Schloss Nymphenburg

Number 1 and 2 I like, in particular number 1. It has that cold, but sunny afternoon feeling to it, coupled with the view of such lovely scenery and very impressive architecture, make for a great shot.
Number 2 I was unsure at first glance, but on second glance it's more appealing, however, my eye just doesn't want to settle anywehre except for the wiring just under the roof on the right hand side.
Numbers 3 and 4I can see your reasoning behind them (especially number 3), but I'm afraid they don't do anything for me personally.
Number 5, if I am to be honest, I wouldn't have expected to come from your usually high calibre fingers, so to speak, and I think lets your obvious skills down. Upon closer inspection, thinking about why I'm not keen on it, I think it may be a combination of lack of perfect symmetry (step to the right ever so slightly), it's slightly offcentre (probably intended), and I feel there's too much sky and the image doesn't feel 'balanced'.
As you know, it's all subjective, and I am trying to be as constructive as possible, because I know you don't like to hear gushing praise all the time.

Looks like you're settling in, in your new homeland, with much nicer weather than us over here too :thumb:

Edit: Forgot to add my customary smutty reply.....Nice place name :D
 
All good stuff. My only query is the dark halo round the edge of the building in #1. Is it natural shadow or is down to post processing?

regards
 
My eye is drawn to the strange patterns in the window recesses in #2. They don't seem to tie up with reflections from window blinds as the cause of them.

Is it a gatehouse or something - i thought schloss meant lock ?
 
All good shots (again!)

Like Marcel, I think the last one is the weakest of the lot, it just doesn't stand out in any way. I also would've spent a couple of minutes cloning out the stray wire in the second one. But I'm a bit finnicky sometimes!
 
Pics 1 and 3 for me. I like the symmetry of 1 and the abstract quality of 3
 
#3 for me, i think the ability to spot something out of nothing like that seperates good photographers from Very good photographers...
 
EosD said:
#3 for me, i think the ability to spot something out of nothing like that seperates good photographers from Very good photographers...
Click to expand...

You've hit the nail on the head there Matty, that's what I meant when I said I can see why Steve took it.

Not because I would have seen the same shot, because I struggle to 'see' shots at the best of times.
Having been out with Steve taking photos on a number of occasions, I've seen him try his hand at this abstract thing. I remember him doing a similar thing at Manchester Airport once, with some stairs etc. When I saw this shot, that's what it reminded me of.

Looking at it, I find it more and more appealing each time.

That stray wire on the other, at first glance I thought it was a spiders web..:)
 
I like 1&5 out of the group.
The only thing I can see thats wrong is the blue snow.
 
EosD said:
#3 for me, i think the ability to spot something out of nothing like that seperates good photographers from Very good photographers...
Click to expand...
agreed again here, that shot shows a great eye.
 
Matt said:
I like 1&5 out of the group.
The only thing I can see thats wrong is the blue snow.
Click to expand...

Yep! Nice to get the chance to slag off one of Steve's pics though! :LOL:

Steve.jpg
 
Marcel said:
Number 1 and 2 I like, in particular number 1. It has that cold, but sunny afternoon feeling to it, coupled with the view of such lovely scenery and very impressive architecture, make for a great shot.
Number 2 I was unsure at first glance, but on second glance it's more appealing, however, my eye just doesn't want to settle anywehre except for the wiring just under the roof on the right hand side.
Click to expand...

The wiring under the roofline is part of mesh covering all the alcoves, recesses and windows to prevent the birds settling and ruining this lovely building. I could have cloned it out from the side but then it is clearly visible over the windows to those that have a good eye and looked properly. There was no way I was going to do that amount of cloning work and then I figured that if I had removed the mesh from just the side you would have mentioned that I had missed it over the windows.

Marcel said:
Number 5, if I am to be honest, I wouldn't have expected to come from your usually high calibre fingers, so to speak, and I think lets your obvious skills down. Upon closer inspection, thinking about why I'm not keen on it, I think it may be a combination of lack of perfect symmetry (step to the right ever so slightly), it's slightly offcentre (probably intended), and I feel there's too much sky and the image doesn't feel 'balanced'.
As you know, it's all subjective, and I am trying to be as constructive as possible, because I know you don't like to hear gushing praise all the time.
Click to expand...

