the same process of deconstruction and examination.  By the time the third series was taken, the images were light-years ahead of what was taken in the morning, in terms of polish, clarity, and effectiveness.  She focused on essentially the same set of rules that you did, and emphasized that the vision needs to guide the construction of the image.  It was one of the best workshops I ever witnessed.  I have tried to apply her ideas in my own work, and it is so tempting to jump the process and press that shutter and capture the image.  But taking the time to study the image, and grinding away the stuff that doesn't need to be there takes time and a lof of focus.


----------



## Buckster (May 27, 2012)

USNaturePhotos said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > USNaturePhotos said:
> ...


Ahhh... Okay, thanks!


----------



## ChristianGrattan (May 27, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> #1 is in reasonable focus (I think) but, the bumblebee draws my eye and the rest of the image just hangs around.
> why not get in tighter to make the image more dynamic?
> 
> View attachment 9800



I agree that cropping like the image above would make for a clearer composition. 

I have to say that I am into #3.  I find it a bit subversive and almost dark.  Was this intentional.  I am guessing not so much seeing the other shots.  The thing that I am interested in in #3 is the space behind the flowers, the woods where the solar flare is.  There is a tension to this shot that draws me in.


----------



## Ernicus (May 27, 2012)

Buckster said:


> Ernicus said:
> 
> 
> > I like the bumble.  a bit over exposed for my liking, still cool though.
> ...



on a laptop...so never.  lol


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (May 27, 2012)

I agree with CG. #3 is a wall hanger!


----------



## Joel_W (May 27, 2012)

The Traveler gave you some rock solid advice, and it was for free :thumbup:

Each of your 3 posted pictures have basic compositional problems. Your re-edit of picture #1 is better, but your crop is a little too much. I would leave a little more "breathing room" around the bee.


----------



## Ernicus (May 27, 2012)

Buckster said:


> USNaturePhotos said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



I agree on teh outlook of the histrogram.  I often confuse "overexposed" with something that's too "bright" for my liking or just too bright in general.  I just used the wrong word in my original reply.


----------



## Overread (Jun 1, 2012)

Your photo has been nominated for Photo of the Month
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...may-2012-photo-month-nomination-thread-3.html


----------

