Image Critique #8

Welcome to 2009. and farewell to 2008. The end of the year is always a hectic time for me, and my blog posting has reflected that. "Sporadic" would be a kind characterization. "Absent" would be much more accurate though.

To get back into the swing of things, I am going to try to catch up on the back log of images that I have sitting here waiting for critique.

Today's image is kindly submitted by Alison Dubois. Her comments are as follows:

"I took the photo while hiking on the east side of the main road through Sedona, Arizona in a secluded area that was void of other people. The scene seemed to coalesce somehow for me into a simple beauty and I find the photo to be serene despite its chaos of shapes and colors.

Details: Taken approximate 2:30pm, Canon Digital Rebel XT, Manual, 1/2 second, F16, 44mm, ISO-800"

This is a nice shot, and I certainly see what Alison saw when she took this shot. A few observations though:

- The image is overexposed. Based on the "Sunny 16" rule of exposure, if it was sunny out, at ISO 800, the shutter speed should have been 1/1000 of a second. 1/2 of a second is about 10 steps too much light here, but I'm going to guess and say that it was fairly heavily overcast, which would buy you about 4-5 stops, still leaving this image well overexposed. The other explanation is that some of this exposure information is incorrect, but the image is overexposed regardless. The rock cliff face in the upper right hand corner is particularly overexposed.

A Quick Adjustment to the Levels and Some Dodging and Burning

-I'm not a big fan of shooting with a 35mm and then cropping after the fact to an 8x10 format. Unless you are composing your image in the field so that the 2 inches you cut off of the top or bottom of this image are superfluous, then you are removing compositional information that you thought was valuable at the time you shot it. I prefer to use the entire frame and present the work as it was shot. If someone is going to pay $80-$100 for a photographic print, they should be quite capable of dropping another $10 to have a matte cut to a 8" x 12" or a 6" x 9" window. Typically, people that spend $80 - $100 on a photograph aren't running into Wal-Mart for a $3.99 matte and frame.

- To me, the reflection line is too centered. If you look at he peak where the water meets the land on the right hand side, it is almost exactly dead center. As opposed to a feeling of serenity here, I get a feeling of conflict and confusion as the top and bottom halves of the image fight for attention. Off setting that line either higher or lower would create one half of the image that was dominant and the other half of the image would work as a compliment for. I would like to see the rest of the images from this session.

- There is no detectable image blur at this size, so it would appear that there was a tripod used for exposure. This is good, because at 1/2 second exposure time, hand holding the camera is out of the question.

- If the f16 was used for Depth of Field, shooting with a 44mm at this distance, you would have gotten plenty of Depth of Field opening up the aperture a couple more steps.


Thank you for submitting Alison.

Submissions are always accepted by emailing an image that is a minimum of 500 pixels wide. Please include any information that you feel is pertinent to the shot. <>Contact Scott

Image Critique #7

Today's installment of "Image Critique" has been generously submitted by Allie. Let's have a look, shall we.....




This is really a very nice shot. Nicely exposed and well composed. There is detail available in all parts of the white orchids petals, as well as plenty of detail to be plucked from the shadows. The small bud in the lower left corner is a very big part of the composition, as is the nicely diagonal line of the stem.

Just a couple of small things to note:

• The upper right hand corner has a light fixture in it. It's pretty dark, and not offensive in any way, but being such a natural photograph, you might want to darken up that lamp if you can or eliminate it from your composition if possible. It just detracts from the naturalness of the scene a bit.
• The ratio of this image as presented is 576 x 551. Close to, but not a square. If you actually crop it to square, the edges of your frame get too close to both the bud on the left and the bloom on the right.
  

Any attempt at putting a matte over this image will result in a further encroachment of these two important compositional elements. This can be solved in a number of ways, but it's just something to think about when shooting in 35mm with the intention of cropping to square. The sooner you recognize the issue, the easier it is to correct.

Bottom Line: I wish that this blog post was longer, but this is really a terrific image. Well composed and well exposed. Very well done with a delicate situation.

Image Critique #6

Hello again. It's time for image critique #6. Thanks for following along.

Todays image was submitted by Pam. Thanks Pam.