I positioned myself there to avoid the perfect symmetry and to include the tree in the far distance and some of the colour just appearing in the sky from the sunset. I also used the centre column to block out a rather unsightly statue behind. Obviously it would be impossible for you to have known this but those are my reasons for the chosen framing of this shot.


stepheno said:
All good stuff. My only query is the dark halo round the edge of the building in #1. Is it natural shadow or is down to post processing?
Click to expand...

No dark halo around the edge just shadows, it is down to the lighting at the time. This shot was taken using the 70-200L and 1.4X converter to highly compress the image. If I had over processed it would have had white haloÂ’s not dark.

RobertP said:
My eye is drawn to the strange patterns in the window recesses in #2. They don't seem to tie up with reflections from window blinds as the cause of them.

Is it a gatehouse or something - i thought schloss meant lock ?
Click to expand...

The strange patterns are from the mesh over the windows…see my reply to Marcel’s post about the wire ;) That plus the added moiré patterns created by reducing the picture to be viewed at web size.

Schloss does indeed mean lock but it also mean “Castle”, it’s one of those words that have two meanings or so my Mrs tells me. :)


gandhi said:
All good shots (again!)

Like Marcel, I think the last one is the weakest of the lot, it just doesn't stand out in any way. I also would've spent a couple of minutes cloning out the stray wire in the second one. But I'm a bit finnicky sometimes!
Click to expand...

See my answer to MarcelÂ’s first post regarding the wire.

Marcel said:
That stray wire on the other, at first glance I thought it was a spiders web..:)
Click to expand...

And on second and third glances you still think itÂ’s a strange wire?

Matt said:
I like 1&5 out of the group.
The only thing I can see thats wrong is the blue snow.
Click to expand...

I tried my best to guess the correct huge for the shot to correct the blue snow, however on a broken monitor its not easy.



Generally I like posting shots for critique and comment and usually the replies that are given on this forum are based on sound points, however I feel that people have not looked at these shot clearly and have been very quick to post on their first impressions. This I have also seen happen in the voting for the monthly competition. You really need to slow down and look at the shots carefully, even shots that may look like snaps. Many times the photographer will have considered much more than you are giving them credit for and although it is impossible to know as much as him/her about the location, with a little consideration and attention to detail you can become much more informed and better at giving critique. If you get it wrong, is is easy to it appear as though people are looking for a reason to pick at the shots and on this occasion that is exactly how I feel.

You win some and lose some I guess. :coat:
 
Schloss means Castle, Festung is Fortress and Kessel is Cauldron.
Which you would know if you paid attention to Commando War comics at school instead of lessons...
 
Steve,

I think Ghandi and Marcel were talking about the wire coming down the frame from the corner of the building (the stray wire), not the netting over the windows... And FWIW, I too have some shots from an historic German building and they put netting up there as well - so I wouldn't attempt to clone that stuff out either.

I do like the last pic, although if you could have got the building central, that would help. I would love to see it with some kind of remote flash inside. I reckon that would really make it jump out of the image. Maybe some external flash too?

Just my 2p worth

Chris :thumb:
 
Steve said:
... however I feel that people have not looked at these shot clearly and have been very quick to post on their first impressions. This I have also seen happen in the voting for the monthly competition. You really need to slow down and look at the shots carefully, even shots that may look like snaps. ...
Click to expand...

I think I have fallen into this trap Steve, you look at a photo and think 'That's wrong, don't like that bit, what a silly angle' rather than taking a good look and letting it sink in and then making a comment if there is one to be made.

I have tried for the last week or two not to say anything about a photo in any section unless I though it would add to the photo or photographer. For example, looking at one of your shots and just saying 'Brilliant shot mate' just because its your normal quality doesn't add to it whereas saying that to someone who's openly admitted they're just starting (like myself) means a lot more and gives them incentive to go out and try again.

When I posted a picture of the Bristol bridge towers I got a comment from Matt I think saying he'd go back and recompose it, he'd obviously taken the time to come up with not only a problem but also a solution. Made me think 'Thanks for that, I think I will!'.

Just my thoughts. :)

PS. Great shots mate, they're brilliant....
 
I think Steve just got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning. :D
 
Catdaddy said:
Steve,

I think Ghandi and Marcel were talking about the wire coming down the frame from the corner of the building (the stray wire), not the netting over the windows... And FWIW, I too have some shots from an historic German building and they put netting up there as well - so I wouldn't attempt to clone that stuff out either.

Just my 2p worth

Chris :thumb:
Click to expand...

