Critique Thread

[John Thawley]

Originally Posted by f6fhellcat13

Great thread idea
As I'm sure some of you know, parts of LA are on fire right now, and the haze it causes in the air make sunsets and -rises more spectcular. I attempted to take a few pictures of the sun and here's what I got. The sun has now set so retakes cannot happen til tommorrow. I did not put much effort into these pics, because the sun was alread past what I think would have been the ideal point to take the pic. If I do try this again I will get a more clear view of the sun.
These are completly unedited.
They were taken with a FujiFilm FinePix 3800; a cheap digital unit for the technologically impaired (my parents).
I know nothing about photography or the camera, so I can't say much about the specs.
BTW what is ISO?
Enjoy

Pointing the camera at the sun is a tricky bit of business. When you consider the old rule on a box of film was to keep the sun over one shoulder... this flies in the face of it and is quite to the contrary.

When the sun is behind your subject, you have to "expose" the camera for the shadows. If the sun is behind your subjects head, his/her face is going to be full shadow. With the sun and the earth, as my 6 year-old son say's, that would be night-night time. The back of your subjects head would be like the other side of the world when it's night on their face. So, this is a case where you have to compromise and burn out the background to expose for the foreground.

However in your shot, you want to capture the effect of the setting sun and how it plays on sky and the trees. If you notice, one of your shots, you can actually see the green of the trees... but the sky is basically blown out. On that one you exposed for the trees. Not what we want here.

What we really need to capture the excitment of the sky ... which is what you saw when you were standing there is to go ahead and expose correctly for the sky.. and let the trees be damned. This would be a silhouette.

The camera can't truly record what you actually see in this situation. You're eyes are dynamic and continually adjusting. This is the fun of photography. We now have to trick the camera and control its capabilities AND limits to compose or report the story we want to tell.

So, you might have waited and let the trees mask the camera from the sun... let it get a little lower and then expose for the sky.... maybe even under expose to add more drama.

Think about when sunset REALLY gets cool... it's after the sun goes down. That's when the sky goes really nuts and explodes with color... it's after sundown and at twilight.

Here are a couple of examples I shot last night. These four were within a 25 minute period. I did these on a tripod and kept the ISO down at 100 and shot RAW.

I leave all the EXIF data intact in my images. If you're using FireFox, download the EXIF viewer plug in. It will reveal the settings.

[John Thawley]

Originally Posted by f6fhellcat13

They were taken with a FujiFilm FinePix 3800; a cheap digital unit for the technologically impaired (my parents).

With most point and shoot cameras there is a trick to cheating the camera on automatic.

In this case, you could point the camera at the sky, just above the trees but just off to the side away from the sun... then press the shutter half way down. This focuses the camera and takes the light reading to acquire the settings it will ned. Now, while still holding the button half way down, move the camera back to the composition you want, and squeeze the shutter the rest of the way to complete your shot.

Same if you want to do a portrait of someone. We don't like things in the center of the picture. We like things slightly off center. It's called the "rule of thirds" but that's for another discussion. Suffice it to say, we want to be off center. Automatic cameras force us to keep things in the middle and create what we call "center syndrom." One after another... every photo with every subject centered in the frame. So to avoid this, do as described above. If you're taking a picture of your friend, focus the camera on their face... press the button half way down.... keep it there... now move the camera so your friends head is off center... still holding the shutter button halfway down... now compose your shot... squeeze... complete the picture. You'll usually have about 10-15 seconds of grace time to do this and most cameras incorporate that feature.

JT

[John Thawley]

Originally Posted by #1 Mustang Fan

Is it just me or are those links broken cos I can't see anything.

Hmmm.. not sure, I can see them. But, they might be cached.

JT

[f6fhellcat13]

Thanks a lot JT.
Tommorrow or the next day, I'll try again.

[#1 Mustang Fan]

Originally Posted by John Thawley

Hmmm.. not sure, I can see them. But, they might be cached.

JT

Working now

[henk4]

I think there will be a problem with this thread. It might become too popular. I have now returned to it after about 11 hours and in the meantime so much has been posted it becomes impossible to look at everything without having to spend the whole day here.
My suggestion would be to introduce the "critique" aspect as a separate header in the multimedia section, where each picture gets a different sub thread, just to keep things manageable.

[2ndclasscitizen]

Originally Posted by John Thawley

The more charged the sensor is to capture the light quickly, the more NOISE we pick up.

Noise on a digital sensor isn't from charging the sensor. Increasing the sensitivity means that the pixels will start picking up more and more electrical interference from the surrounding pixels, and it also amplifies the signal coming from sensor, meaning that the electrical "noise" is also amplified.

[johnnynumfiv]

Originally Posted by John Thawley

Not sure of your experience or background... but if I may be blunt, you appear to be "reaching" with these. I know the look your after.... but, you're not quite reaching it. Maybe some more information... what were the shots for? Where are they going? I mean, if there for the owner of the car(s), they don't do the car much justice. The B&W seems to be going for the silhouette and curves idea... but the reflections are exposing a lot of bits and pieces... so it's a bit confusing.

The offset idea of the yellow spyder doesn't really play well with the scenery. Again, I think I know where you're going... but this is a look that usually works better with a stark isometrically backdrop... modern architecture... something that will be an abrupt contrast to the lines of the car and that will push the color of the car more in your face.

JT

The Ferrari was at a showroom of a shop I went to for an open house. I hiked up to the top of Mount Washington and the ferrari was sitting there, so I snapped a few. They were both taken with a point and shoot canon S2 IS. I've never taken pictures for anyone or done anything professionally, mainly just snapshots of stuff.
Thanks for your input.

