Critique Please

[TheSeagull]

Hi,
I have been photographing (is that the right word?) for a few months now, here's a few shots that I've uploaded, I'm looking for some critique please


I'm using a Panasonic FZ28.

[Jim Ford]

There's not a lot wrong with the images. The only things I'd say is that the 'painted lady' is in fact a small tortoiseshell and that some would critisise the Loch Garten image because the horizon is in the centre (but I think it's fine as it is!)

IIRC, you're 13 years old, in which case you show a lot of promise!

Jim

[TheSeagull]

Originally Posted by Jim Ford

There's not a lot wrong with the images. The only things I'd say is that the 'painted lady' is in fact a small tortoiseshell and that some would critisise the Loch Garten image because the horizon is in the centre (but I think it's fine as it is!)

IIRC, you're 13 years old, in which case you show a lot of promise!

Jim

Thank you, Small Tortoiseshell it is! Is there anyway to edit the title/description of the image? On the topic of horizons, I was watching a programme on stv a few months ago and it talked about 20/80, is that correct?

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by TheSeagull

On the topic of horizons, I was watching a programme on stv a few months ago and it talked about 20/80, is that correct?

'They' say that a picture should ideally be divided into thirds. It's not really 'set in stone' though and you'll see plenty of good images that flout the 'rule'. It's probably safe to stick to thirds, but the better you get the more you can deviate from it. I have in mind some wonderful scenes from Eisenstein's film 'Alexander Nevsky' where the horizon occupies only about ten percent of the scene, the rest being sky.

Jim

[acherontia]

Originally Posted by Jim Ford

'They' say that a picture should ideally be divided into thirds. It's not really 'set in stone' though and you'll see plenty of good images that flout the 'rule'. It's probably safe to stick to thirds, but the better you get the more you can deviate from it. I have in mind some wonderful scenes from Eisenstein's film 'Alexander Nevsky' where the horizon occupies only about ten percent of the scene, the rest being sky.

Jim

The rule of thirds refers to this - if when you draw a graph dividing the image horizontally and vertically into three sections each way there should be a point of focal interest that falls within these 'squares' or divisions.

In the above landscape the horizon falls within the middle division horizontally and the branches,reeds and bushes also fall within these confines - therefore that is probably why it works.
But - I find the small intrusion of foliage on the left hand side disrupts the harmony and I would either crop it out (the ratios may just still work) or better still - clone it out. I would also clone out the small branches at the top just to right of centre.

The sky (always difficult) has turned out well - lovely.

AA

[TheSeagull]

Originally Posted by acherontia

The rule of thirds refers to this - if when you draw a graph dividing the image horizontally and vertically into three sections each way there should be a point of focal interest that falls within these 'squares' or divisions.

In the above landscape the horizon falls within the middle division horizontally and the branches,reeds and bushes also fall within these confines - therefore that is probably why it works.
But - I find the small intrusion of foliage on the left hand side disrupts the harmony and I would either crop it out (the ratios may just still work) or better still - clone it out. I would also clone out the small branches at the top just to right of centre.

The sky (always difficult) has turned out well - lovely.

AA

Thank you, the top left foliage was unfortunately unavoidable without going into the water

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by TheSeagull

the top left foliage was unfortunately unavoidable without going into the water

So?
;^)

Not so far from Loch Garten:



I used the foliage to frame the image.

Jim

[John D]

Originally Posted by TheSeagull

Thank you, the top left foliage was unfortunately unavoidable without going into the water

Hi Seagull, It's good to see someone of your age being so interested in photography and asking questions. Like many things it takes time to learn and understand the various options and techniques.

With regard to your comments as above it is a desirable thing to have 'foliage framing the view' in most cases and can add to the photograph. If you have a look at landscape photography in magazines etc you will find out that this is a very common feature.
My advice would be to look through the WAB Gallery and look at images of birds,butterflies etc and you will begin to see what is the preferred position for taken photographs.
In addition have a look 'on line' or in a book the importance of camera settings etc such as ISO, Aperature (related to 'depth of field')and preferred shutter speeds.

I hope this helps. Keep up the good work.

All the best

John D

Zenfolio | John's Wild World

[big bill]

Hello Seagull not much wrong with your pics just a couple of minor pionts though,
1. Watch your focusing some of the shots are slightly soft this could be down to your
focusing or shutter and exposure settings.
2. For your landscape shots watch your horizons as previously mentioned make sure
its level,your shot slopes slightly from the right down to the left as to the foliage
its a minor fault,one way to aviod it use a tripod this allows you to slow your
picture taking down and allows you to check around your view finder to check for
any infringements .
But dont dispair for your age you have done well you can only improve and get better with practice ,when viewing your images on the PC check your camera details to see all the exposure settings ect. and see what you could have done to improve it then put it into practice next time out .
Keep shooting and best of luck

AS a matter of interest were are you about?

[TheSeagull]

Thank you for the advice. I live in Aberdeen.