I'm going to start off small and work up. This isn't a bad image, but there are a few simple things that would improve it immensely.

1. Posture. The subjects spine is tipped to the right and her shoulders are tipped to the left. This is important because the back is so prominent in the composition. It looks a little awkward and not very comfortable. This is more than likely caused by the subject sitting on a sloped wall, throwing off her balance. I'd like to see the chin up just a little bit higher as well.

2. Eyes. I'd like to see more eye here. The way her head is positioned, she might me looking down, or her eye might be closed. It's tough to tell. If the eyes are in the frame, you should be able to tell what they are doing.

3. Selective Coloration. I'm not going to make any bones about it, I don't like selective coloring. I think it's dated and gimmicky. Selective coloring first made it into the popular mainstream in the 80's with those cute little kids in the overalls on the swingset with the 5 year old boy giving the 5 year old girl a cute flower. Given that, I can tell when it accomplishes what it is supposed to do, and this doesn't do that. Coloring the flowers at the end of the brides arms draws the viewers attention away from what you should be trying to get them to look at, and that's the bride. I can't think of a single situation where this technique would be compositionally appropriate. People that like it, tend to like it because it's "different" and they haven't seen it before. Once they see it a few times, it becomes old hat. So even if a client "wants" it, they probably aren't going to think it's so unique 20 years from now when they have gone through their wedding photos 100 times..

If you must use this technique, try to use the color to attract the viewers eyes to where you want them to look.

4. Contrast and Tonal Range. This is an extremely contrasty image and must be handled carefully. As seen in the histogram below, there are very few mid-tones here.




Try to balance the image a little better using more of the available tonal range. Also, watch out for the bright spots. When dealing with wedding dresses, this can be very tricky. You want the dress to be white, but not so white that you can't see any detail. There are chunks of the dress that are to bright.

5. Depth of Field. A little less Depth of Field would have been helpful here, allowing the background to be lighter without all of the trees and branches being a distraction. I'm not talking about a lot lighter, just a little, stretching out that low end of the histogram. Treat this as a portrait, and open up your aperture.

Since we are talking about Histograms, just let me say that there are no "good" or "bad" histograms. They merely provide us with information and allow us to illustrate something that can sometimes be difficult to explain.

Bottom Line: This image is OK, but a few minor alterations while shooting could have really perked it up. The client might like it, and that is great, but it's not an image that will stand the test of time.

Image Critique #5

This weeks image is a little bit different from past weeks as it is more of a stylized fashion shot. As with all genres of photography, there are certain aesthetic aspects that are inherent to fashion photography that may or may not apply to other types of work.




There are a lot of good things in this image that aren't easy to do. The models look comfortable and the contrast in their interaction and relationship is good. There is a great diagonal composition here that offers a lot of dynamism to subjects that aren't moving at all.

These are great models you have here. They seem easygoing and comfortable in front of the camera. Hopefully, you can continue to work together.

The issues that I see are, for the most point, small and easily correctable.

1. I'm not keen on the aspect ratio. You have cropped this into an unorthodox proportion that leads me to believe that you are hiding something that you didn't see when you were composing.

2. Whether it is due to this cropping or not, the toe and the knee of the model on the left are clipped by the edge of the frame. Don't amputate body parts with the edge of the frame.

3. There is a plant in front of the foot of the model on the right. If this is a "fashion" shot, pull that thing out or move the girls. Tough to buy a sell if you can't see it.

4. The hair of the model on the left is blown out from the highlight of the sun. You did a good job putting the models in nice bright shade. If you had moved them over another foot to the right, you could have eliminated this issue (as well as the hot spot above her knee). I like the light on her shoulder and face, but the hair is too hot. It's lost all detail in that spot. If you want to keep that highlight, a small diffuser in the path of the sunlight might tone it down just enough for you to retain detail there while keeping the highlight. An assistant here would be invaluable.

5. Pay close attention to the hands. The two hands that are in between the girls are cut off. Not seeing the right hand of the girl on the left isn't such a big deal to me because of her angle, but look for someplace to put the two hands in the middle so that they are visible.


Bottom Line: This is really a very good effort and with just a few minor teaks would be a very nice image. This line of photography is definitely something you could pursue.