[f6fhellcat13]

Originally Posted by henk4

I think there will be a problem with this thread. It might become too popular. I have now returned to it after about 11 hours and in the meantime so much has been posted it becomes impossible to look at everything without having to spend the whole day here.
My suggestion would be to introduce the "critique" aspect as a separate header in the multimedia section, where each picture gets a different sub thread, just to keep things manageable.

After these first few days it'll probably settle down.

[John Thawley]

Originally Posted by 2ndclasscitizen

Noise on a digital sensor isn't from charging the sensor. Increasing the sensitivity means that the pixels will start picking up more and more electrical interference from the surrounding pixels, and it also amplifies the signal coming from sensor, meaning that the electrical "noise" is also amplified.

The "signal" is the "charge"... hence the "electrical."

[#1 Mustang Fan]

I'll start off the thread again, I have many photos I'd like to post but I'll throw in something from 07 sometime, taken by me, with my brothers camera - a Fujifilm Finepix 4900Z.

1/340 sec
f/5.0
ISO 125

Higher resolution attached.

[Rockefella]

Originally Posted by #1 Mustang Fan

I'll start off the thread again, I have many photos I'd like to post but I'll throw in something from 07 sometime, taken by me, with my brothers camera - a Fujifilm Finepix 4900Z.

What jumps out at me the most when I think 'critique his picture' is the contrast in depth of field. While it's good with the mountain in the foreground being in focus while those at the rear are hazy, I think the effect could have been exaggerated further. Higher contrast in focus would have been nice I think.

[John Thawley]

Originally Posted by #1 Mustang Fan

I'll start off the thread again, I have many photos I'd like to post but I'll throw in something from 07 sometime, taken by me, with my brothers camera - a Fujifilm Finepix 4900Z.

1/340 sec
f/5.0
ISO 125

Higher resolution attached.

Well, I think the first question here, is what are you trying to convey to the viewer? There are a lot of nice elements to the picture... most evident to me is the reflection in the water.

Technically, you've exposed it fine. Nice colors, the haze between to first mountain and the second set adds separation, and as mentioned, the reflection makes the water look spectacular.

Unfortunately, your eye "missed" here. This is one of those situations where you should have shot looser... wider... given us more information. We have no reference to the height of the mountain and how it relates to its surroundings. So sadly, to someone who wasn't there, it's pretty, but uninteresting. You were there.... you have the luxury of recalling how breathtaking the vista "felt" because you were surrounded by it and had that sensation of how overpowering nature can be.

Landscape photography is very difficult. It's so vast and so hard to get our head around the "scale" of things... and fitting it into our tiny frame.

So.... ok, it's not a competition entry... but it's a beautiful photo and great keepsake from your trip. And, it will evoke the memory of the good time you have for years to come. That's not a bad thing... and for me, one of the great bonuses of photography as a hobby.

I've always been a person that devoured a hobby... then moved on to something else. Years (and years, and years) ago, when I first took up photography as a hobby, I soon realized that this was the one hobby that even if I quit, I would always have the photos and a record of the memories. I call it "emotional currency." It's a damn good reason to keep shooting.

THe other benefit of LEARNING about photography is even if your interest falls by the wayside, good knowledge of composition stays with you. So even if you fall back to just taking family snapshots with a little point n' shoot... you'll take better family snaps. It keeps paying back.

Anyway... nice photo. Probably just a bit too close.

JT

[John Thawley]

Originally Posted by johnnynumfiv

The Ferrari was at a showroom of a shop I went to for an open house. I hiked up to the top of Mount Washington and the ferrari was sitting there, so I snapped a few. They were both taken with a point and shoot canon S2 IS. I've never taken pictures for anyone or done anything professionally, mainly just snapshots of stuff.
Thanks for your input.

In that case, you did a pretty good job. It's apparent you want to shoot "cool" shots... I'd suggest, if you want to get it into it, take the time to learn and understand the basics. You've got a pretty good sense of "style"... but you need to know the "rules"... before you break them. (I'm hestitant about using the word "rules"... but there are some basic fundamentals)

JT

[#1 Mustang Fan]

Originally Posted by John Thawley

Well, I think the first question here, is what are you trying to convey to the viewer? There are a lot of nice elements to the picture... most evident to me is the reflection in the water.

Technically, you've exposed it fine. Nice colors, the haze between to first mountain and the second set adds separation, and as mentioned, the reflection makes the water look spectacular.

Unfortunately, your eye "missed" here. This is one of those situations where you should have shot looser... wider... given us more information. We have no reference to the height of the mountain and how it relates to its surroundings. So sadly, to someone who wasn't there, it's pretty, but uninteresting. You were there.... you have the luxury of recalling how breathtaking the vista "felt" because you were surrounded by it and had that sensation of how overpowering nature can be.

Landscape photography is very difficult. It's so vast and so hard to get our head around the "scale" of things... and fitting it into our tiny frame.

So.... ok, it's not a competition entry... but it's a beautiful photo and great keepsake from your trip. And, it will evoke the memory of the good time you have for years to come. That's not a bad thing... and for me, one of the great bonuses of photography as a hobby.

I've always been a person that devoured a hobby... then moved on to something else. Years (and years, and years) ago, when I first took up photography as a hobby, I soon realized that this was the one hobby that even if I quit, I would always have the photos and a record of the memories. I call it "emotional currency." It's a damn good reason to keep shooting.

THe other benefit of LEARNING about photography is even if your interest falls by the wayside, good knowledge of composition stays with you. So even if you fall back to just taking family snapshots with a little point n' shoot... you'll take better family snaps. It keeps paying back.

Anyway... nice photo. Probably just a bit too close.

JT

I see where your coming from, the reflections were spectacular and TBH I was aiming to get the whole reflection in, rather than to get cram in the surroundings. I've attached the original and a couple of other shots from that day if anyone is interested, I don't see these as good as the first.