The Kitchen
- Thread starter gparr
- Start date
- Tagged users None
AquaWorldPSC
Well-Known Member
Great Idea!
We are in the process of rebuilding our website and we will be doing a slideshow in the center of the Home page, it will be one animal from each department in the slideshow (Ex. Snake for Reptile department and etc.)
As a start,
What do you guys think of Geico the Gecko?
We are in the process of rebuilding our website and we will be doing a slideshow in the center of the Home page, it will be one animal from each department in the slideshow (Ex. Snake for Reptile department and etc.)
As a start,
What do you guys think of Geico the Gecko?
KLR, please read the first post, regarding the rules on how many photos to submit and size requirements.
akabryanhall
2500 Club Member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2009
- Messages
- 2,925
- Reaction score
- 185
Thanks Gary! It was hand held which would account for the focus issues.
Here is another one I quite like
Here is another one I quite like
Very articulate critiques. I am completely amazed at how you can see these pics the way you do.
I am still in kindergarten photography wise but trying to learn as much as I can. This was taken in manual without a flash using my Cannon t2i with the lens it came with.
Here goes. pics of cameras. Is that a no no right out of the gate?
I am still in kindergarten photography wise but trying to learn as much as I can. This was taken in manual without a flash using my Cannon t2i with the lens it came with.
Here goes. pics of cameras. Is that a no no right out of the gate?
pumarjr
Reef-a-Holic!
Pumar,
You're right, the images are out of focus. Sorry to delete, but submissions need to comply with the rules set forth in the first post of the thread so all have an equal opportunity. Thanks for offering your thoughts. Please repeat when one of the images is submitted.
Gary
You're right, the images are out of focus. Sorry to delete, but submissions need to comply with the rules set forth in the first post of the thread so all have an equal opportunity. Thanks for offering your thoughts. Please repeat when one of the images is submitted.
Gary
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP
Sorry I'm a bit behind. Traveling this week for the paying job and driving and writing critiques is a bad combination. I will get caught up tonight/tomorrow.
Gary
Gary
OP
OP
Not quite sure where to start with this image so this is going to be rather random.
--There isn't really anything in focus. While the fly is closest to sharp, there is enough camera and/or leaf movement to slightly blur the fly.
--I'm not sure where you're going with the composition. In truth, there really isn't a composition to this image. Your main subject is in the center of the image. It's better if you employ the rule of thirds.
--Your depth of field is much too narrow. At this distance it should at least encompass the fly.
--You need to decide what role the leaf is going to play in the image. It either should fill the frame entirely and serve as the background or there should be some reason for not filling the frame. As composed, my eye moves right past the out-of-focus fly and wants to know what I'm supposed to see behind the leaf. When I discover that there is nothing there, my interest in the image is lost.
--Other than the blown out areas on the fly, the brightest areas, and the areas that attract the viewer, are at the bottom of the leaf, in both left corners, and behind the leaf. All of those areas pull the eye away from the fly.
--In the upper left there is a circle that is a reflection or OOF water droplet. It's distracting and should be cloned out.
--The lighting is generally too harsh, making it difficult to view the image. Some type of diffuser would help.
Basically, you have a snapshot of a fly on a leaf, but you do not have a photograph that is going to captivate the viewer.
Gary
OP
OP
As an image for your website, this will probably work. It is not a photograph, which is what we are discussing in this thread. It's generally out of focus, particularly the toes, which command the most attention. Since there is no background, I can't place the animal in space and therefore can't comment on composition. The lighting is even.
Gary
OP
OP
I like the fact that you used the rule of thirds to compose this and that you were able to achieve a good exposure on the dark bird, given that the majority of the image is very bright and hot. Clearly your camera was metering off of the bird and letting the rest of the scene overexpose.
The bird is not in focus, which puts the image in the delete category. You also cut off the tail just enough that it looks like a mistake/oversite. If you're going to use only part of an animal's body, compose it such that it looks like you intended to do so.
This is a classic example of why it's better to shoot early or late when it's a sunny day. The bright sun is causing strong top-down light that makes the top of the bird hot and bright and buries the detail on the underside of the body. The worst thing about the lighting is that it causes everything around the bird to be very bright, and much of it blown out. When that happens, your eye keeps traveling to the bright areas and deriving more pain than pleasure from the effort. You force your eyes to look at the bird because you know that's the purpose of the image, but it's too much work to stay away from the bright areas so the image breaks down overall.
The dead wood behind the bird is also a distraction.
With better lighting, focusing, and a little more care in angle and composition, this would have been a very nice shot.
Gary
Here's another one I'd like to get a critique on. I really just don't like the sky in the background, I'm unsure in photoshop how to fix that, hard to do with the bokeh amount aswell. I'm sure there is a way though.
Last edited:
OP
OP
The flower is not in focus, because the lens wasn't focused on it, the camera moved, and/or the flower moved. This puts the image in the delete category.
That aside, I see what you're trying to do as a composition and applaud the effort. Unfortunately, it doesn't work because the bright leaves in the background are much brighter than the flower and more than dominate the image. It hurts my eyes to look at the background, but I can't avoid it because the leaves are so bright.
