|
|
So nobody wants comments on their photo? 😉
43 months ago
(permalink)
|
|
|
Can I get a critique of my photo, please? (i.e. Should it be in the TREE PICS group / Is it a photo of trees? Could the light be better? How could composition be improved? Would it be better in monochrome? etc.) Be as critical as you like, but nothing personal, please.
42 months ago
(permalink)
|
|
|
I see an impressive waterfall with an extreme amount of water, photographed through a gap in the forest. The trees make a nice frame and on the other hand I would like to see more of the waterfall. I can't say whether the structure of the water would come into its own better if the exposure in the highlights was reduced a little. Maybe the structures have already been lost in the blur of the movement, but then a different exposure wouldn't change anything. 😉
And the colours also correspond to reality, so they are not exaggerated. I wouldn't count it as a photo on the subject of "trees", after all it's about the waterfall.
How big the waterfall is as a whole cannot be determined from the photo. Standing alone as a documentary photo, it is not particularly suitable, but perhaps as part of a series showing the waterfall from different points of view.
42 months ago
(permalink)
|
|
|
Thank you very much for this critique of my photo Erwin, I am grateful for your shared and knowledgable analysis, as well as your time to analyse this photo. This is the first time for me to have one of my photos appraised, and I must say that you have given me a lot of pointers to consider for future reference. As a novice, I'm going to summarise my 'take homes' from your appraisal, more as a note to myself, and maybe seek any further pointers from others here too:
#1. Exposure seems to be one of the most crucial elements.
#2. Not seeing enough of the subject (the waterfall) to improve this shot (related to #5).
#3. Subject of photo - you actually shared a tip before in a previous post here - where you mentioned a title for the shot, as in 'if you asked someone else to give the photo a title', really rings true with this shot: it is a photo of a waterfall, where trees are present, but at best, merely to frame the waterfall. Is it fair to add that the subject is whatever feature initially draws your eyes in the image (i.e. centred, whatever is being framed, dominant, highlighted)?
#4. Colours appear natural.
#5. Try to give an idea of subject perspective (I've had issues with this point before, where I took a macro of the largest species of ant and mentioned this in the photo, but the viewer had no idea or reference of perspective, so I really appreciate this reminder). And finally, the series suggestion could be a very good solution to this photo's perspective issue (and one that I did use with this photo-shoot, but had to climb a hill opposite this waterfall and zoom in!)
Originally posted 42 months ago.
(permalink)
justbenaive (a group admin) edited this topic 42 months ago.
|
|
|
This is such a good idea! I may steal it for some of my groups. 😀
I have an album, “Tree Museum”, in which many of the photos would qualify for this group, i think. Here’s the cover photo for the album:
Any comments?
41 months ago
(permalink)
|
|
|
 WalrusTexas:
Well done. I like the two different contrasting main parts. The lower one has its geometric strength in the fence and hedge, which is correctly levelled to it. And the upper foreground is the complete opposite. Soft and somehow chaotic irregular shapes formed by the blossoms. The two parts also differ in colour, with the background also matching the blossoms. Overall, however, the colours go well together, the palette is nicely limited. It is also funny that the bushes at the back seem to grow out of the hedge.
Originally posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
::ErWin edited this topic 41 months ago.
|
|
|
 ::ErWin:
Thanks! In a personal retrospective a while back, I found that the ones I like best are dialectics, with contrasting messages like this one.
41 months ago
(permalink)
|
|
|
A little about the tree. It is a Swedish Whitebeam. I have been photographing it since around 2006.
41 months ago
(permalink)
|
|
|
 Steffe:
Beautiful composition. Besides the bizarre tree, I like the mist in the background and the winding road.
It could be sharper though. Seems to be a scan from a B&W film. Maybe the scanner is not perfect and responsible for the weak sharpness.
41 months ago
(permalink)
|
|
|
Thanks. No scan, just tricky for the autofocus in the thick fog. I have photographed the tree more than 600 times over the years, so sometimes maybe I don't pay enough attention to such details! Several storms and lightning have changed the look of the tree since I started photographing it.
41 months ago
(permalink)
|
|
|
I would like to hear reasoned criticism.
Mainly about light, colors and saturation.
But this could be about other characteristics as well. Tks!
30 months ago
(permalink)
|
|
|
 Jonas Jon:
I like the composition. The small palm tree is towered over by the other trees, but it is somewhat isolated and exposed, allowing its branches to unfurl. The repetition of the palm tree's crown in the tree behind it on the right is also good.
The sky seems to be a little overexposed, but it doesn't bother me, even if a little detail would be nice. For me, the green of the lawn in particular is a little intrusive and I would have reduced the saturation a little. I might also have tried converting it to a black and white photo. The red in the palm tree would be lost, but it would emphasise the structures.
But all in all a nice group of trees.
30 months ago
(permalink)
|
|
|
Thanks Erwin. Very helpful observations for me.
30 months ago
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
