Challenge 4 - Critique Thread

Paul, the other works better for me as it has more interest. However, with this one try covering up that dark bit at the bottom and see how it helps the composition. Then you will know whether cloning out or cropping that bit will improve things. My advice also (and remember, this is very subjective) would be not to agonise too much about each individual image. Study it a bit, work on it, then go out and take some more. I think if you are honest you know yourself if an image is working or not.

PaulLandscape said:

But I didn't feel it was as subtle as the other one.
Regards
Paul

PS thanks for the nice comments.

Flick said:

PaulLandscape244043 said:

PaulLandscape244043 said:

Hope it works

If it does this may just be the worst thing you've done. You'll
never see the end of posts and questions.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Don't run yourself down, Paul. i enjoy your work and seeing more on
this forum would be a distinct bonus. Looking at other people's
photos is half the fun of the forum. It's inspiring and keeps you
from feeling creatively isolated. Keep 'em coming!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

William George said:

Francesco. I must tell you that if your cooking is as good as your
photography please have us over for dinner ;-) Lovely work.

--
Bill George
http://www.pbase.com/wgeorge/canon_10d
Hawaii-Landscapes-Aerials
http://www.hawaiiscenics.com/

Click to expand...

Thank you very much George.

--
Francesco Tonelli
http://www.francescotonelli.com
http://www.pbase.com/francescotonelli/portfolio

PaulLandscape said:

Thanks for the info on PBase costs. I might look at this, but I
will probably see how much I can get my current ISP to do it for.

PaulLandscape244043 said:

As for the feedback to our work, I would love to receive technical
criticism from anyone on this forum about my photographs. You can
see some of my recent work posted at:

Click to expand...

I guess I'm a little surprised to learn this is relatively new to
you. Most of your shots look delicious. I guess you've been
preparing food for photography for a while or you seem to have a
natural flare for it. My only comment would be maybe out of
interest sake you might like to try other subjects than food. Now
I know I'm going to get howled down here cause we all salavate over
your shots, but it might give some depth perception to others
viewers?

Regards

Paul

PS I love you web site albiet I can't taste it.

Click to expand...

Thank you Paul.

Your comment as well as George's are very encouraging.

Yes I worked many years Developing and Styling recipes for Italian Cooking Magazines and worked along many talented Photographers.

But now being behind the camera I realize even more what an art it is to capture the right picture.

My respect for photography is growing more and more as I learn about it...and so is my love for it.

As per your suggestion of using other subjects, I think is a good point and I am very tempted by it, especially after seeing all the beautiful and creative posts in our challenges. My only limitation right now is time. But every once in a while I try to shoot different subjects.

You can see some here:

http://www.pbase.com/lynntonelli

Thanks for your feedback.

Regards

--
Francesco Tonelli
http://www.francescotonelli.com
http://www.pbase.com/francescotonelli/portfolio

PaulLandscape said:

Anyone with time might have a look at the following image and tell
me what they think. Critique welcome.

Click to expand...

Hi Paul,

Not that I feel qualified to critique your work, but I will offer my simple observations:

I like the effect of the liquid metal, but find the background not helping the shape of the Jaguar. Also I like the sharpness and smoothness of the metal but there are some point where it is grainy.

The flower shot is mild and beutiful. The only thing I would enjoy more would be some point of sharpness/focus either in the center or on the edges of the flower and a bit more disclosure of the natural shape of the flower. I think that that is what makes me like Quentin's Curbes, the balance between smoothness of the whole image and color, with the sharpness of some detail and the beautiful natural lines of the flower.

Now that I have finished, I realize how much I love it when other people review and comment my work, but also how much I don't like it to be the one trying to review and comment someone else.

I hope this makes some sort of sense.

Regards,

--
Francesco Tonelli
http://www.francescotonelli.com
http://www.pbase.com/francescotonelli/portfolio

Hi Francesco,

It was interesting what you said. I really liked the combination of the background against the jaguar. The grainy effect didn't seem obvious until I applied the metal gradient. I quite liked it, but I expect it is a consequence of under exposed shadows. I think if I was to fix this I would need to blend 2 of the shots and to include the shadow detail and then apply the gradient. But at the time I thought it was an interesting effect albiet not intended.