Image Critique #4

Todays image was submitted by an on-line retailer that goes by the name WaterRose, who has a shop on Etsy.com, which is a collection of artisans that sell their hand made goods. Product photography is a huge deal for these retailers. When a potential customer cannot pick something up in their hands and hold it, feel it, and examine it, the photograph becomes your main selling point. Typically, a photograph is only selling itself, but in this circumstance, the photograph is responsible for selling what is "in" the photograph.

Here is the image that WaterRose submitted:


The first thing I want to talk about is the background. While I'm not opposed to text as a background for this type of photo, I think I would like it just a little more out of focus so the viewer isn't trying to read it. You really want them concentrating on the product here. I would also slide the book all the way to the top of the frame so:

A. The cuff doesn't break the plane of the edge of the book (think about a portrait and how the nose shouldn't break the plane of the face)

and

B. There isn't a gap between the top of the book and the edge of the frame, adding another element to the image that is unnecessary.

The image appears to have an overall green caste to it, which in an "art" image, could be intentional, but in a product image, you should be rendering the image as close to reality as you can get it. Maybe this adjusted image is closer, and maybe it's not, but I think it would be.



I feel like the main piece in the image is a bit distorted due to the close proximity of the lens to the subject. For this particular shot, I think I would back up a little bit and use a longer lens to compress the image and reduce the distortion of the cuff.

I would give it (the cuff) just a little more room around the edges, letting it "breathe" and reducing the amount of "tension" created by the amputations. In many circumstances, tension in an image can be a good thing, but when dealing with a product, I'm not sure that it is such a good idea.

You've filled the frame with your product, and that is a very good thing. Nobody will be mistaken as to what you are highlighting here. The lighting is also very nice, and lighting is no easy trick.

Bottom Line: It's a nice job and only needs a few tweaks to be really very good. If you can't adjust the color of your image after the fact, make sure that you are using the proper white balance. If you don't have a longer lens, just back up. Since this is a product shot for the web, it's only going to be 72DPI and fairly small overall, so making a moderate crop to get it to where you want it to be isn't a big deal.






Submissions for critique are always accepted. Attach your image to an email that says "Image Critique" in the subject line and I will get to it. Keep shooting.

Image Critique #3

This is a tough one to talk about because I'm sure it is an emotional image to both the photographer and to the people it was done for. I'm sure that the parents of this image really loved it.

It appears that this was a spur of the moment idea that grew from a seed while doing a portrait shoot for this newly adopted child, that arrived while her new father was serving his third tour of duty in Iraq. I say that because, while I like the idea and can see the vision, there are quite a few little things that really turn me off as a non-attached viewer of this photograph.

These are in the order that I noticed them. Whether that carries any importance or not is up to you to decide.

1. Grab an iron. Iron the flag. It looks like it just came out of the package and the creases really stand out.

2. The flag is not parallel to the focal plane of the camera, causing the lines to converge. They aren't parallel to the edges of the frame.

3. I don't like the way the flag bleeds past the edges of the frame. Partial stars sticking into the frame and half a stripe on the right hand side, and a missing stripe on the left hand side are distracting at the least.

4. The toe of the bag that the child is in sticks into the blue field of stars.

5. This one is last; the baby in the bag kind of gives me the creeps.

Good Things

1. The lighting is very nice. Soft and even.

2. The colors are very nicely rendered. I might brighten the white just a bit, but it is certainly very nice as it is.

3. I'm sure that the parents loved it, and that is important.

What I would suggest:

Forgive my clumsy cutting and pasting, but believe me, this looks better than my clumsy cloning did.


Keeping the child in the bag, I would include the entire field of stars on the left and eliminate the partial stripes that were beneath it. Include all the stripes on the right. This balances the background. You can see how my "nicely ironed" flag looks much cleaner. Make sure that the flag is completely parallel with the focal plane of the camera to make sure that none of the lines are converging. I would also raise the child up, so that she was mostly above the horizontal center line, effectively splitting this image into three parts. make sure you keep her toes out of the blue.