There are no stray wires, it is all netting and clearly visible in the photo posted. The sunlight has highlighting the outer wire but the rest can still be clearly seen under the eaves, even on my crappy monitor. It is the same netting that RobertP and Gandhi have also referred to weather over the windows or down the side of the building.

CT said:
I think Steve just got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning. :D
Click to expand...

Actually I feel quite strongly about this and it has been playing on my mind a great deal recently, not just with my shots but with comments that have been written about many other membersÂ’ posts. What part of my reply do you disagree with?

Honestly if we are to help people develop their photography and improve, then it has to be done in a manner which clearly indicates that we have at least considered the picture in detail and also tried to see the photographerÂ’s perspective. A less critical eye coupled with quick off the cough comments are not the way forward.

SammyC said:
I think I have fallen into this trap Steve, you look at a photo and think 'That's wrong, don't like that bit, what a silly angle' rather than taking a good look and letting it sink in and then making a comment if there is one to be made.

I have tried for the last week or two not to say anything about a photo in any section unless I though it would add to the photo or photographer. For example, looking at one of your shots and just saying 'Brilliant shot mate' just because its your normal quality doesn't add to it whereas saying that to someone who's openly admitted they're just starting (like myself) means a lot more and gives them incentive to go out and try again.

When I posted a picture of the Bristol bridge towers I got a comment from Matt I think saying he'd go back and recompose it, he'd obviously taken the time to come up with not only a problem but also a solution. Made me think 'Thanks for that, I think I will!'.

Just my thoughts. :)
Click to expand...

ThatÂ’s just my point entirely Sammy.
 
Steve said:
...
however I feel that people have not looked at these shots clearly and have been very quick to post on their first impressions.
Click to expand...

In my own experience, it's the first impression that's the most important with photography. There is so much around these days that if an image fails to grab you immediately, you move onto to something else more visually arresting.

Try thinking of your photo as part of a layout on a magazine page. If the photo doesn't grab you, you turn the page. It's often as simple as that, I'm afraid.

All of the images are well-composed, well thought-out and well executed. But they just lack something for me. I see this sort of thing and think... "Hmmm... building" and move on. Architectural photography is probably one of the hardest things to do right. Most of it just leaves me cold.
I've tried it myself at various venues, Hampton Court in the UK and Karlov Most in Prague being my favourites and even my own shots leave me thinking I'd have been better off staying in bed that day.
I'm going to nail that Prague shot eventually though. I now know I need a 300mm and a set of climbing gear to get the right viewpoint... :)
 
Arkady said:
In my own experience, it's the first impression that's the most important with photography. There is so much around these days that if an image fails to grab you immediately, you move onto to something else more visually arresting.

Try thinking of your photo as part of a layout on a magazine page. If the photo doesn't grab you, you turn the page. It's often as simple as that, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

First impressions are usually from the whole image, but the comments aimed directly at some of these shots are with regard to some of the details that people are getting wrong. Details that become apparent only once you have gone far beyond first impressions. Adding that the mesh on the right of the building is distracting is fine but not recognising that it is mesh and not wires just says to me that you have not taken the trouble to look at the shot properly. Sure post on your first impressions but at least be sure of what you are saying is correct.
 
Steve said:
ThatÂ’s just my point entirely Sammy.
Click to expand...

But it does mean my challenge for the highest number of posts for non-mod/admin person may take a knock!

:D
 
Arkady said:
All of the images are well-composed, well thought-out and well executed. But they just lack something for me. I see this sort of thing and think... "Hmmm... building" and move on. Architectural photography is probably one of the hardest things to do right. Most of it just leaves me cold.
I've tried it myself at various venues, Hampton Court in the UK and Karlov Most in Prague being my favourites and even my own shots leave me thinking I'd have been better off staying in bed that day.
I'm going to nail that Prague shot eventually though. I now know I need a 300mm and a set of climbing gear to get the right viewpoint... :)
Click to expand...

And there is a perfect example of critique that is valid. Thank you.
 
Steve said:
Actually I feel quite strongly about this and it has been playing on my mind a great deal recently, not just with my shots but with comments that have been written about many other membersÂ’ posts.
Click to expand...

Well I hope I'm not a guilty party.:(

What part of my reply do you disagree with?
.
Click to expand...

I just think that the replies you received were well-intentioned. You're as naturally talented a photographer as I know of, and I'm sure I'm not alone here in that opinion. People are used to seeing a very high standard of work from you mate. It's tough at the top ;)

My blue snow joke was a dig meant in a light hearted way and not to be taken seriously. You're being a wuz. ;)

Peace buddy. :)
 
But isn't this the forum for general comments?
The critique forum is the place for considered, in depth critique.

