Got a great 20mm f1.7shot by chance :-)

I agree that the OP probably overhyped the picture, but we are all guilty of doing that at some point.

But what I find amusing is the people who just threw around negative attacks, with nothing constructive, either have no photography of their own posted here, or they have photos in better and easier environments and situations that are no better than the OPs photo.

My original comment on this photo was that I thought it was terrible (and I do).

For that comment I was told by another poster to "grow up".

That poster's comment sparked my last response.

I will agree that I didn't do a very good job on the picture I tried to redo a few months ago.

You have a good memory.

This is not intended to be mean spirited. I would have deleted this picture. If I understand what effect you were trying to get with this shot, you need to get the woman in the middle to be in focus and fix the white balance.

Just my opinion.

Ed B said:

My original comment on this photo was that I thought it was terrible (and I do).

For that comment I was told by another poster to "grow up".

That poster's comment sparked my last response.

I will agree that I didn't do a very good job on the picture I tried to redo a few months ago.

You have a good memory.

Click to expand...

Well ... since we are being honest, you are an ass.

And being an ass is a perfectly fine thing to be.

Embrace it. It's who you are.

When you see something you disagree with you make sure to make no qualms about it and say exactly what you feel. It's almost as if you were a child who speaks their mind without thinking about what it is they are saying and how it might come across.

You know I kind of understand why someone told you to grow up.

It was you who said, "Get another hobby because you don't know squat about photography", correct?

What kind of asinine comment is that?

And you said it yourself that you thought he was new to photography (or at least to this message board). Why on earth would you tell someone who is new to get a new hobby?

Btw, a hobby is something you do for fun or in your spare time. It's not a profession. So why on earth are you getting your panties in a bunch over someone else having fun with their spare time?

Again, embrace being an ass. I have plenty of friends who speak their mind and I totally accept them for that.

Well, I'm sure glad you got that off your chest. It sounds like I'm not the only person who "speaks their mind".

One big difference between us is that I have never called anyone any kind of derogatory name.

I'll will admit that my posting was not the best but it was not directed at the OP.

I like it a lot, but agree with the others the color doesn't work here. I think it would look awesome in b&w.
--
A rose by any other name is still a chicken.

Sorry .. I'm not diggin it. Looks like a bad pic from my old P&S. Shallow DOF? ... I don't see shallow DOF... that 's motion blur not shallow DOF. Agreed with the WB.. way too yellow orange. But... I do like what you were going for.. I like it when people are blurred and one is in focus. I post bad pics here sometimes and the peanut gallery let's me know what they don't like.. It's good to be critiqued even if it's just an " I don't like it".. So please keep posting!
--
Olympus EP-2, 7-14, 20mm, 40-150, 50mm Takumar, Leica 28mm Summicron ASPH.

xMichaelx said:

Thanks, Kolen! Of the people commenting negatively on this image, you're the only one with both constructive, thoughtful commentary, and good suggestions (I agree that this pic lends itself to b&w well).

Perhaps mr pica and Ed B could grow up and learn from your example.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's case of growing up as you say,they have expressed an opinion about your photography, there are many cases where images are highly complimented when they are awefull ( not saying yours is by the way) but people won't learn to improve if they receive no negative comments at all ,so you have to balance the comments up and decide for yourself if you want to improve your photography.

My personal opinion on your shot is ,you pushed the iso limits a bit too much ie 1600 iso would of been far better, the white balance is way to warm,and yes black and white would work better.In my case that shot would of been shot RAW by myself and would have extracted every single bit out of the image untill i was happy.
Good luck

At the end of the day the OP may be new to photography and DP,the guy also has feelings, he got excited about the pic and reflected that in his posting,but still there is no need to blow him out of the water and upset the guy, chances are he won,t post again and lose interest in his new hobby.
I say help him out with advice and not suggest he gets a new "hobby"

Well, here goes, I just received my 20mm lens & took a stroll through the Adelaide Central Market. I took this shot & i do like it. others may not. If you do not tell me why so I can improve the results of my hobby.





lew

Think it show's women are doing all the eating these days !

I like it , certainly draws you in as lots of interesting things in the image for your eye to look around.

Ideally, this would be a separate thread (rather than a hijack of an existing one), but here's my 0.02 anyway

It's a little cluttered, it's not clear what the subject of the photo is. Is it the five ladies? Six ladies? The second lady from the right's bottom? (which is placed very close to the "rule of thirds" spot - where the eye naturally wanders )

The 20/1.7 can indeed throw background out of focus wide open, but to achieve that, you usually have to move in much closer. In other words, your camera-to-subject distance should be much shorter than the subject-to-background distance. This may be different with long telephoto lenses (the "great whites" you'd see at a professional sports event) with their really thin depth of field at hundreds of feet away from the camera, but with a 20/1.7 you're pretty much stuck with having to stick the camera into the subject's face (or some other part of your subject).

