October 15, 2013 at 9:58 pm #14372
So, this is pretty much the First time I have ever asked for a critique! I know, I have a lot to improve on, no one in the area wants “Free, portraiture.” So I can build up a portfolio of head-shot’s! I at least hope with these I can show I have a somewhat grasp of exposure DOF etc etc… Anyways! Let me hear your input. http://www.flickr.com/photos/105269791@N02/October 16, 2013 at 2:03 am #14381
http://www.flickr.com/photos/105269791@N02/10252481125/ – not interesting enough.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/105269791@N02/10252481235/in/photostream/ – crooked horizons are not recommended for most things.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/105269791@N02/10252385034/in/photostream/ – I took an iphone photo of a jellyfish the other day that turned out better than this
http://www.flickr.com/photos/105269791@N02/10252585643/in/photostream/lightbox/ – hmmmm…well i love sushi, but this doesn’t make me want to eat it. you’ve got a crinkled background that is distracting. It’s a very deep green that contrasts way too much with the food.It’s also kicking back into the wood and creating a cast on it. It’s crooked and way too wide. It’s not a great angle. The wood block is chipped. Also not a great color of wood for shooting. Also badly styled. Not your fault, but that’s what you get at generic sushi restaurants.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/105269791@N02/10252477156/in/photostream/ – light painting is so very 1992. Funny story, I used to work for a guy who claimed to have invented light painting in the 90’s, even though it’s been around forever.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/105269791@N02/10252385634/in/photostream/ – no not interesting.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/105269791@N02/10252482775/in/photostream/ – a little interesting. would be better if it enjoyed a little more symmetry.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/105269791@N02/10252586733/in/photostream/ – not even really sure what i’m looking at.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/105269791@N02/10252386874/in/photostream/ – pretty sunset, dirty beach.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/105269791@N02/10252484585/in/photostream/ why the long crop? It’s ok, but not really interesting.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/105269791@N02/10252484585/in/photostream/ – not really interesting
http://www.flickr.com/photos/105269791@N02/10252289363/in/photostream/ too shallow and I wouldn’t know what I was looking at if I hadn’t seen the other image.
So it looks like your playing, which is fine. You need to figure out what you want to shoot and work on that. Be more specific. You are all over the place. Technically, you seem ok, you just need to figure out how to not be boring.October 16, 2013 at 4:32 am #14383emfParticipant
That’s hilarious that guy said he invented light painting. Picasso was doing it in the 40’s!October 16, 2013 at 5:04 am #14384emfParticipant
Ooops correction, it goes much further back. http://lightpaintingphotography.com/light-painting-history/ .
That’s a bit like claiming to invent photography!October 16, 2013 at 9:24 am #14385
Thank you Ebi for the critique, I know I need to pick one subject and stick with it. Which would be portraiture. It’s just hard in my area because of all the pop up studios who charge $35 per session. I’ve even offered to do them for free just so I could start building a folio and getting the experience down. Though that maybe the wrong way to go about it. Though I have thick skin 😛 so your words actually were very helpful 😀 and I appreciate it. I will sit down take a hard look and find ways to be less boring in my shots.October 16, 2013 at 10:21 am #14389
@EMF, this industry is wrought with people who think they are more important than they actually are.
