Critique My Image

michael66

Here is mine of Malmo

How could I edit it better?

Straighten it a bit?



:-)) Sorry, I couldn't resist. Seriously, I do prefer the white I see at ground level.

Vipmediastar_JZ

Ade

@pierre

Amazing architecture! The picture might benefit from perspective correction. I found this video quite useful, especially for Photoshop users:

Ade

@Vipmediastar

Very nice!! There's something in her hair (just above the hair line on her left side) -- I would touch it out. Great capture!

Vipmediastar_JZ

@ade thanks and great catch. the power of the d800 and the lack of power of my eyes. I cloned it out now.

Benji2505

everyone: Yes, I too think the girl bending creates a flaw. I was so busy trying to catch the kid at the height of his cartwheel that I did not notice the girl bend down to pick up a shell until I had snapped the photo. She distracts from the otherwise rule of third composition with the point of interest on the kid upside down.

Nobody looks into the pic, (almost) everybody shows his backside. So It is unclear what the subject is. Light is good. Background is ok, comp is ok, but suffers from the ambiguity about the subject. If the sports boy is the subject, show him and nothing else.

spraynpray

@jimo: Needs a crop now - square and in a bit tighter. Suffers because of the 'looking down from standing up' viewpoint. Maybe kneel down next time if poss to give grass some height?

@Pierre: Needs contrast, I agree - especially towards the top. Maybe drop an inverse grad in LR?

FlowtographyBerlin

@Pierre: I love Calatrava! Since everyone's mentioning what I also think, more contrast, or a little more exposure (the thing is a gray-ish white, not a white-ish gray :-) ), here's a quick'ndirty example:

Pierre

@FlowtographyBerlin Agree. I like the water better. What's about the sky? I find it dull. I often do not know what to do with them. Perhaps I would had needed to de-noise it, the D800 has this tendency. It may help to know that this is a 3 shots vertical pano.

Msmoto

About my fisheye image…..I think I shot two or three, to maintain a vertical in the center. I had to do these live view as there was no way to get my eye down to the viewfinder at the auto show. This is another one of my experiments…. and I think the fisheye can be entertaining, sometimes visually stimulating. but while the technical aspect of this image is OK, I would not suggest it is anything other than "coloring outside the lines". And, as TTJ said the fisheye lenses are tricky. One of the disturbing characteristics about the fisheye is when the vertical in the center of the image is off…. but, here is another for discussion.



Oh, BTW, this is best viewed larger: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/12130738605/sizes/o/

And, remember this is a 10.5mm DX lens modified for use on full frame.

Pierre

@Msmoto I really like what you do with this lense, it really opens the creativity door.

donaldejose

TTJ: Thanks for posting the Scott Kelby video. Very good.

FlowtographyBerlin

What's about the sky? I find it dull. I often do not know what to do with them.

@Pierre: Denoising will only matter if you look at the image in a resolution where you can see the noise, so don't worry about that. If you want to crisp up the sky, just use some levels on there, it will also make the sky more saturated. Again, quick'ndirty:



After all, it really depends on what you want the image to do. The edited version now is getting a little towards the overedited, oversaturated, almost HDR-like stuff that you see everywhere nowadays. Then again, your perspective is intentionally "oversaturated", too, so it goes well together. I'd probably go for a B/W conversion, you can adjust the drama of the sky by adjusting between the different filters (green, blue, red). Here's one with orange:



On a sidenote: As for the image itself, I get the idea but I think the extreme close-up perspective does not do the building justice. After all, its structure is the same width from bottom to top, and that's precisely one of the main characteristics of the "architectural language" of the building, if you wanna call it that. In the picture, one isn't really sure what's perspective distortion and what's the architecture. In other words, I'd think that the same framing, but from a step back would have been better suited – for that specific building. Oh man, I'm doing the thing that I hate when others do it, telling others what they should have done differently with their images... But then again, this thread is about that, so forgive me.

Elvishefer

@Pierre - I like the building and perspective but the sky is very distracting for me. The left side is a darker (more saturated) blue than the right. It looks like you used a polarizing filter when you shot and happened to shoot at an angle where the polarizing effect kicked in half way through the image. Since the subject is the building, I find the sky distracts away from your subject and weakens the image.

Killerbob

Here is a shoot I took a few years ago. At the time I was pretty chuffed with it, but now that I have a D800 I really wish I could go back and retake it. Not a lot post, except for some cropping and color saturation:


D7000 | Tamron 70-300mm @ 116mm (174mm) | 1/500 | f/6.3 | ISO 100

Vipmediastar_JZ

Does the guy with the head down add or distract to the image. My subject is the smoking person. D800 sigma 35mm. Any other c c is welcomed.

Pierre

@Vipmediastar I think cropping sqare to include
the table and its occupants likes better.

Photobug

I am bothered by the individual looking down and the half a person on the left. Agree with Pierre, recrop this picture and remove the left side.

Killerbob

@Vipmediastar_JZ; Depends... If your subject should only be the smoker, then yes, crop out the guy with the head down. However, if the street and its occupants are the subjects, then it's fine!

Rx4Photo

@Vipmediastar_JZ, there definitely is competition between the guy with head down and your target subject. The eye tends to migrate to what's white or bright - in this case both are so my eyes sort of flit between the two of them.

Benji2505

Vipmediastar:
My useless opinion:
Content: american street scene, multiple persons with faces, specific moment (smoke) - interesting
Technicals:
A. Subject- clearly defined, sharp, well lit, interesting - good
B. Background- puts the image into an environment, (important for this genre), provides location info, no highlights, no shadows, might cause some distraction here and there, but nothing dramatic -good
C. Light- appropriate for the genre. Subject is well lit - good
D. Comp- subject is in the right spot, might be moved a little, no leading lines or contrasts, but I guess that would not be expected anyway. Half person on the left is unfortunate. The subject could be moved slightly to the right, but would it create more tension ??? - overall good comp
Overall: imho it's a keeper.

TaoTeJared

I would move the hair light further behind and a bit lower to create more "halo" and separation from the background. Otherwise a good shot.

Golf007sd

Msmoto

Pierre…. Something that can only be completed from the original is to correct the vertical perspective as if it were taken with a view camera. This would eliminate the "falling building" effect of pointing our cameras upward. Here is an example from Chicago. However, this is personal preference as I shot architectural stuff a long time ago and maybe am a bit OCD about buildings..LOL

Vipmediastar_JZ

@pierre the new version of LR has improved what msmoto said.

Also increase the clarity to see if that adds more to the structure.


Great critique on the street photo. Very much appreciated.

@ttj i will try that next time for the hair light.