If the ladies are indeed the subject of the shot, they seem to fall into two very distinct groups (three and three), each of which would probably make a better shot by itself.

Another compositional problem, IMHO, is that the ladies' heads are right in the middle of the frame. Tilting the camera down so that the heads are closer to the top of the frame, or maybe even getting a bit lower for the shot - both would include a bit more foreground - may have been a good idea. Once again, generally, you would want to keep the most important things in the image roughly a third from the edge (you can bring up the "tic-tac-toe" grid in all mFT cameras, I think, and watch those lines and their intersections).

The lighting was mixed, which usually presents a challenge. The tops of their bodies (heads, arms and bits of faces) seem a reasonably natural color, but their legs look either sun-burnt or painted orange

You can do things to this image in post processing (clone out stuff, crop differently, do selective blurring, change color balance, etc. etc.) that may improve it a bit, but they would probably be quite time-consuming.

That said, it's a nice slice of life snapshot, but not much more than that.

Was it the brutal critique thread? No? Woops!

Hope this helps, though.
--

p.s. Nah, I don't really practice what I'm preaching here. (as my gallery here confirms)

A stack of complicated advice there to say the least,not sure a lecture on hijaking threads and Pro canon lenses etc etc is needed,sounds like you are just being a bit arrogant to be honest.

To the poster of the pic, i would prob crop the image according to what's personal to me and in your case you.

Oh well.

--
Don't bash the gear, bash the photog!

As a newbie, the original picture looks way too orange.
It is not pleasing to look at..
I do understand why he thinks it's a cool shot, b/c the other people are moving.

sshuit said:

Those shots really show off the shallow depth of field you can get.

Click to expand...

It's not shallow depth of field you're seeing there - all three people are a similar distance from the camera. It's blur.

I think the merit of the picture is that it has a "spooky" quality to it. It's a picture I would expect to find in one of those books that is full of "ghost" pictures, not a photography book.

Even if the original poster mistook that cool "spooky" quality for a great photo, that's no reason why you have to put the guy on blast.

Anyone can be a jerk, it takes real intelligence to do the opposite.

-My 2 cents.

Ah ... a coven?

no way to offend me, since I just give my opinion on this forum. Isn't that what forums are about? I did not offend him, I don't think it's a great picture because of the WB, the moving subjects, and mostly of all, the shot was taken at such a high iso that I would expect at least non-blurry shots. And yes, you can discuss about taste and I do like pictures with blurry shots, as long they are functional within the picture. I don't think this blurriness has got any function in this picture. Blur can also be great in pictures when it's a really great motion blur. This blur isn't 'big' enough to call it an artistic blur. I rather call it a failed blur. The kind of blur which indicates that your pictures failed. The picture could be great if the subject was in the center, totallcy focused and the surrounding blurred with both subjects even more motion blurred. That would be a great picture (and of course a better WB). I'm not a professional photographer myself, on the contrary. But as a graphic designer, I do have knowledge of pictures and the sense of images, the art of pictures etc...

I don't want to offend the OP, since tastes can differ, but I agree that this picture could be ok for facebook-purposes, but from the standards on this forum, I think this picture isn't worth showing off. I can understand that this picture has got a special feeling for the OP, since he shot it, but you should understand that we can't have the same feeling of that picture.

That's the difference between excellent taken pictures and amateur pictures: reallgy good shots creates a kind of feeling, ambient or story instantly, That's what I'm missing in this shot.

xMichaelx said:

Thanks, Kolen! Of the people commenting negatively on this image, you're the only one with both constructive, thoughtful commentary, and good suggestions (I agree that this pic lends itself to b&w well).

Perhaps mr pica and Ed B could grow up and learn from your example.

Click to expand...

Photos say something about the human condition, or at least something about something. They aren't technical feats to club others over the head with. I've seen many very un-technical photos that are very good, and many technically correct photos that are boring. I think this isn't a boring photo. Razor sharp, correct white balance etc. doesn't make a bad photo good. I like the isolation of the subject of this in frozen time. If it were more in focus it might be better...I'm not sure. Also disagree with the seeming idea of one post, that converting a "bad" color photo to save it in B&W....well that certainly is an insult to everyone who has ever shot in B&W...From Bresson to Ansel Adams, it has it's own challenges...In B&W you can't cover up lack of composition, form, or other considerations, by slopping color around. I don't think this is a "bad" photo. I think a few things could be improved. It's not boring.
Cheers
--
http://www.pbase.com/madlights
http://barriolson.aminus3.com/

Like the Joker said: Why so serious?