@Tiradia. you took the bad news well, which is really promising for you. The best thing to do is not focus on the negative and do exactly what you plan on doing. Are you a girl or a guy? Girls tend to be able to approach other girls and guys very easily for a photo. Women are less threatening. Guys walking up to a girl asking for a portrait is a little sketchy. I think it’s a little unfair because I often photograph people. The difference is, I rarely ask, which is even sketchier. I can’t stand posey and find more often than not that the moment is lost in that short time between when you notice the girl and when you stop to ask. So my suggestion is to find girls on the street and depending on your style, snap away or stop to ask.October 16, 2013 at 10:48 am #14390
I am indeed a guy! Ha-ha, I think I have a headshot I got at the beach one day. I’ll post a link to it. http://www.flickr.com/photos/105269791@N02/10311112846/ I was walking down the pier and saw the light hitting the side of her face and her smile was infectious. I snapped it and didn’t even ask, just kept on walking ha-ha! My partner (Boyfriend) also does photography. More videography, multimedia design then anything. So I have a resource right next to me which I severely under utilize. And! I have an amazing resource at work I just found out about. >.> I would link their site but don’t want to get in trouble! They are in no way faux’s fakes etc. Their work is actually amazing. They are in the league of the 2500+ dollar wedding business. He even offered to take me out as second assist for the experience. Which I am going to take him up on! I recently obtained a new camera body. I figured if I wanted to get serious; it was time to get a better camera then what I had. I know the Rebel line (T3) (I know Cain uses this *shudder) Can take an amazing picture with some awesome glass behind it. But I felt insecure about pulling it out! So I went out and got myself the 60D I know, shame on me crop sensor :(. I was going to go for the 7D but since we already have one, I figured what good would it do to have Two? I compared the specs, and the 60D sits right inbetween the 7D so it wasn’t a bad investment. Once I get going and get more knowledge under my belt I plan on getting One of the MK series Canons.
*Wipes eyebrow* Sorry for the long windedness 🙂October 16, 2013 at 11:46 am #14392
7D is still a crop body. It just takes a lot of frames in a second.
The girl is looking out of the frame and she has that red umbrella behind her. We weren’t there, so I’m guessing, but if you turned the camera a few degrees right, so she was on the left side of your frame, it may have been a much better photo.
It may be the almost centred eye. Or the not quite sharp far edge of the near ear. Or the lump of hind quarters just right of the base of its neck. Or the not quite sharp teeth on a breed that has a reputation of being all teeth and snarl. The tongue seems soft too.
Crop this just bigger than the shells and you will eliminate ebi’s complaint about the horizon. And, if it still has enough pixels, you may have a good photo.
So, this is what a jellyfish out of water looks like? Good thing ebi identified it! His critique of this shot was too kind.
Your sushi needs sharpening, or better focus. I like the advertizing to match what is put in front of me, but I would choose another dish if that was the photo on the menu. It is slightly better if you replace the green background with white paint.
Ebi didn’t like this one. I think it’s a near miss. I would like the bird a bit further left in the frame, and a wider frame, added on the right. I would like more DOF. I really like the point of view! If all of the bird was sharp, and all of the bird were present, this would be a keeper.
The beach, pier and creek shots don’t do much for me. If you and your partner are both male, who is the little girl? That shot looks hand-held, slow-shutter-speed. That seldom works out. For that to look good, you need a model that can freeze, and you need a quality tripod or some other really stable platform for the camera.
The snail needs a hair more DOF, and a lot less hand.October 16, 2013 at 12:13 pm #14395
The little girl is my sisters friend’s daughter. @The sushi, yes it was replaced with a white background and touched up a bit by their website producer; that was SOOC. The only nice thing about that shoot is we got to shoot their whole menu and eat every single thing they produced. Good enough for me! I also see what you are saying about the Dobie, /hangs head in shame. How could I have gotten the bird sharper? *Not being sarcastic* I would really like to know! If I remember I know I set my AF point onto his head, I probably should have been in MF for that shot eh?October 16, 2013 at 1:15 pm #14401
@Tiradia, definitely take them up on the offer to ASSIST. By that I mean do not take the position as a second shooter. Just handle their lenses, light, etc and then OBSERVE. See how they approach subjects, their process. where they place lights. Ask questions during downtime (asking questions while someone is in the thick of it is super annoying). Do not put your eye behind the camera..not just yet. You’ll miss so much that you need to know.