Your comments about the flower put into words what it was about this shot that made me choose to upload the other one to the gallery. The level of detail was not significant enough.

I couldn't agree more about the critiquing, I think it is an art all by itself. I am going to try to look to improve my skills in this area as I don't pay attention to those images that don't grab me. Maybe by understanding what doesn't grab me, I might better develop a sense of what does.

Anyway, thanks for the comments.

Regards

Paul

PS thanks for the list. I've looked at the site on the net and left it with my supplier to see if they can get some prices on it for me over here.

Francesco Tonelli said:

PaulLandscape said:

Anyone with time might have a look at the following image and tell
me what they think. Critique welcome.

Click to expand...

Hi Paul,

Not that I feel qualified to critique your work, but I will offer
my simple observations:

I like the effect of the liquid metal, but find the background not
helping the shape of the Jaguar. Also I like the sharpness and
smoothness of the metal but there are some point where it is grainy.

The flower shot is mild and beutiful. The only thing I would enjoy
more would be some point of sharpness/focus either in the center or
on the edges of the flower and a bit more disclosure of the natural
shape of the flower. I think that that is what makes me like
Quentin's Curbes, the balance between smoothness of the whole image
and color, with the sharpness of some detail and the beautiful
natural lines of the flower.

Now that I have finished, I realize how much I love it when other
people review and comment my work, but also how much I don't like
it to be the one trying to review and comment someone else.

I hope this makes some sort of sense.

Regards,

--
Francesco Tonelli
http://www.francescotonelli.com
http://www.pbase.com/francescotonelli/portfolio

Click to expand...

Hi Franceso,

Seems you've been doing a lot more outside the kitchen than first portrayed. I've made some comments on a number of your pictures on your linked site. Please delete them as you've had a chance to read them. I have looked with the idea that you're looking for some feedback. Again, I'm not qualified but have offered some thoughts.

One that did strike me, was the evening shot over the bridge. There seems to be quite some noise in the sky. If you've intended it fair enough. If not drop me a line as this is more down my alley. I've spent a bit of time do longer exposures in these type of conditions and have had to do a bit of work to get them right, as you might have seen in gallery 3.

Regards

Paul

Francesco Tonelli said:

PaulLandscape said:

Thanks for the info on PBase costs. I might look at this, but I
will probably see how much I can get my current ISP to do it for.

Francesco Tonelli said:

As for the feedback to our work, I would love to receive technical
criticism from anyone on this forum about my photographs. You can
see some of my recent work posted at:

Click to expand...

I guess I'm a little surprised to learn this is relatively new to
you. Most of your shots look delicious. I guess you've been
preparing food for photography for a while or you seem to have a
natural flare for it. My only comment would be maybe out of
interest sake you might like to try other subjects than food. Now
I know I'm going to get howled down here cause we all salavate over
your shots, but it might give some depth perception to others
viewers?

Regards

Paul

PS I love you web site albiet I can't taste it.

Click to expand...

Thank you Paul.

Your comment as well as George's are very encouraging.
Yes I worked many years Developing and Styling recipes for Italian
Cooking Magazines and worked along many talented Photographers.
But now being behind the camera I realize even more what an art it
is to capture the right picture.
My respect for photography is growing more and more as I learn
about it...and so is my love for it.

As per your suggestion of using other subjects, I think is a good
point and I am very tempted by it, especially after seeing all the
beautiful and creative posts in our challenges. My only limitation
right now is time. But every once in a while I try to shoot
different subjects.

You can see some here:

http://www.pbase.com/lynntonelli

Thanks for your feedback.

Regards

--
Francesco Tonelli
http://www.francescotonelli.com
http://www.pbase.com/francescotonelli/portfolio

Click to expand...

... you should use a copyright symbol instead of the word "copyright", followed by the year of publication and your name.

Flick said:

... My advice
also (and remember, this is very subjective) would be not to
agonise too much about each individual image. Study it a bit, work
on it, then go out and take some more. I think if you are honest
you know yourself if an image is working or not.

Click to expand...