If I've offended you with my comments then I apologise, but I'm merely stating why I think an image doesn't appeal to me.
If you want, I'll stick to simple gushing praise?

Arkady's post is a perfect example of critique that is valid you say.
So why does mine differ? All I have done is explain why the shot doesnt do anything for me.

I was honestly trying to be helpful. My approach to commenting on your shots uwas something you welcomed, as you told me so yourself last year. I remember you thanking me for being so honest, when everyone else didn't have the balls to say anything except "Nice shots!".
 
I think some of Steve's ire may be directed at me.

I apologise if you feel my comments were 'off the cuff' or based on 'first impressions' but as Arkady said, first impressions count. I wasn't more 'in-depth' as I didn't feel I had anything to add to what had been said before. I did notice the definate moire patterns over the windows but my comment about the wire stands. I would've cloned it out as I find it distracting. I always treat other peoples work as I would expect them treat mine i.e. I'll post in this forum if I'm just chimping some shots and all I expect to get is the odd comment and nothing beyond 'don't like it' etc. If I want constructive criticism in depth then I will post in the critique forum.


Again, I'm sorry if you find my comments glib and off hand as that was not my intention.

Peace.
 
I dont normally offer much critique or opinion other than 'nice shot' or 'its not for me', i dont feel that im technically competant enough to critique other peoples work, but as Steve wants peoples honest appraisals, here are my thoughts, they are only my opinions mind!
#1
Very pictureque setting, with good symetry. If you look through the arches, you can see the light on in the courtyards on the other side, suggesting that they are bathed in light while the walls this side are in shadow, i like that, though nature could have been kinder by giving more blue sky and less grey. The refelction on the water is good too, leads you into the shot well without distracting from the building, which is obviously the focal point of the shot. Could be my monitor at work, but the snow looks a tad blue.

#2
first thing that grabs me is the blue sky, its very blue, which i like, poloriser used? Unfortunately im not that keen on the rest of the image, i can see the netting over the buidling, but ive got to look very closely to see it on the building itself, i assume its to stop pidgeons pooping all over germanys finest? I cant find a focal point though, but then i dont get architecture, so im not really sure what im looking at!

#3
For me its the pick of the shots, its simple and highly effective, the colours and textures are really good, a well spotted shot, i would have seen some stairs, as i said before, its that vision that makes the difference.

#4
natural framing from the trees, with the gold top of the dome placed on the third, but im not really sure how i feel about the rest, im looking at it, and its nicely composed, but im not really 'getting' it again, the detail of the architecture is very good, something carefully looking at the picture you notice, i didnt see it first time round. Looking at this shot on its own you miss the fact that the portion in the shot is snow covered, but the other side has melted snow, you can see that from the next shot..

#5
As mentioned, the snow is blue instead of white, again i think architectural photography and me dont get on, as i dont see anything in this shot, though i want to know what the structure is, and what it was used for and what the other smaller structure is, is it a statue? im also wondering how you got the angle in the previous shot, as clearly its very high up and shot through trees, whilst this shot is very low and not shot through trees!

thats my thoughts, they are not technical or probably even helpful, thats why i dont normally say too much!
 
Thats a very good honest opinion Matty, maybe you should do this more often.
Its far better than getting a 'thats nice' or 'I like that' comment , because you are explaining what you think of the image.

I'm not saying you shouldn't post a 'thats nice' or 'I like that' comment.
Going into a little bit of detail makes it easier for the image poster to understand were your coming from.
 
Steve said:
There are no stray wires, it is all netting and clearly visible in the photo posted. The sunlight has highlighting the outer wire but the rest can still be clearly seen under the eaves, even on my crappy monitor. It is the same netting that RobertP and Gandhi have also referred to weather over the windows or down the side of the building.
Click to expand...

Like some others I do not feel qualified to offer critique. I commented only on something that caught my eye.

As to it being obvious it is netting I have to disagree. You were there so you know what you are looking at. I saw a building with what might have been thaw water streaming from the corner and a strange pattern effect that was quite visible at the windows. I have never seen a whole building shrouded in netting before. (At least not without scaffolding :) )
 
1 is a cracker, love the light on the building and the reflection in the river, along with the symetrical feel. Very nice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top