There is a lot of symbolism in this image, and symbolism is always open to interpretation. I think I would have laid the flag down flat and let the child lay on it, wrapping it gently over her body to symbolize the way that she would be protected and comforted. In this presentation, with the flag behind and the child in a bag (constrained), I get a sense of foreboding and doom, like the overwhelming power of the flag (government) is hovering over her.

Bottom Line: Good idea that I'm sure the parents loved. My nit-pickiness is only to help you think of these things in the future. Take your time and prepare. Don't rush. Symbolically, my interpretation is just that, only my interpretation and feeling. Others, including the parents and you might just as accurately feel differently, and since it really isn't an image for public display, the interpretation of the parents is the one that matters here. But don't discount the compositional and preparational issues just because the parents like it. This is where you will really shine.

Image Critique #2

Everyone like flowers, well, not everyone, but they certainly are a very popular subject for training your lens. Getting a good shot of a flower is not as easy as the good floral photographers make it look.

Lets look at this image that was submitted.



OK.... Let's talk about focus and depth of field. There is very little depth of field in this image. Almost none. The only part of the frame that is in focus, is the greenery in the background and the very back edge of the bloom. If you are only going to have one part of your image in focus, this isn't what you want. You would want the focus to be in the front, where people are going to see it first and concentrate on that.

There is a large blurry stamen (if my botanical biology isn't up to snuff and that isn't what you call that thing, I'm sure someone will let me know. But hey, I'm a photographer, not a horticultural expert.), sticking out from the middle of the photograph that just gets in my way everywhere that I try to look. BAM! there it is again! BAM! BAM! This blurriness is caused by being out of focus, not from camera shake. You can tell that because parts of the photograph in the way back are very sharp. If the camera was moving, it would have blurred everything.



The third thing is the lighting. Strange and flat. It looks like flash, but I can't swear to it. Direct, on camera flash, is very difficult to use in this type of situation. You have to at least bounce it or diffuse it if you think it is necessary. If it's a P&S, turn the flash off.

I'm going to take a guess and say that this was a small part of a much larger image. I don't see another explanation for how the point of focus could be this far off unless it was intentional and I don't think it was intentional.

To do this shot right, you need a tripod and natural diffused light. A hazy day or early in the morning/early in the evening will work the best. You need good depth of field which you will get from shooting somewhere between f8 and f11, maybe even smaller if necessary, depending on your lens and how close you are to the subject. This might cause your shutter speed to be longer than it should be for you to hand hold it (see previous blog post), so use your tripod and either a shutter cable or a timer to avoid camera shake.

I hope the submitter of this image will tell me if I'm right about the extreme crop and flash.

Bottom line: You can do better than this.


If you have an image you would like critiqued (after these last couple I think my supply might dry up), please email it to me as specified in this post.

Image Critique #1

Now that the long holiday weekend is behind us here in the states, it's time to get back to business. This is the first submission that I received to my call for volunteers, (there have been many and I will get to all of you, even if I have to pick up the pace) so here it is.

Here is the first image submitted:



While I certainly see the attraction to the subject, there are a couple of things that definitely need attention. Compositionally, the subject is kind of stuck in "no man's land", meaning that it is too far away to get any of the real detail in the structure, and it is too close to put it in perspective. There is nothing else in the frame to give it any scale. Either move in and really concentrate on the detail, or back up and make it the focal point of a larger image.

For the most part, I stuck with the composition as it was presented to me, I obviously couldn't make the road trip to rephotograph the image. What I did do, was give it just a slight crop, which moved the image just slightly off center (Using the center post as the main focal point) and gave the image a 2 degree rotation clockwise to better orient it. While both of these changes are subtle, they make a huge difference in the composition.

The image was also very flat and washed out, having little tonal range. I spent about two minutes adjusting the levels, and doing a little dodging and burning. I think you'll agree that the resulting image has much more impact than the original. There is still a hot spot in the lower left corner that you could get rid of with a little cloning, but I didn't want to take this that far.

Bottom line: I like the idea and it has good potential, but the execution and presentation were lacking. Keep it up though, practice will help you more clearly express what you are seeing in your minds eye.


Submissions for critique are always accepted. Attach your image to an email that says "Image Critique" in the subject line and I will get to it. Keep shooting.