I assisted about 20-25 weddings before I even touched a camera as a second shooter. I do not shoot weddings regularly now. Only when I get approached and they are offering a shitload of money. The last such instance the girl had to beg me to do it. Finally, I said yes with many stipulations. One of which was I didn’t want to be treated like “the help” but rather a guest. I had my own printed seating assignment and gift bag and was never announced. No one knew I was the photographer. I was just there with my camera and a 50mm lens. No one approached me and said “take a picture with me and my bestie”. I went mostly unnoticed and I took the best pictures I’ve ever shot at a wedding. This idea was introduced to me by a fine-art photographer friend of mine. He’s an absolutely amazing photographer and occasionally does weddings for celebrities. he does not advertise that he does weddings, it’s entirely word of mouth. He has no website for wedding work, but the word of a celebrity goes a long way.
Lastly, being gay is probably the second best situation to be in when you’re approaching women for photographs. make sure to queen it up when asking for that shot 😉October 16, 2013 at 1:16 pm #14402nesgranParticipant
Take my advice for what you want, I’m in no way shape or form a bird photographer. Don’t bother manual focussing on fast moving things like birds, even if they are sitting still. You are never going to do a better job than your camera focussing, especially with a crop camera. As for getting it sharper, just stop down, I don’t know what aperture you used since you stripped the exif. The second way to get it sharper is obviously a better lens, I’m not sure what you are using at the moment.October 16, 2013 at 2:11 pm #14408
As far as lenses go between us we have a Tokina 11-16 wide angle, *He uses this for his videography* 18-55, 75-300, 50mm prime. And a few more I cannot recall off the top of my head. Yes! Haha queen it up. Butch guy going flamboyant makes for some hilarious incidents. And as far as assisting oh no, I wouldn’t dare pick up a camera until I saw what they are doing. I get to pick his brain when we are at work so its a nice resource to have. But to back track I usually use the 50mm. Unless its birds then it is the 75-300. Not at home atm to get the specs of the glass. *Ninja edit* I don’t put all my pictures online I do have a folder devoted to the Florida wild life however. :). Still learning and all the comments are wonderful!October 16, 2013 at 2:19 pm #14411
Nesgran nailed two of three ways with aperture and better lens. The third, which I would prefer for this shot, assuming the bird is not chained down, would be a step or two back. That would give the feet, and at the same focal length, it would improve DOF. You are just slightly soft at the beak’s tip, and you are getting soft around the legs. The good news is, the bird’s eye looks quite sharp, and that is the most important part.
Auto-focus can focus more accurately and much faster than I can. The only time I manually focus is when auto-focus can’t figure out what I want. Usually that is when a bird is surrounded by branches. Or, if I think prefocusing and waiting for my subject to arrive might be a good idea. Usually then I let auto-focus figure it out and switch off AF after I’m focused.October 16, 2013 at 5:05 pm #14430
Thankfully no, he was not chained down! I would have felt horrible. This was one of those shoot it or lose it moments, but I could have composed it better absolutely. I did however find these two from the same bird! I was rummaging around my folder! Hopefully >.< they aren’t as bad! http://www.flickr.com/photos/105269791@N02/10317200333/lightbox/ The only thing I can figure out as to why the blur is on the beak is due to the lens I was using, the Heron did let me get right up on him; but I had my 75-300 attached. And didn’t have time to swap lenses before he flew off. And the other one! http://www.flickr.com/photos/105269791@N02/10317023825/October 16, 2013 at 5:24 pm #14433
I like that one! The light is bad but it’s very Sesame Street!
Indeed, he does look like he’s ready to leave. Nice dramatic side lighting. I don’t think your lens is doing you any favours. It’s OK for now but think about upgrading your lens when you have the budget.
The longer your lens and closer you are to your subject, the less DOF you get. Some lenses focus closer than others, too. And some lenses are sharper than others. According to the receipt, in 2006, I purchased an EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 USM II/III AF lens. It went back to the store a couple of days later because it was not sharp. The salesperson said he could give me a different unit but I would be just as unhappy with any he had in stock, they were all too soft to suit me. It was replaced by a 70-200 f/4 L which is very sharp.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.