Image 1:
The front candle is clearly out of focus, and there is obviously no aesthetic reason why this should be intentional, so this shot needs to be retaken with a much smaller aperture (higher f number). It was taken f2.8, and even with the smaller sensor, and shorter focal length used in this case (I checked the EXIF), this will result in very shallow depth of field. Refer to the relevant section of my tutorial files here....
Everything you need to know about exposure theory but were afraid to ask 101.
The other thing that leaps out of the page is that the candles have been shot on a highly reflective surface, so the reflections of the candles are actually playing an important role in the image, yet the foremost candle has had it's reflection cropped off. This should have been shot much wider to also include the reflection, as cropping it off has added nothing to the shot in terms of it's intended meaning, or the information given... but it is something that people will notice as something "missing". Plus.. pulling back a bit and widening the shot out, would have made it easier to increase depth of field, as most lenses behave in the same way, that being the closer you focus, the shallower the depth of field. Take your time composing, and DON'T just look at the object you are shooting... look around the whole viewfinder as if you are looking at a photograph... pay attention to the WHOLE frame.
White balance is always subjective, but when we think of dark spaces being lit by candles, we associate it with warmth, cosiness... so perhaps warming this image up slightly will "speak" of that more.
The camera is obviously not straight. With a still life shot, there's no excuse for this.. you're not rushing, so as with the reflections.. look at the whole frame as if you were looking at someone else's image. If you struggle judging whether things are straight... use a small spirit level on top of your camera's hot shoe, or shoot a little looser, and straighten in post shoot (although getting it right in camera is far more desirable, as any cropping like this will lower quality).
Clean the reflective surface they're sat on... it's filthy! Yes, you can retouch... but which is best... 10 seconds with some Mr Sheen before placing the candles, or 30 minutes cloning out crap?
Placement is bothering me too. Why IS the front candle so much closer to cam than the others? There's a film maker's term known as "blocking" which refers to placement of people within the frame, as how that is relevant to the story. You've "blocked" the candles here to make me think the front one is somehow more important, or different. Any particular reason? If there is.. then perhaps the front candle should be sharp and the rest not? If there is no reason, then consider moving the front one back closer to it's brethren
Be careful with mirrors in high detail still life, as they will actually produce two reflections: One from the surface of the class, and one from the actual mirror surface... this makes the reflections in this type of "angled" shot have a double edged appearance. A highly polished chrome surface would be better as reflections would be sharper.
Those are the main issues... anything else technical is heading into pedantry most likely, and be one of those threads where others just chip in to show off their knowledge.
Ok.. that's technical crit....
Now.... the really contentious part, and the one that really gets people's knickers in a twist. The critical part of "crit"
What were you trying to achieve? If this was merely a technical exercise, then stop at the end of the technical crit. However, if this image was created with any intentions of it being a "creative" image, then you need to consider what the image says. This is where a great many amateurs and professionals start to disagree. "Why does it have to mean anything?".. well.. because all images say something, whether you intend them to or not.
If this was a commercial product shot for a candle company, this would never in a million years be commissioned.. no matter how technically perfect it was. Why? Because it's boring, and it merely shows me a bunch of candles. I know what candles look like, so why would I buy THESE candles over anyone else's? Think about why people these days would by such candles. While they're useful in a power cut... that's not the reason. They are meant to set a mood... be warm.. cosy... romantic.... so why place them in such a sterile space? Why not start thinking about the whole image in a wider context?
This is nothing to do with being an amateur, or a professional... this is about creating great, engaging, relevant and well crafted imagery. So if your response is "but I'm only an amateur.. I don't need to know all this arty-farty crap", perhaps you need to rethink how exactly you are going to improve if you set yourself such limitations. harsh? No.. practical. Being amateur does NOT mean being less than professional. I know many amateurs who are far in advance of professionals. So to raise this image from merely technicaly correct, but mundane into the realms of being superb in every way, start thinking about such things as context, meaning, mood, personality, relevance.
As an example... look at this still from Kubrick's 2001
http://i.imgur.com/nIT3KKp.jpg
It's not an important scene... it's the kind of scene that you'll probably not be paying a great deal of attention to during the film. However... what makes Kubrick and other talented director's so good is attention to detail in creating illusion, making you feel something's right... suspending disbelief. Look at it again. Look at how the peopel are put into context. Styling (futuristic - even today over 40 years since the film was made)... look at the little bits of stuff on teh walls... all sterile, utile... hard.. practical... it makes us think of a sterile, futuristic, scientific space... look at the colour grading... (cold)... again, sterile, scientific, technicall.. Even details like the floor is curved.. because this is a space station... there's no gravity in space... you're in free-fall... but spinning a space station shaped like a ring will use centrifugal force to simulate gravity.
Did you take any of that in when watching the film? Not consciously no.... but you will have just accepted it as reality without a moment's hesitation despite it being a studio set because of the richness of the scene, and the way everything is there for a reason and in context.
So... why not so the same for this shot of candles?
I'll just root around for some candle shots that use context well... meanwhile.. research "Mise en scene"
.
Part of critique should be to get the person learning to do some work themselves... active research helps you learn faster.... this is a proven, empirical fact.
So.... candles as festive adornment?
http://www.hdwallpapersinn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Christmas-Candle.jpg
Candles to create a relaxing mood?
http://www.eframe.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/28.jpg
Candles as part of a romantic setting?
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...TAyjkBb4BpWFUJzxfjBZww9I_69FkM0l8CMHhUBheqvKm
These are just random images off Google.... and I'm NOT using them as exemplar pieces of work... I'm demonstrating how other things in the scene alter the reading of the image, and you don't have to appreciate art, or have a degree to see this... this is something EVERYONE gets... which is why film directors, photographers, TV producers go to such great lengths to create their sets. So why should you, as an amateur photographer not do the same?
NOTE: This is an example of how I crit via written feedback... this is NOT intended to spark a debate. If you disagree, start a new thread, PM me, or jog on... thanks. Let's not ruin the thread.
Thanks
