Fun Stuff > MAKE

Please criticise me (Photography)

<< < (3/7) > >>

wrwight:
Thanks, that's exactly what I'm looking for. After "hearing" you "say" it, I agree with everything except the Pal's Burger sign. Do you really think the composition of that would have been better with the 'B' in it? I specifically left it out because it's easily implied, so it takes nothing away from understanding the picture, and by not including it, it requires your mind to fill in the missing parts, and it would have been more mundane if I had included the whole sign. I can see how I could have re-framed it to include the bottom of the building though, maybe pulled back a bit, or possibly in a bit more so that the sign dominated the composition, and the roof of the building would fill that place where you want to see the ground, perhaps (I'm not sure about that, I'd have to actually frame it, and that spot is now 6 time zones away). In any case, it would have been good to take more shots of that subject from different angles, I can't disagree with that.

I plan to stick with the 50mm for everything that it can give me, but I'm happy to have some type of zoom for those shots that I can't quite frame it the way I want with the 50mm. Also it will be nice to have a bit of wide angle, even if it is only 35mm f/4. As far as B&W goes, I would love to shoot in all black and white, or at least much more than I do, but I was thoroughly unimpressed with Kodak's BW400CN C-41 Black & White film, and until I can find a dark room and a class so I can learn to develop it myself, it takes a lot more money than I generally want to spend to process a lot of black and white film since I have to send it off, so I have to use it a bit more sparingly than I'd like.

But I thoroughly appreciate what you had to say. I feel like I've got some things I can work on now. I need to find subjects that I can hit multiple times (I'm already thinking of a couple), and now that I'm back home I don't worry so much about film cost because processing C-41 is dirt cheap here. I'll post again when I've got more pictures to share.

Thanks again, that was the most detailed criticism I've gotten so far. The rest is good, but specifics are things that I can specifically work on, so I genuinely appreciate that.

Elysiana:
Sorry, I was hoping for equipment info before I critiqued. Heck, I'll critique each photo individually if you want lol. I guess my real question is, what are you trying to accomplish here? If you're going for a snapshot style, that's very different from a shot that's carefully set up. Many of your photos are using the "jaunty angle" technique, and that's usually reserved for snapshots and is generally considered a bit overused. You've also got a few crops that are too tight, another mark of a snapshot. If that's what you're going for, that's fine, but it changes the critique.

I'm going to have to agree with TSK on the burger sign. What is your subject here? If your subject is the sign itself, you've cropped part of it out. If your subject is the building, you're not really showing any interesting parts of it; it's just a quick snapshot of the corner of a building. I think perhaps if the sky hadn't been overcast, that color would have helped pull it all together a bit, but it would still feel like your eyes travel off the picture and have nothing to pull them back in. Same with your "House of Underwear" (that's hilarious!) shot - you've cut off part of the H, and it feels like that was just an accident. Be very careful of what you're cropping out. Take a wider shot, and you can crop it down later.

On your photos of the wolves, I realize the fence limits your shots, but again, what is the focus here? On this photo, you've almost cut off the wolf on the left, like you forgot he was there. On this one, the fence is in focus, but not the wolves. I realize your title mentions the leaf, but without the title, that leaf isn't big enough to make the picture on its own.

I like this shot. Good angle, good aperture, good color, good exposure. It does need to be straightened up a bit (see "jaunty angle," above). I also like this photo of the shutters, though again, straighten it up, and I think it would have added a little more depth to either put that front shutter a lot more out of focus, or completely IN focus. It seems like it should be the focus of the pic, but the one behind it is in focus instead.

For your pics of the graffiti, try some different angles. Those photos come off as a bit clinical, like they're going to run next to an article about graffiti. They look like they're taken from the same angle a person walking by them would see; get down below them and shoot up. Get up on a second-level balcony and shoot down. Take some shots at angles people wouldn't normally see them from. Let them fill the frame. Same with your photos of the stone reliefs.

This shot is nice, I like the angle on it. I would be careful about chopping off that tiny bit in the bottom right, though - I'd go for just a little more or a little less. Your conversion is a little odd; it has more magenta in the clouds, and more yellow on the tower. It's also a little muddy; pop the contrast a bit more so we can read the inscription without squinting.

As I mentioned before, your white balance is a bit off, and you could use a bit more saturation in general. That can't be helped much in film unless you're developing your own photos. A DSLR will be able to correct some of that right away, but you sound like you're aiming for film-only.

wrwight:
Thanks. First, yeah, the House of Underwear shot is just a snapshot I thought was funny. I don't see much beyond that. I only mentioned the leaf in that one wolf shot just as an afterthought. It is meant to be a picture of the wolves, with the fence in focus, kind of highlighting the fact that they're stuck behind a fence (or I am, depending on how you look at it).