When I take a photo like these flower shots, I might take anywhere from 10 to 70 shots (bracketing focus and depth of field and varying composition), then spend an hour trying to decide which one to use, and - if I really like it - another hour in Photoshop. The most agonizing part is trying to decide which shot to use.

For something like the jaguar, I might spend several days in Photoshop.

I prefer the detail, color, and sweeping lines in the previous shot. This one doesn't do anything for me.

PaulLandscape said:

Did you register? And if so how long do the credits run?

Click to expand...

I have not registered since I already have a web site for my photos.

Same for me. Sometimes there's little to choose between the shots, but the one i choose will just have that "feels right" factor...when you hit THE image, something seems to click into place and you don't have to compromise or struggle.

Warren Sarle said:

Flick said:

... My advice
also (and remember, this is very subjective) would be not to
agonise too much about each individual image. Study it a bit, work
on it, then go out and take some more. I think if you are honest
you know yourself if an image is working or not.

Click to expand...

When I take a photo like these flower shots, I might take anywhere
from 10 to 70 shots (bracketing focus and depth of field and
varying composition), then spend an hour trying to decide which one
to use, and - if I really like it - another hour in Photoshop. The
most agonizing part is trying to decide which shot to use.

For something like the jaguar, I might spend several days in
Photoshop.

Click to expand...

Hi Warren,

Yes, I think it was around 40-50 shots made up of one set outside and one set inside under lights. And you're right there were three or four nice shots. Some seemed too close to Quentin's so I had to rule them out. Others were ruled out because the flower was not entirely pristine. It had a blemish in it white part of the flower. And then finally I decided I liked the DOF capturing the stamen and the droplets and softening all else into a complementary colour blend.

But I'm not sure if your comparing my first and second shot or my shots and Quentin's curves when you mention the first one doesn't do anything for you?

I really liked the jaguar shots and expected a little more comment on them?

I have around 70 shots of these too. I'm interested how you might have worked them and what result you might have come up with. Both shots are quite interpretive for the comp. Are you suggesting I should have taken the time to remove the flaws in the purple shot in and around the eyes? There seems to be some roughness/flaw in the casting. I'm not sure whether this should be left alone or cleaned up?

Thanks for the copyright heads-up. My understanding in Oz is that copyright is implied, it belongs to the author against all others, wether copyright has been made explicit or not. The issue is proving ownership and any loss the consequence of any breach of copyright. I understand the year is part of the test the court applies for damages, and the name provides 1. proof of ownership [albiet not conclusive] and 2. it provides the potential misuser with notice that the article has a vested interest in it.

I guess I have to learn to think internationally rather than locally. Tests in law here don't necessarily cross waters.

Regards

Paul

Warren Sarle said:

When I take a photo like these flower shots, I might take anywhere
from 10 to 70 shots (bracketing focus and depth of field and
varying composition), then spend an hour trying to decide which one
to use, and - if I really like it - another hour in Photoshop. The
most agonizing part is trying to decide which shot to use.

For something like the jaguar, I might spend several days in
Photoshop.

Click to expand...

First, Paul, you are a very good photographer with the potential to be excellent. I'm surprised to hear you're a relative beginner, so take any comments in that light. When asking for criticism, remember that people will do just that...in fact they'll find fault even with an image they like and hadn't been critical of before - because by asking, you've put them on the spot, and because most people sincerely want to help. You have to develop a fairly thick skin. At college we had group crits after every assignment, and some people were ruthless, could never find anything positive to say, but you had to try to pick out what you felt was useful and try not to get demoralised. Many opinions on photographs are subjective. Listen for the genuinely technical advice as opposed to the personal choice advice. For example, everyone who's responded had said you need to liven up your portrait lighting, so that's an example of technical rather than subjective assessment. But be aware that some technical advice may be correct in theory, but by removing or altering some factor you may deaden your end result.

PaulLandscape244043 said:

Others were ruled out because the flower was not
entirely pristine. It had a blemish in it white part of the flower.

Click to expand...

Clone out the blemish. It may be cheating, but photographers have always done this. Before digital, we all madly dodged, burned and spotted in.

PaulLandscape244043 said:

I really liked the jaguar shots and expected a little more comment
on them?

