Critique How'd I go with these?

[LonerMatt]

What do you think? What would you change? What worked and what didn't?

Secondary Dunes by Mr.Dunne, on Flickr

Spring 2 by Mr.Dunne, on Flickr

No Respect by Mr.Dunne, on Flickr

Forever Alone by Mr.Dunne, on Flickr

Rules of Summer by Mr.Dunne, on Flickr

 

[Muzzieman]

Personally I think the crops are wrong on all of them, the first image has very little of interest in the foreground and is basically all foreground. The 2nd is ok but the flower is too far down the image. Same for the third and I would like to see a little more beach on the last.

 

[ChrisR]

I think these panoramic image shapes are very hard to compose for; the simpler rule of thirds, leading lines etc are much harder to apply successfully. I think you need interest at various parts of the frame, and a way to connect them.

In the first, it seems like the main interest is the foreground. Perhaps better light on that and a tad of separation might work?

The second I quite like, but the flower is badly blown; I guess it's over exposed and the information all lost. For digital "expose to the right" seems the rule, ie make the exposure so the histogram almost (but not quite) touches the right hand edge. Here I think you've exposed beyond the right, and the histogram would have shown a pile of over-exposed pixels. Nevertheless, I like the interaction between the in-focus flower and the out of focus background on this one.

No3... too central left to right, and the sign too low in the frame? The twigs or whatever bottom right suggest why you might have framed it this way (also to get the birds a reasonable size), but I don't think it's worked out.

No 4 maybe works out best of the set. The figure is perhaps a bit close to the bottom though nicely place left to right; I'd suggest experimenting with a crop that left out some of the left and some of the top, which would make the white wash area more prominent. That might work to bring the eye back to the lonely figure, rather than getting a bit lost in the blue lines in the top half as now. But there's a nice atmosphere and good colours.

Not sure no 5 works at all, although the diagonal nature of the beach and waves should offer some potential. It's all a bit parallel. The kids' footprints enter from bottom right, not a natural lead-in point for the eye. They look like kids having fun, which is nice.

But in the end, these are your shots, and if they do what you want, that's all that counts. The vision that can see no 2 and no 4 is worth nurturing, though!

 

[LonerMatt]

Personally I think the crops are wrong on all of them, the first image has very little of interest in the foreground and is basically all foreground. The 2nd is ok but the flower is too far down the image. Same for the third and I would like to see a little more beach on the last.

Thanks for the feedback about placement and cropping.

With the first image, I really liked the way that the light (sunrise) was causing this extreme yellow on the plants, while there was still quite a lot of shadow. I was hoping the difference in foreground/background demonstrated this, but I guess it didn't!

I think these panoramic image shapes are very hard to compose for; the simpler rule of thirds, leading lines etc are much harder to apply successfully. I think you need interest at various parts of the frame, and a way to connect them.

In the first, it seems like the main interest is the foreground. Perhaps better light on that and a tad of separation might work?

What do you mean by separation?

The second I quite like, but the flower is badly blown; I guess it's over exposed and the information all lost. For digital "expose to the right" seems the rule, ie make the exposure so the histogram almost (but not quite) touches the right hand edge. Here I think you've exposed beyond the right, and the histogram would have shown a pile of over-exposed pixels. Nevertheless, I like the interaction between the in-focus flower and the out of focus background on this one.

I think you're right - it is a bit overblown, but I was excited to have a subject where the colours were matched in the background. I probably oversaturated it as well, looking at it now that's how I feelt.

No3... too central left to right, and the sign too low in the frame? The twigs or whatever bottom right suggest why you might have framed it this way (also to get the birds a reasonable size), but I don't think it's worked out.

You're right: it was a choice between having the sign in the sky, or seeing bushes/trees as well as the sign. I prefered the idea of it sitting in the blue, but it's probably not in the best area.

No 4 maybe works out best of the set. The figure is perhaps a bit close to the bottom though nicely place left to right; I'd suggest experimenting with a crop that left out some of the left and some of the top, which would make the white wash area more prominent. That might work to bring the eye back to the lonely figure, rather than getting a bit lost in the blue lines in the top half as now. But there's a nice atmosphere and good colours.

Thank you!

Not sure no 5 works at all, although the diagonal nature of the beach and waves should offer some potential. It's all a bit parallel. The kids' footprints enter from bottom right, not a natural lead-in point for the eye. They look like kids having fun, which is nice.

I kind of liked the contrast of tiny kids having fun, and the very vast, powerful ocean. I'm not sure if the photo captures that juxtaposition well (it probably doesn't) but that's what I was aiming for .

But in the end, these are your shots, and if they do what you want, that's all that counts. The vision that can see no 2 and no 4 is worth nurturing, though!

Much appreciated, I always post the work I'm most confused about for critique, and you've given me a lot to think about, really value your help

 

[ChrisR]

With the first image, I really liked the way that the light (sunrise) was causing this extreme yellow on the plants, while there was still quite a lot of shadow. I was hoping the difference in foreground/background demonstrated this, but I guess it didn't!

What do you mean by separation?

Hi Matt, I guess a number of ways: tonal separation, with the background lighter (or darker?), the foreground brighter, having the background more out of focus, changing the angle so that the foreground stands out a bit more, etc. I can see you were aiming at this from your first comment. Looking back on it, I think you're almost there.

I couldn't see what lens or stop you were using from the EXIF data on flickr, so I'm guessing it's a legacy lens on an adapter? But opening up a bit more might have increased the focal separation. At 1/320 (IIRC) you've presumably got a stop or so to go before being swamped by light.

A second look also suggested that perhaps you waited either just too long or not long enough; having the white heather (or whatever) fully in the sunlight might have helped (but might of course not be consistent with the vision). BTW, please take my comments with a large grain of salt as I'm not claiming any expertise here at all!

I really would like to see a revised crop of the lonely figure, though! Good luck, anyway.

 

[LonerMatt]

Here's a re-vised crop, ChrisR - what do you think? I tried to go for equal sand/sea and hoped that the diagonal line intersecting the image would be something cool to follow, with the figure really being the focal point and breaking that constant line.

Forever Alone Recrop by Mr.Dunne, on Flickr