Photograph critiques and reviews

Digital technology has made photography easier to participate in and has encouraged more people to hone their skills. A great way to do this is by having other folks with a similar interest review your photographs and offer their ideas and critiques on what you have captured. This exposes us all to different thoughts and techniques that we might otherwise never consider. It is also a good way to have a specific question about the elements in your composition answered.

This thread is for posting photographs that you want to have technically critiqued, discussed and dissected. It is generally considered to be very bad form (also against the rules on CoS) to post someone else's image that you have edited back into their thread without their permission. By posting an image here, you are agreeing to allow your peers to manipulate a copy of your image to be re-posted back into this thread ONLY, and ONLY for instructional purposes. You are assigning NO other rights to your images. If you are editing someone else's photograph, you are agreeing to post that image and edit ONLY back into this thread and agree that you have NO other rights to that image.

Please be respectful and polite. Offer helpful suggestions and always respect the wishes of the owner of any image.

Of course, all rules of the forum are in place.

To start it off, here are a couple of shots from this morning. I often photograph flowers, but usually only as a background for bugs that I am really shooting. How do you usually shoot flowers? Which of these would you consider 'better' and why? Any advise on editing?

http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/7746rose1-med.jpg

http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/7746rose2-med.jpg

Both of them are really beautiful! I love how incredibly detailed they ae, how each tiny water droplet can be seen. The colors are gorgeous as well.

As for which is better, I'd have to go with the first one. I like the colors on the second, however they seem to blur into each other at the bottom, loosing some detail. Not sure if that was on purpose or not, but I'm not too fond of it. With the first, I love how some of the background can be seen, and that the subject is slightly off center. I also like how the center of the image pops, while the rest is a bit more faded. The blurriness of the petals to the right works for me here, because unlike in the first, you can still see some distinction, individual petals, while the other all just sort of fades together. However, I just love the way the top left corner of the second image looks. I'm not sure why, something about the coloring is so lovely. The rest of that seems too higly contrasted. It looses some of the detail.

Also, I would like to say that I am not a photographer by any means. I cxan only dream of taking photos like this. I just hope my comments helped in some sort of way.

Thanks for the reply, 8m57w6.

I like the colors on the second, however they seem to blur into each other at the bottom, loosing some detail. Not sure if that was on purpose or not, but I'm not too fond of it.

Here is that image first, followed by the same shot edited taking your advice in mind. Do you like that better? Is that what you meant by the details? Does it need more?

Original Image:
http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/7746rose2-med.jpg

Edited Image:
http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/7746rose2c-med.jpg

Also, I would like to say that I am not a photographer by any means. I cxan only dream of taking photos like this. I just hope my comments helped in some sort of way.

Well, I take pictures for everyone to enjoy, photographer or not. I am interested in what everyone sees when they look at my photos. I appreciate an honest opinion, and your comments DO help. As for you dreaming of taking photos like this, it is only a matter of doing it. I use no external equipment in most of my shots, just the camera. The most important things are patience and desire to learn. When I first started, I showed my photographs to anyone and everyone, photographers, friends, family. Listening to what they said and studying photographs of others is how I developed my own style of shooting. You absolutely CAN do it! That is why I started this thread. Post your shots, and listen to what others see in them.

I think the edited shot is lovely!! It's so much easier to see the color variations and the individual petals and their folds and such. The first just seemed a bit too highly contrasted, something was lost. The colors of both versions are beautiful, though. That top section looks almost like crystal.

Thanks for the comments, 8m57w6. I like the second one better as well.

Okay, how about this one. I don't normally shoot these type of shots, but something about this truck in the middle of the woods seemed forlorn and sad, so I tried to capture that feeling. Any thoughts?

http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/7746truck-med.jpg

It gives off a really somber, and almost spooky vibe!

Those first 2 flower shots.

Well, I'm biased, because I personally dislike flower photography, just very played out.

But overall, I think they are nice shots.
Only thing I would have to suggest is trying to get a little sharper focus.
Unless a very soft feel is what you were going for.

It gives off a really somber, and almost spooky vibe!

That is what I thought, as well. It just seemed like the truck was sadly waiting for someone to come drive it away.

Those first 2 flower shots.

Well, I'm biased, because I personally dislike flower photography, just very played out.

But overall, I think they are nice shots.
Only thing I would have to suggest is trying to get a little sharper focus.
Unless a very soft feel is what you were going for.

Yes, it is very hard to find a new way to capture a flower. I was trying to convey the nature of the petal folds, without conveying their texture. It is very hard for me to think like this, since most of my work is so dependent upon super fine focus and depth of field, so I have a hard time knowing where to stop when I am intentionally trying not to be so sharp in those areas.

Thanks for the comments, 8m57w6. I like the second one better as well.

Okay, how about this one. I don't normally shoot these type of shots, but something about this truck in the middle of the woods seemed forlorn and sad, so I tried to capture that feeling. Any thoughts?

I'd like to see the truck in context. This photo doesn't really show that it's all alone...

I may be a little biased since I am the wife of xraydude but I have to add some comments about the old truck in the woods picture.

What I like best about this photo besides the mood is that every time I look at it, I pick out new details which leads me to imagine what the last owner of this truck was like and how long ago the truck was abandoned. For instance, I see a gun rack with cobwebs trailing down, an old Louisiana inspection sticker, and a really old plastic bucket that has cracked and broken away with age. It has obviously been abandoned since you can see a tree and lots of brush outside the window. The truth is, I do know who the previous owner was but I can let my imagination take over and create a whole story about the truck and its owner even if I hadn't known who owned it.

I'd like to see the truck in context. This photo doesn't really show that it's all alone...

Thanks for that, Tiberius. I'm going to revisit this site and see how I can frame this shot to get that same mood but a better context.

since most of my work is so dependent upon super fine focus and depth of field, so I have a hard time knowing where to stop when I am intentionally trying not to be so sharp in those areas.

Yeah, yeah, I know all about depth of field and selective focus, I was referring to the parts that are actually in focus, saying that it still looks a little soft.

Yeah, yeah, I know all about depth of field and selective focus, I was referring to the parts that are actually in focus, saying that it still looks a little soft.

I think that xraydude was trying to say that he didn't want to capture the textures of the flower's petals but was trying to create a soft shot that still had good contrast between the folds of the petals so that they don't all blend together. (Correct me if I'm wrong xraydude) Too much sharpness would not achieve that goal. I think that the minimal sharpness in the middle, fading out to softness on the edges of the flower does it justice and I find the water droplets just as interesting as the flower.

To me, a rose evokes certain images - a sweet smell wafting on a cool breeze, a dewy soft petal that I want to bury my nose in or rub across my cheek, and a freshness like morning dew - in short, serenity and sometimes romance. His photo definitely brings these things to my mind.

Yeah, yeah, I know all about depth of field and selective focus, I was referring to the parts that are actually in focus, saying that it still looks a little soft.

Actually, none of the flower is in exact focus since I was focusing on a vacant spot that was between two of the petals, so yes, it should be a little soft. It was an intentional soft focus. With the lens I was using (actually a reversed lens) opened up, my DOF was shallow enough to allow me to put none of the petals in exact focus while keeping the sharpest focused areas central, rather than focus in front of or behind.

That being said, though, the mechanics of the shot aren't important by themselves. I am interested in whether the technique I used actually helped to emphasize those features that are the essence (in my mind) of the shot. So, my question is, if I shifted the focus or increased the DOF, would it still convey the same thing? Hmmm.... I'll see if there are still some blooms on that rose tomorrow and experiment some more.