Click to expand...

Flip the image horizontally and see if it still works. This will break the relationship with what your mind saw at the time you took the picture: it will help you make a more objective assessment.

PaulLandscape244043 said:

Are you suggesting I
should have taken the time to remove the flaws in the purple shot
in and around the eyes? There seems to be some roughness/flaw in
the casting. I'm not sure whether this should be left alone or
cleaned up?

Click to expand...

Another trick is to take snapshots at various stages and compare them. Sometimes I make new files and put several versions up on the screen together, then I can see if a certain interpretation works better than another.

Flick said:

Another trick is to take snapshots at various stages and compare
them. Sometimes I make new files and put several versions up on the
screen together, then I can see if a certain interpretation works
better than another.

Click to expand...

By this I mean in history in Photoshop.

PaulLandscape said:

Hi Franceso,

Seems you've been doing a lot more outside the kitchen than first
portrayed. I've made some comments on a number of your pictures on
your linked site. Please delete them as you've had a chance to
read them. I have looked with the idea that you're looking for
some feedback. Again, I'm not qualified but have offered some
thoughts.

One that did strike me, was the evening shot over the bridge.
There seems to be quite some noise in the sky. If you've intended
it fair enough. If not drop me a line as this is more down my
alley. I've spent a bit of time do longer exposures in these type
of conditions and have had to do a bit of work to get them right,
as you might have seen in gallery 3.

Regards

Paul

Click to expand...

Hi Paul,

Thank you for your comments. I have read them with interest.

Here is my reply to them:

• TAXI. You are correct. The effect is created by zooming out.

• NIGHT BRIDGE. I did not intend to have noise in the night bridge shots and I do not have any experience with long and longer exposures. I would love to receive your suggestions about it.

• CURLY NIGHT BRIDGE. I simply moved the camera during long exposure.

• CROISSANT. I agree that cropping or cloning the black spot on the top right would be a good idea. Believe it or not I was so focused on the croissant and the bus on the background that I didn't even notice.

• RIVERVIEW. That's where I live, on the Hudson River. I have so many shots of it in all season, but this is my first with the KODAK. It is my first attempt of making a combination of two shots one exposed for the sky and one for the houses and grass.

Thank you for all your comments and I look forward to learning about long and longer exposures. I might need them in some low light food shots.

Regards,

--
Francesco Tonelli
http://www.francescotonelli.com
http://www.pbase.com/francescotonelli/portfolio

First let me say thankyou for your compliment. I love compliments from those who's work I personally enjoy.

Equally, I respect critisim from those same people.

In my past work I've been subjected to board member monthly reviews. Trust me they are rarely positive and are impecably close to the bone with thier comments, as they have lots of time to hone thier sense of prsonal strengths and weaknesses.

So your suggestions about sorting the wheat from the chaff so to speak, I'm an old hand at. GP would be an example of not being phased by blunt comments. In fact, I have a tendancy to prefer brutally honest criticism; where it is valid. And while I'm so early in my entry into this feild I'm happy to recieve as much feed back as possible. Somewhere down the road when I'm more confident about what I'm doing, I'll probably start sounding more and more like I'm on my soap box.

Flick said:

First, Paul, you are a very good photographer with the potential to
be excellent. I'm surprised to hear you're a relative beginner,

Click to expand...

Started in April

Flick said:

Clone out the blemish. It may be cheating, but photographers have
always done this. Before digital, we all madly dodged, burned and
spotted in.

Click to expand...

Ah, Always a little at odds about this. I'm happy to clone out what is not in the scene ie dust, scratches etc, but always feel a little obligated to leave the real image alone. Not sure why. But this is good advice and I will bear it in mind for future.

Flick said:

Flip the image horizontally and see if it still works. This will
break the relationship with what your mind saw at the time you took
the picture: it will help you make a more objective assessment.

Click to expand...

Interesting suggetion. I like this idea. I'll give it a try. Ta.

Thanks for the time and effort Flick.

Regards

Paul

Francesco Tonelli said:

Thank you for all your comments and I look forward to learning
about long and longer exposures. I might need them in some low
light food shots.