Another composition problem is that the flower is facing toward the edge of the frame, pointing your eye out of the image. The object is to keep the eye in the frame and, using the rule of thirds, force it to explore the image. I look at the flower, look at what it's pointing to, have visual pain if I look elsewhere in the image, and end up wanting to move on to another photo.
Try this again with a tripod, much more even/softer light, and the flower to the right. I think you'll like it better. With the flower hanging down, you also might try including less of the leaves and buds and using the same composition idea in a vertical shot.
Gary
akabryanhall
2500 Club Member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2009
- Messages
- 2,925
- Reaction score
- 185
Awesome feedback Gary thank you!!
OP
OP
A small portion of the lens is in focus. It's not tack sharp, but it's in focus and that's a huge first step. The exposure on the metal is good and the blown highlights are kept to an absolute minimum, which is not alway easy to do. Beyond that, the image needs some help.
Since you're showing more than just the lens and the immediate area around it, the framing/cropping is much too tight. It's not giving the protrusions from the lens body any room to breathe and overall the shot is visually uncomfortable. The tight framing is also causing problems elsewhere. It puts metal parts at the top, left, and bottom of the left-hand-side of the image at the edges. Since those parts are almost as bright as the lens, the eye jumps to them to see what's going on with those elements.
Because you have such an extreme difference in exposure value between the metal and the black body, and your DOF is so shallow, the metal parts that are dominating the image end up framing an out of focus area of visual mush to the left of the lens. I want there to be some defined features in that little cave, but they're not there. Also competing for attention are the highlights on the bellows at the top. They don't contribute anything, but they're bright so my eye naturally wants to explore them.
The end result is that I can't enjoy what should be a pleasing image of a vintage camera.
To improve this, re-shoot with much more depth of field, back up to give the camera some room in the frame, bounce some light into that cave so we can see some detail, and work to eliminate distracting elements at the edges.
Gary
OP
OP
Austin, I've studied just about all of the images you've posted in recent weeks. You need to work real hard at getting your image focus tack sharp. I don't recall more than a couple of shots that I can say are tack sharp. Getting the main subject in an image in focus is an essential first step. An out-of-focus image is useless.
You're right about the background. It's horrible and ruins the shot. That large area of blown-out sky dominates the image and makes me want to move on to something else. It looks like all you had to do is move to your left a bit and turn the couple the same amount and you could have filled the frame with foliage and eliminated the problem.
Your positioning of the couple is very well done and you eliminated/cropped out any mess that was created where their bodies touch each other below the chest. They are well situated in the frame so that their faces are the primary elements and the surroundings are minimized. The framing makes for a very pleasing portrait. Your exposure is also appropriate.
It's clearly a bright day and they seem to be squinting a bit. That should tell you that you need to find a better place for them so they can look normal. On sunny days, when people are in shadows and the surroundings are bright, start learning how to use fill flash. Also, have them tilt the tops of their heads toward each other just slightly. It helps to visually unify the couple.
Also, interact with them a bit to get them to relax and offer more natural expressions. They look rather strained/unsure about what to do.
Beyond all of that, I'll repeat again that you need to produce tack-sharp images. Maybe the original images are in focus, but it's not showing when you post them. This one is close, but I want to see crisp definition in their eyes, hair, and his beard. Are you shooting in RAW and not sharpening the images?
Keep working at it. You seem to have some skill.
Gary
Yeah, my images look sharp on my computer screen, however, when I post them from Facebook, I think since I don't upload in High Res, that my image quality is degraded, and I'm pretty sure that Facebook's photo hosting server isn't the best which also downgrades the images some. But, on the other hand, I do not have the best lenses, I have the 70-200L at this point, and that is the only L glass I have, the other lenses are normal canon glass which maybe producing a bit of unsharp images, I do believe that my experience is holding me back from getting tack sharp images aswell. Not just the computer and Facebook settings.
And yes, I could have moved them over, I didn't realize how badly it would effect the image till I uploaded it. That is such a newb mistake.
Their eyes are naturally squint like that. I had black umbrellas blocking all sunlight from their faces to help prevent it, I can send you the other images if you would like me to. I am learning fill flash currently, just got some articles on it today, learning zoom, power, and stuff like that currently!
I do shoot in RAW format aswell, but I did not sharpen them in photoshop. Another newb mistake on my end.
Will my images get sharper if I get better glass than the 50mm 1.4 and the 50mm 1.8? As I said above I've got the 70-200,but it's not best for portraits. I'm looking at the 24-70 2.8L lens for portraits. It seems to be a great lens for anyone to have.
Thanks for the response on my images. It's helping alot.
I do shoot in
And yes, I could have moved them over, I didn't realize how badly it would effect the image till I uploaded it. That is such a newb mistake.
Their eyes are naturally squint like that. I had black umbrellas blocking all sunlight from their faces to help prevent it, I can send you the other images if you would like me to. I am learning fill flash currently, just got some articles on it today, learning zoom, power, and stuff like that currently!
I do shoot in RAW format aswell, but I did not sharpen them in photoshop. Another newb mistake on my end.
Will my images get sharper if I get better glass than the 50mm 1.4 and the 50mm 1.8? As I said above I've got the 70-200,but it's not best for portraits. I'm looking at the 24-70 2.8L lens for portraits. It seems to be a great lens for anyone to have.
Thanks for the response on my images. It's helping alot.
I do shoot in