I appreciate the note on angles. I'm trying to move past what I agree are overused "jaunty angles" but now I've got some clear notes on how I can address that, so I'll definitely do that in the future.

I think on the shutter pic I could have fixed it with more shots. I think I took three shots on that one, all with different focal points along the wall, and if I had just taken a fourth I might have gotten the front shutter in better focus. I see that now. I think a lot of my photography will improve if I only take more shots.

The chapel shot was taken with Kodak's BW400CN which I have mentioned that I am NOT a fan of. It basically gives me the picture I could get if I just took a color shot and drained all the color out of it in an editing program. I tried to add contrast and improve the balance in some of the other photos I had of the memorial, but after a while I decided that I just couldn't make that film work for me, so now if I shoot b&w it's true b&w, but the only rolls I have of that I still need to send off to get developed, 'cause while I was at my parents' house the last few weeks I didn't have access to a printer, so I couldn't print the postage paid label to ship my film.

I'm hoping my new camera (once I get batteries for it. I'm having trouble finding them) will have a better light meter than my current one, which will help with some of my issues, but yeah, once I can afford the DSLR that I want, I'll have a much easier time because I'll be able to just shoot hundreds of pictures without having to a) stop to change film and b) worry about the rising cost per shot, and also I'll be able to at least get some kind of preview. I don't think I'll ever stop using film completely if I can help it, but I definitely want a DSLR, and who knows, once I have it I might change my mind about using film. For now the initial cost on a professional DSLR is a bit out of my budget though, and if I'm going to spend $1000 on a camera anyway, the way I see it I might as well save another $1500 on top of that to get a professional quality camera, and take my time in the meantime to learn all I can about film photography.

Elysiana:
I'm on a photography board elsewhere, and anytime someone asks what kind of DSLR they should get in order to start learning how to use manual mode, I tell them every time: buy a used top-of-the-line camera and spend the rest on a few excellent lenses. You can save a good $1000 by buying an older body style. For example, I have a Canon 10D that I bought the year it came out for about $1500 for the body, plus the cost of a kit lens, wide-angle lens, and zoom lens. It was THE top model at that time - blew everything else out of the water, and they've only improved on that line since then. Today? You can get it for $200-$300. And since the lenses are interchangeable, you can use them when you upgrade to a newer model, if you even bother. Honestly, the upgrades aren't that huge a deal depending on what you'll be doing with it. Cameras don't go obsolete every two years the way computers do.

When I took my photography classes, we learned on film cameras (I had a Pentax ME Super. Great little camera.) and I didn't get the DSLR til a few years later. Having done that, I would say that it's MUCH easier to learn on digital, because of one particular reason you stated - you can see what's going on as you do it. You don't have to go back later and say, "Okay, now WHAT did I have this set on?" All the EXIF data is already there so you know what your SS, aperture, ISO, etc. were for that particular picture. It gives you a great opportunity to play around with taking 20 photos of one thing at different settings, without worrying about film costs.

Anyway.... that's only an opinion, make what you will of it :)

wrwight:
True, I haven't really looked too much at used cameras, 'cause the few times I have I see mostly bottom end newer cameras trying to sell for much more than they're worth. Maybe I've just been looking in the wrong places. I mostly want to spend the extra money to get a full frame camera, for two reasons. First, my lenses will behave the same way as they do on 35mm 'cause it's a 2x3 aspect ratio, and also because from what I've read you can take much clearer pictures and avoid a lot of graininess that you get in lower light situations. I don't know anyone who has one to compare that last part with, but I've been told it's like using 120mm vs 35mm, because your sensor is larger, so you get the potential for a much clearer shot. Again, this isn't terribly important to me right now while I'm learning, but digital cameras are still what I would consider an investment, at $850ish for a decent lower end model, so I figure if I'm going to invest, I might as well invest in something that will take me up through professional level if I ever make it that far.

I'll definitely look more at used cameras though. Maybe I'll find a deal one day, and then I can start saving money (and frustration) on film lol. I swear no one cares at all about processing film anymore. I took my film to a photo store, which used to be full service anything you need developed/printed/etc. they'd do it. I gave them C-41, got charged for 1-hour processing. They told me it'd take two hours. I come back after three and still have to wait on my pictures. Plus their prints were misaligned on one of the rolls. With similar stories at other places, I've decided camera shops think film is a waste of their time anymore, and therefore don't put the required effort into doing it right.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page