PHOTO: Another three pre-uploads

Displaying 1 to 5 of 5 matches.
BrasilNut1
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Tue May 14, 2013 2:38PM
1) Church Tower: I purposely shot against the sun here to have the sky blown out to give it a mystical sort of feel, bad idea? f11, 1/160 sec, iso 100.


 


2) Tree lined path: Shot this at iso 100, f11, 1/50 sec. Noisy? 


 


3) Ecology: f16, iso 100, 1/40 sec.  


 


Thanks for feedback. 


 


BrasilNut1

(Edited on 2013-05-14 14:50:28 by donald_gruener)
donald_gruener
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer SpotlightMember has had a File Of The WeekForum Moderator
Posted Tue May 14, 2013 3:03PM
1. Church tower. The sky is not completely blown and mystical, you just have one blown area that looks wrong next to the rest of the blue sky/clouds. The tower has some detail but is poorly lit, but is not effectively silhouetted either. This is an excessively common subject that isn't really high demand. This will be a lighting rejection for sure, possibly without resubmit.

2. Tree-lined path. Could have potential but it's overexposed, the white balance is off on the blue side, and it's lacking contrast. Additionally, the slightly skewed composition is uncomfortable and just looks sloppy (sorry ). Finally, it's not sharp, it has some camera-shake blurring. This will be a lighting + focus rejection with no resubmit.

3. Ecology (?) This one is struggling conceptually. You called it "ecology" presumably because of the wind turbine barely visible in the background? but what we see really is playground equipment - but this doesn't work as a photo of the playground either because the equipment is awkwardly cropped off and has some unattractive wear & tear that would need to be retouched. The lighting is flat & uninspiring. There is a lot of compression artifacting throughout the image. This would be a lighting + artifacting rejection, or possibly just plain "not suitable as stock."


(sorry, I know it's not fun to get critiques like that...but the goal here is to help you learn to spot these flaws in your own photos, and eventually avoid them altogether when shooting...keep at it! )
BrasilNut1
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Tue May 14, 2013 3:12PM
I appreciate critiques as I need to improve!  
BrasilNut1
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Tue May 14, 2013 3:19PM
OK, let's forget the playground, does this "ecology" shot have any potential?
Difydave
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed May 15, 2013 3:18AM

It's doesn't really show ecology. If you have to title something to say what it is then it's failed as a concept.


What you actually have here is some out of focus ducks on some man made ponds with an incidental , and common enough these days to be unremarkable, wind turbine in the background.  My eye keeps getting drawn to the ducks and that's why I take them as the subject. The whole image is fairly flat and dull lighting wise too.


I think if you're going to take these type of shots, you need to think exactly what the subject is and what you're trying to say. You probably need to go to the location at a time when the light and sky is better. Early morning or evening on a day with better weather psosibly.


 
This thread has been locked.
Displaying 1 to 5 of 5 matches.
Not a member?Join