Click to expand...

I can only assume from your night bridge shot comment that you didn't shoot low ISO. Which brings me to my next question. Did you shoot this with the nx or 14? From memory th 14 has a 80ISO so this might allow you to shoot without flashing up "exceeded ISO exposure" or something like that. Generally this means you've got to switch to longer mode to stay in calibration. So this means picking a setting that is within the longer matrix. ISO gives the cleanest result, but take a long time processing. Approx minutes per shot. anyway, the drama is that you can't adjust the time manually. the matrix controls the time according to what you select.

Beyond that you have to still shoot to the right of your histogram, but you might need to choose a larger appeture to obtain the right exposure. If you shoot to dark or to the left of the historgram and then try to rescue the shot in PS you will be left with noise in the shadows. Funnily enough, DOF doesn't seem to be cause too much problem with these types of shots where you are past the infinity range.

Once you've taken a few this way we can then have a look and see if you've been able to get rid of the noise without any other work. Also try to shoot these types types of scene within 5-20 minutes from the sun setting, but while there is residual light in the sky. There is a sweet spot between the sky getting dark and the man made lighting striking a balance. This is the one I generally prefer to use. No point bracketing in longer mode. Pick the next time/ISO sequence in the matrix ot fit the light requirements. Sadly at this time they are moving quite quickly. So if you start at the over exposed setting it will be about right for the next shot and then under exposed for the third shot.

Regards

Paul

Francesco Tonelli said:

Regards,

--
Francesco Tonelli
http://www.francescotonelli.com
http://www.pbase.com/francescotonelli/portfolio

Click to expand...

This is when all things are working. Apart from blowing out the fountain water due to the long exposure, it was a compromise I thought gave the best effect.

http://www.pbase.com/image/31811452

PaulLandscape244043 said:

Also try to shoot these types types of scene within 5-20 minutes
from the sun setting, but while there is residual light in the sky.
There is a sweet spot between the sky getting dark and the man made
lighting striking a balance. This is the one I generally prefer to
use. No point bracketing in longer mode. Pick the next time/ISO
sequence in the matrix ot fit the light requirements. Sadly at
this time they are moving quite quickly. So if you start at the
over exposed setting it will be about right for the next shot and
then under exposed for the third shot.

Regards

Paul

PaulLandscape244043 said:

Regards,

--
Francesco Tonelli
http://www.francescotonelli.com
http://www.pbase.com/francescotonelli/portfolio

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

PaulLandscape244043 said:

PaulLandscape244043 said:

Clone out the blemish. It may be cheating, but photographers have
always done this. Before digital, we all madly dodged, burned and
spotted in.

Click to expand...

Ah, Always a little at odds about this. I'm happy to clone out
what is not in the scene ie dust, scratches etc, but always feel a
little obligated to leave the real image alone. Not sure why. But
this is good advice and I will bear it in mind for future.

Click to expand...

If it's a permanent feature, like part of a landscape or a scar or mole on a face, then I agree - in fact i think it's almost offensive to play with reality in that way. However, for something transient like a flower or a temporary blemish like a spot on a complexion, a piece of litter in a feild etc, then I personally don't have a problem. but hey, where do you draw the line? We all differ over that. I suppose, at the end of the day, you have to go with your instincts and sense of integrity with each individual situation.

Hi Warren
I do the same thing, and generally speaking there are two possibilities;

Either

One - every single shot is fine, and I can't decide which to use (in which case taking one would have been fine).

Two - none of them are okay, and wouldn't have been even if I'd taken another hundred!

kind regards
jono

Warren Sarle said:

Flick said:

... My advice
also (and remember, this is very subjective) would be not to
agonise too much about each individual image. Study it a bit, work
on it, then go out and take some more. I think if you are honest
you know yourself if an image is working or not.

Click to expand...

When I take a photo like these flower shots, I might take anywhere
from 10 to 70 shots (bracketing focus and depth of field and
varying composition), then spend an hour trying to decide which one
to use, and - if I really like it - another hour in Photoshop. The
most agonizing part is trying to decide which shot to use.

For something like the jaguar, I might spend several days in
Photoshop.

Click to expand...

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk