Rejections.

[katcocat]

I have a big problem with critiques. Not with receiving them because I'm always happy to find that someone has taken the trouble to critique one of my photos. It's giving critiques that I find difficult. I think there are a few reasons for this. First and foremost, I don't want to offend anyone, although as we all know, critique doesn't mean criticism Secondly, I really don't feel confident enough about my technical knowledge to offer anyone else advice on technicalities. Lastly, I don't know that much about composition either. My thoughts on photo's tend to be of the 'do I like it?' variety, and not much else. So I thought that I'd start this thread to practise critiquing, and hope that other people might join in. I'm going to conquer the biggest of my difficulties (i.e. the first one) by critiquing one of my own photographs. It's one that I tried really hard with, but eventually rejected. I thought by looking at why I rejected it, I might be able to build up a reasonable attempt at critiquing. (Here's hoping anyway, lol :D ) I'd also like to invite everyone to do the same. Choose a photo that almost made the grade, but in the end didn't. Then explain why!
Here is my original photo, taken in March of this year, in Manchester City Centre.
Exif information: Exposure 1/320 F.Stop. 5.6 ISO 160.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/24-Oct-2004/23081-originalforweb.jpg
I really wanted to get a good picture of this fountain. It's one of my favourites in Manchester and I love the colour of the gargoyle. I wasn't brilliantly happy with the way it came sootc though and decided to work on it in photoshop. Mainly I felt that it had a slight tilt to the image, which needed to be straightened, and that it was all a bit too busy in the background. Which took the focus away from the focal point which I wanted (the gargoyle). I was quite happy with the colour/levels/saturation and felt that they only needed a bit of a tweak. Although I was a bit bothered by the highlights in the window at the back. At this stage I couldn't decide whether I liked the photo or not. I did quite like the composition, with the gargoyle being roughly a third of the way from the top of the photo. I also liked the way the water had been captured.
Into photoshop we go, and I tilted the picture slightly, as well as a slight crop to one side to try and 'even it up' a bit. The histogram proved surprisingly okay, so I just altered the levels a tiny bit to lighten the image. I also altered the brightness and contrast very slightly, and sharpened it a bit with unsharp mask. I then selected the background which I felt to be far too busy and applied a gaussian blur. I used the burn tool at 8% to slightly darken the highlights in the window. I added a simple black frame and came up with this...
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/24-Oct-2004/23081-psforweb.jpg
Do I like it? Well frankly no I don't. I still don't think it works somehow. I think I've focused too much on the base of the fountain and not on the gargoyle. The base is far sharper than the gargoyle when it should really be the other way around. I'm still bothered by the background too. Particularly the two sort of 'pipes' which appear to be coming out of the gargoyles head. They really annoy me and grab all my attention. Nor does the photo have the 'drama' I was hoping it would, (if drama is the right word) The focal point just doesn't stand out enough and it doesn't make me think wow. More ugh, if I'm honest. It's the sort of photo that just makes you feel indifferent. (Reminds me of my school reports - could do better!)
Looking at it in a 'critical' way has made me think about what I'd change next time I'm in Albert Square taking photos. I'd think a lot harder about the angle at which I took the photo. Particularly since there's about eight of the gargoyles around the fountain so I don't actually need that building in the background at all, lol. I'd think a lot about the size of aperture that I use, and I'd also experiment with the shutterspeed to see if I can get different effects with the water. I might even think about taking a photo at night instead, when the fountain is lit up. That might give me the 'drama' that I'm looking for.
So that's me done. Anyone has anything to add to this critique I'd be delighted to hear it. Feel free to critique the photo or the 'critique' itself. I'm here to learn!
Please also post your own 'rejections' and your reasons why you rejected the iimage. I've learnt a great detail by this 'self critique' and I'd like to see how other people approach criticising their own photos.
Kate.

[Manstein]

Here are three shots I took on Loch Leven and none have failed to disappoint despite being kicked around till punch drunk in PS. I tried to get a completely monochromatic effect but the balance betwen actual and reflections in the water doesnt quite work.

[jade fox]

I've seen some wonderful effects done with long exposures, especially at night. I would have tried a 4sec or even longer exposure in lower light. This would add that "foggy" water look and the base of the well wouldn't be distracting anymore cause you wouldn't be able to see through the water. Also, is it possible to get above the gargoyle for a shot. :cool:

[Crias]

Well I have thousands of could have beens! Shots I was really excited to get home and view on my computer only to be disapointed in one way or another. For me focus has been the biggest issue- either the area I thought was in focus isn't or the whole shot is blurry from me moving the camera accidentally (even though I use a monopod).

Here's a shot that when I took it thought- thats a keeper! I loved the way the light was reflected in the ocolet's eye as he glanced up, the unusual pose and expression- I was very excited!

Get the shot on the computer... looks OK at this size
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/24-Oct-2004/2921-1.jpg

But when it comes down to a closer look at the shot- the eye is totally out of focus while the hair behind his eyes and his ear is what is sharp. I like the shot enough nevertheless not to totally toss it (as you can see I've used it in my signature banner), but it will never be the shot I had hoped for. More DOF would have been nice but I was already at 1600 ISO and it was in a dark indoor enclosure. Perhaps manual focus would have fixed the problem, but he didn't sit still that long :)
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/24-Oct-2004/2921-1a.jpg



DOF is another area I am definately still learning- trying to balance a fast enough shutter speed and yet get the DOF I want in a shot. I also don't have enough experience to know how a specific f-stop will reflect on my shot at different focal distances (whether I need an f/8 or an f/22 to get just the right amount of DOF to get the look I want). This year I have made great strides in this area (shooting exclusively in manual or apature priority), but am still learning.

I found this difficulty especially in shots like the ones I took at the sheepdog trial in Meeker. Here you can see a promising photo however the dog is WAY out of focus- if I could have turned this around so that the sheep were out of focus and the dog was sharp (could have done it with manual focus, but autofocus seemed to have a hard time with finding the focus on the dog) it would have been a much more apealing photo to me. When I tried using larger f-stops I was getting motion blur, so could have racked up the ISO (I did in some shots) but then I get grain. I am still learning the balance on these things.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/24-Oct-2004/2921-2.jpg
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/24-Oct-2004/2921-2a.jpg

[katcocat]

Chris, what's all the exif info on those photos? And what would you have done differently? I think you must be happy with the composition at least because it seems fine to me.
Jade, Thanks for the suggestions, I'll give them a go. No chance of getting above the gargoyles unless I take a tall stepladder. (which I'm not prepared to do, lol :D )
Cathy, isn't it disappointing to think you've caught something special in the viewfinder only to then see it on the computer and realise that it's not the photo you thought it was? I often wonder if I'll ever be able to judge by the LCD screen or if I'm always going to have to wait to see the photo on the computer screen at home.
I have to say that if you hadn't have pointed out the difference in focus on the Ocelot then I doubt I'd have noticed it. Theres such a sense of expectation and atmosphere in the photo anyway, that the lack of focus doesn't seem to matter. I'm glad you didn't just throw it out, I think that being able to capture that sort of feeling is every bit as important as getting the perfect focus. In some cases perhaps more important, I've often seen 'technically' perfect photos which do nothing for me whatsoever. What is the exif info on that one? And how would you have changed it to get the DOF you wanted?
I'm really glad you posted the second example. You've explained so much to me about the importance of gaining that balance between shutter speed, f.stops and ISO's. Far more so than a straightforward list of exif information would have done. It's a superb shot of the sheep, but I have to agree that having the dog in focus would have made it a truly fantastic photo.
Kate.

[moore hill graphics]

Interesting thread, Kate! The only photographer who doesn't have disappointing pictures is the one who doesn't take pictures :rolleyes: However, there's always the equal and opposite problem of being your own worst critic - we tend to judge a picture against what we expected when we took it. Geck posted a link awhile back (http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0206/sam_index.htm ) showing the techniques of Sam Abell, who composes his pictures from several others. From that point of view, all of these are winners as they wouldn't take much to really gain punch.
Of course, that too is a matter of taste and preference and point of view and and .....
Anyway, I had a couple of go's at Kate's image (with her permission!) - they may or may not be what she wants, but it's fun anyway... :p

1. straightening the background, blurring it, and foreshortening the lower part of the fountain
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/27-Oct-2004/23078-23081-revisionforweb.jpg

2. increasing the blur on the background, darkening it substantially, and also darkening a tad at the periphery of the fountain
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/27-Oct-2004/23078-23081-revision2forweb.jpg

I have some of my own to put in here too, but something's just come up. I'll be back!

[katcocat]

Aaarggh! Veronica, I LOVE that version!!!!! It's has all the 'drama' that I thought was missing from the original photo. So much better! :clap: :clap: :clap:
Kate.

[Rich]

Kate, I have rated this thread a 5 to keep it going. I think this discussion is needed in this forum. You have done a wonderful self analysis of your picture that can and should be done to every photo you see in the Darkroom forum. We all need to be able to make critique comments and not just "fluff"

I feel to critique a photo you need to start out with a positive comment. This will soften the blow a little. You can usually find something good to say about any photo.

The negative comments should be more than "I don't like it". What is wrong with the photo in YOUR view? What would YOU do to correct it. Keep in mind that not everyone is going to agree with you. Some suggestions will not be possible as you weren't there to see the "whole" picture. Such as a comment of "move back", well, you might be standing on the edge of a cliff so that is not possible! I have made a suggestion for correction that no one agreed to. So be it. The sun will still come up tomorrow. That was just MY view.

Now on to your photo. What you critiqued and corrected went a long way in improving it. What Veronica did is Awesome! Just a different technique you didn't think about but NOW you can put it in memory and use it for other photos. What I would do to Veronica's work is to add a lightning strike to the sky and blur the water with a smudge tool to make it look like you used a slow shutter speed.

I am glad Veronica asked permission to manip your photo. Since this is not the Manip forum it is in good taste to ask first. Some people assume you don't mind but there are people who do not like it. Ask first. Otherwise use a word description to tell them what to do.

Anyway, thanks for the thread Kate and lets all critique more!

[bairam]

This thread was just to good to let it disappear to where ever these threads disappear to.... :D

Vee I really like what you did with Kate's image, the second one with the darkend background. Now that really pops the gargoyle and makes for a beautiful photograph.

Wonderful shot Kate and arn't you lucky that it's right there in your town when you want to shoot it again. You know the light this time of year is perfect for adding drama to a shot. And why not take your ladder along. I've been tempted to on occasion. :D

[asy]

I am a duplicate post of the following post, could a mod please remove me! :D

[asy]

Thanks for reviving the thread, Rich!!

Must admit, at the time Vee's version was posted I thought it was fantastic, but didn't get a chance to post...

Kate, the photo is magnificent, I love the clarity and the drama of the shot.

However, I agree that the background, being so light and busy made for serious distraction, removing it was a classic stroke of obvious brilliance!!!

asy :D

[ponting]

Kate, I was browsing today and came across your great thread. One that should go much further than it has. It is a subject that not only could we all use more advice and guidance with but one that is a gentle reminder to people like myself to stop every so often and re-assess our approach.

I think the comments that Rich has made are bang on and I especially liked the reminder of coming at it gently from the side. As and instructor of many years, I find that while working with students, you have many opportunities to praise as well as critique throughout the sessions and one word of praise can last through many very tough critiques. But in that situation you have the advantage of working face to face with that all important body language/eye contact speaking reams.

I think that Rich reminded me that my people skills have gotten a little hard edged especially when dealing with slide entries or any situation where you don't personally know the artist and time and space are at a premium. Necessity leads one to get very succinct when viewing two or three hundred slides and applying comments to the three-quarters you must decline. Participation in this type of forum whether actually doing a critique or viewing those done by others is a refreshing reminder on how a gracious critique is preformed. It is also a little prod to remind myself that although many people may value my opinion and whether I choose to believe it or not......... some don’t.

I need to remember to step back and just be an artist and enjoy the work around me without the need to analyze. Mary Pratt’s quote at the bottom of my page could well be applied to viewing the work of others as it could be to working through our own works of art.
_____________________________

In reading your comment on not knowing a lot about composition I would like to say this. From what I have seen of your work Kate and seeing your thought processes, I think you have that ingrained sense of composition that all artists would love to have. It is not something that you are conscious of but it shows itself in what you do. Being able to put it into words won’t make you any better at it than you already are. If you possess it you don’t have to think about it and you seem to have it. I am also confident that any critiquing you choose to do could only be very constructive and beneficial.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to cleanse my soul and renew my perspective.

Cheers...Dianna :wave:

[moore hill graphics]

Finally made it back. Here's a shot that I'm just not really happy about, and would appreciate some input on how to understand why I'm not:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/19-Nov-2004/23078-wetcanvas-bridge-on-Old-Che.jpg

If I was manip'ing it, I'd add blue somewhere, for a starter. And it just seems to lack a sense of focus or purpose or something. Does anything stand out to anyone else? :confused:

[moccasin]

Kate ~ Great thread~

V~ Okay, for me this doesn't work because everything ends in the middle - the bridge, the tree branch, the bush in the foreground, the ripple in the water. My eye zeros in and doesn't move around the picture. I like the saturation and am not too sure why you'd want to add blue, but that could be a personal thing perhaps?

If I was to take this pic, I might stand slightly more off centre, catch more bridge perhaps, less or more sky, let the bridge travel across the photo.

Hope that helps some, but I really don't like critiquing either because there's lots of ppl here who do such awesome photography and I would hate for anyone to think I assumed I knew what I was talking about!!! :D

Love what you did with Kate's gargoyle!!!

Must find one of mine and give it a shot.

Cheers,
Sue

[bairam]

Carol. This is a lovely fall scene and it's full of color and action. I think perhaps it's that orange bush in the center that is distracting the viewer and keeping one from going into and moving around. Not sure about that.
I tried several crops, but that bush was always there and it was hard to find the right position for it. Here I tried to put it into the lower third of the picture and cropped it down from the top to make it a bit tighter. I'm not sure if it worked.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/19-Nov-2004/2194-23078-wetcanvas-bridge-on-Old-Che.jpg

[moccasin]

Okay, I, too,played with it - rather poorly, but it's just a quick demo job and I'm not that great at PS anyway ...

I cloned out that beautiful orange bush and cropped.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/19-Nov-2004/17777-23078-wetcanvas-bridge-on-Old-Che_a_.jpg

Sue

[asy]

That's much better Sue...

The eye now goes along the bridge and on into the background...

Next time you go there take a pair of secateurs with you.. :)

Maybe we should all carry a pair in our kits, to assist us with wayward bushes! HEHE :)

asy :D

[katcocat]

Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to reply to this thread.

Rich, thanks for rating the thread and for your comments. I don't think I've ever had a thread rated before :D

Maria, yes I'm very lucky that it's right here in town. Taking a tall (and it would have to be tall) ladder into the city centre isn't an option though. It would mean dragging it on a packed 30 minute bus ride into one of the busiest cities outside of London. (No way would I take the car into Manchester, far too difficult to park) We have a population in Manchester of over 6 million people and sometimes it feels like they all congregate in the city centre at weekend, lol. I took these photo's mid week, when it's relatively quiet, but now I work full time, that's not possible. This is a photo of the actual fountain. You can see that the gargoyles are actually quite high up.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/20-Nov-2004/23081-Manchester-083-copy.jpg

Asy, Vee's done a terrific job hasn't she? I'm really pleased with it.

Dianna, thank you so much for taking the time to post such a thoughtful response. Thank you also for your very kind words on my sense of composition. At a time when I'm feeling quite down about my abilities (haven't taken a decent photo in ages) it's really cheered me up. I feel more inspired to carry on and keep trying. I love your signature quote too, definitely something I should remember, not only in artistic pursuits but in life generally.
I've just had a look at your website...WOW!! I have to say that your paintings are incredible! Such beautiful work. We're very lucky to have you here at WC.

Veronica, I think I agree about adding blue. I think if the sky had been 'perfect blue' it would draw the whole photo together. The shades of orange in the leaves and plants would really 'pop' and give the photo much more depth. The colours would seem much richer. The sky as it is, detracts from the rest of the photo, and seems to overpower it. Which is a shame, because I love the rest of the photo. I love all the texture and the way the bridge leads you into the photo itself. There's a good depth of field too, although I think Sue's version shows that there would be greater dof with the removal of the bush. (Hey Asy, like the suggestion of secateurs! Not sure it would make us very popular though, lol.)
The problem is that I like the bush. I like the colour of the leaves and the general shape of it. Maria's idea to slightly alter the crop so the bush isn't quite so central is a good one, another suggestion might be to move the position of it within the picture. My photoshop skills aren't up to that, but I think yours are. Thanks for posting this btw.
Hi Sue, yes please post one of your own 'near misses' (and that goes for Maria and Asy too if you have time) I'd love to see one. Thanks for your comments too.
Kate.

[moore hill graphics]

Thanks for all the interesting suggestions and comments, folks! I really appreciate your taking the time to think about it.
Sue and Kate, I will try a clone-and-move exercise. Maybe I can get some blue in there too! (I suppose that, technically, it's possible to make the sky blue, but it would be tedious and prolly not really successful. Also, it would be wholesale manip'ing and out of this forum :p I agree it would really make the difference, though, Kate.) Sue - I talked of the need for blue just because the spectrum in the image is so exclusively in the yellow-brown range, it feels unbalanced to me.
I think I see where you're headed with the crop, Maria, but I don't think I gave you enough room to play with!
Secaturs would have been a great asset here, asy! the shoreline was so rough I really didn't have much option about where I took the picture from. However, like Kate, I like that shrubbery in the foreground, so maybe virtual secaturs will have to do.
All of which reminds me yet again of that link posted by geck awhile back, about "seeking the picture" - composing an image from multiple takes on the same subject - by photojournalist Sam Abell. For those interested, here's the URL: http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0206/sam_index.htm
(http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0206/sam_index.htm)
Anyway, I'll have a shot at all this and see you later :)

[mckittre]

This is a neat idea for a thread. I think the gargoyles pic has been covered far better already than I could do it. For the bridge picture, I think there are two main things that I would change about it. One is the fact that the bush top and the bridge end pretty much intersect in the middle of the picture. I like the bush, but if it was off to the side I think the composition would improve. The second thing is the sky. Washed out overcast skies are always so difficult! I encounter them frequently, and they always seem to detract from the pictures. Wish I had an answer for this one, but all I've ever managed to do is to frame the picture without including any sky.

Now for an attempt of my own:
This is a picture I took on the Wenatchee river this fall. I took it because I thought the riffle across the stream was pretty and would lead nicely across to the bright yellow cottonwood on the far side.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/20-Nov-2004/28900-rejection.jpg
Didn't end up working at all like I hoped it would, though, so here's my attempt at explaining why. First problem I see is that in order to make the tree bright enough, I end up with a distracting overexposed blob of white water near the bottom of the picture. Second problem I see is that I didn't include enough of the smooth water on the left. If I'd been farther to the left I might have gotten the transition between smooth and ruffled water to work better as a line leading the eye through the picture. Third problem I see is that it would be nice to have more of the tree tops/ trees to the right. There was a very washed out ugly grey sky, which forced me to cut the tops off, but it didn't end up working out too well.
I tried another crop of it, but it also lacks something.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/20-Nov-2004/28900-rejection2.jpg

I don't expect that this image can be fixed (though people are welcome to play if they feel like it). What I'm interested in mainly is other people's assessment of it's problems. Do you agree or disagree with the problems I came up with? Is there something further I've missed?

Thanks,
-Erin

[bairam]

This is such a pretty fall scene and I too like the reflections in the smooth water. I agree with all that you said and couldn't find much wrong with it except for a couple of little adjustments.

I first did a little adjustment to the level. It seemed to me that it dipped down a little to the left. Then I cropped it so that the white water wasn't the subject. It tended to distract from the color and reflections in the shot itself and became the subject rather than what was your original intent.

This is only my opinion of course.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/20-Nov-2004/2194-28900-rejection2.jpg

[asy]

Hiya Kate,

Yeah, I didn't think the secateurs would be popular, but hey... :evil:

I have *ahem* one or two (hundred) "near misses" and I'd love to post them all, but I'll settle for one at the moment...

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/20-Nov-2004/31576-PIC_0042web.jpg

This is in Northern New South Wales, near Murwillumbah (for those who are interested!) hehe, but, I really loved the view and tried to capture it. However, there's a lot of eucalyputs oil vapour in the air, and it always looks really hazy, in addition to what I think is too short a DOF, this is the result...

Thoughts???

asy :D

[katcocat]

I don't expect that this image can be fixed (though people are welcome to play if they feel like it). What I'm interested in mainly is other people's assessment of it's problems. Do you agree or disagree with the problems I came up with? Is there something further I've missed?
Thanks,-Erin
For me the biggest issue in the first photo is that the tops of the trees are missing, making that part of the photo look 'unfinished' so to speak. I do agree with you that with an overcast sky, what are you going to do? Including it wouldn't have improved the photo. The overexposed part of the river is also a problem (as you've said) but I don't think that the 'smooth' water is such an issue. My own crop of the photo is very close to yours, but I've included more of the ruffled water, for reasons I'll explain. This is my crop;
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/21-Nov-2004/23081-redoneforweb.jpg
The original photo appealed to me a great deal. I'm not surprised that you stopped to take the picture, who could have resisted?
I loved the way the water led you into the picture particularly the line where it begins to turn smooth. As you've said, it leads the eye straight to the tree. It also makes a lovely 'lazy s' shape in the photo. I also liked the expanse of water at the front of the photo and didn't want to lose it. I think it gives a greater depth to the photo. So I cropped the image so that the beginning of the riffle (is that what they're called?) began roughly 1/3 of the way up the photo. (Give or take!!) This also meant that the line of the bushes, is roughly 1/3 of the way down from the top of the photo. (I like my thirds, good things come in three :D ) The 'lazy s' line is therefore in the middle third, wich seems a nice place for it to be. The white water at the front of the corner also points right to the back of the photo and the tree on that bank. Finally, the photo is split into three distinct 'areas' - rough water/smooth water/ vegetation.The emphasis of the photo remains with the stream and not the vegetation, so for me at least, the missing tops of trees no longer matter.Nor is there any need for some sky. Why add a fourth aspect to the photo? (I told you I liked threes;) )
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/21-Nov-2004/23081-explanationforweb.jpg
I also played with the curves and levels slightly, and adjusted the contrast, brightness etc.
This, of course, is just my take on the photo. Feel free to think I've got it completely wrong :D
Kate.
PS. Asy, I've also looked at your photo, but Marianne is nagging me to death because she want's to check her emails and I'm hogging the computer. I'll be back later!

[Windy]

I have just rated this thread. It is such a great idea. I have not had time for input yet but I will! Promise!

[Manstein]

Two more duds from a recent return trip to Wasdale. I've cropped 1 but the camera position is too low to show the walls properly.
2 is just a bad camera angle in a horizontal plane perhaps more to the left.

[katcocat]

I can't believe it's taken me so long to get back to this thread :eek:
Asy, What settings did you use for your photo? I don't really know what to suggest in terms of aperture etc, but I had a look at it in photoshop and played about with the colour using the curves tool. My photoshop skills aren't up to much, but I wanted to try and achieve more colour balance in the mountains themselves.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/28-Nov-2004/23081-asy2forweb.jpg
I seem to have lost a lot of the blue from the sky though, which is a shame. I really liked the sky in your original photo. Perhaps someone with better skills than mine could show us how it should really be done.
Chris, Use the image uploader!!!!!! Thanks for posting these two. I actually like both of them. Getting a slightly different angle with both of them would have made each one a really special photo though.

I'm delighted that this thread has been given five stars. Don't think that's ever happened to a thread that I've started before. Looking at everyones photo's in this way has made me really think about 'the art' of taking photos. By which I mean, attempting to get a truly great photo as opposed to a 'snapshot'. (Not that there's anything wrong with snapshots, I can spend hours happily looking at them) I wonder if it would be helpful to explore the actual 'process' of getting a good photograph? A sort of 'step by step' plan of what is required. Thoughts anyone?
Kate.

[SweetBabyJ]

I wanted to give you Guys an odd-seeming kudo: For an artist working in mediums other than photography, your "near-misses" and "almosts" make THE BEST reference pics for us. Sounds weird, maybe, but when we try to work from "the perfect shot", we end up painting the photograph, instead of painting the painting; it all becomes a question of why bother painting this- the photo already exists!

Erin, your ruffled water pic is the perfect example: Everything you consider not-quite-right is something I as an artist can "fix", which then makes the painting exactly what you hoped you'd seen and wanted to catch. I can exaggerate the S-curve and move it just slightly to the right, expanding the smooth-water reflections- which echo and pull down the colours from the far bank. I can feather in the tops of trees, and add skyholes indicating a blue sky- which REALLY helps- because that would make the ruffled water more than just a passage of grays and whites; with sunshine and blue sky, I'd get deeper colours in there, and glints of light rather than "white". I can, using less value-changes, give an even greater sense of depth to the picture plane, de-emphasizing the detail without "blurring" the far bank, and force that yellow tree to glow like a match. That photo is a TERRIFIC reference pic, and it makes me long to be able to do landscapes better, because I can see the painting in my head, and it's beautiful.

So, when you Guys get those "almost pics", don't be afraid to post 'em either here or to the Library- you might be amazed at what someone else can do with them in another medium. With a stunningly perfect photograph, all we can do is copy it- not improve or even interpret; but with an "almost" shot, we can paint the painting inherent.

[Manstein]

Kate I'm fairly certain I used the uploader or is there a method I've overlooked? Looking at 1 again I've decided to use a pair of 12' stepladders in future do you think you could manage them Kate?

[Windy]

Chris the Uploader is under Quick Links on the toolbar, I think you used the attachments process. The uploader works a little slower, becasue you have to Browse and then Upload, but gives a text string that you put in the typing using the copy paste method. This is excellent for when we are replying as we can see the image in the threads.

Sweet baby, I guess we never thought of that. For a lot of us the photograph is our art so we do not think how hard it would be to paint without it looking like a photograph. Of course being the photographers that we are putting less than our best for reference images would be really hard (I mean to say we dont want to be judged lousy photographers by people who are wonderful painters if you know what I mean). It is off course a wondeful idea. I hope we dont flood the reference library with less than perfect shots. :D
Why dont you paint the landscape anyway (on the premise that practice makes perfect :D )

[moore hill graphics]

Hi all - like Kate, I can't believe how long it's been.... :eek:

However, I tried my hand at a few of the challenges here: I don't know if I've made any big difference with asy's, but played with a mix of setting duplicate layers to multipy, auto-levels on parts, hue shifting on parts:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/28-Nov-2004/23078-wetcanvas-asy-reject-autole.jpg

don't know if that's an improvement or just a slight variation. Haze is always difficult.

Erin - I liked your shot very much, it has all kinds of possibilities. Here's two tries:
1. just leveled and enhanced:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/28-Nov-2004/23078-wetcanvas-rej-mckittr2.jpg

2. playing more with the proportions along the lines the others have pursued, but keeping more of the water, which I really like

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/28-Nov-2004/23078-wetcanvas-rejection-mckittr.jpg

And I tried a clone and move job on my own submission here. It doesn't address the colour problem, but how's the pov now?

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/28-Nov-2004/23078-wetcanvas-bridge-Old-Che-2.jpg

Chris, I'm looking forward to tackling yours next. A virtual stepladder, eh? :cool:

[gobigblu9]

First of all you pros keep talking and I'll keep learning. :clap:

I wanted to share one of my almost favorites.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/21-Dec-2004/17124-QuietGarden.jpg

I am still moved when I see the picture but get a little frustrated when I study it. I think that it has beautiful color. It is just that the stream goes straight up the middle. I am not sure what manip would fix it. I should have picked a different angle on the shot. Feel free to play with it if you like.

Darrin

[katcocat]

And yet again, it's taken me ten years to get back to this thread :eek: Well, not ten years exactly but you get my meaning :D
Sweetbaby, thanks for your comments, like Wendy, I'd never thought of things from that angle.
Chris, no way am I carrying any stepladders! You're on your own for that one, lol.
Hi Wendy! :wave:
Veronica, I like the way you've managed to retain the blue sky in Asy's photo, also like what you've done with Erin's pic. The colours seem much richer in your version and I agree that as much of the water should be kept as possible. I love the altered version of your own photo, you've done a great job of manipulating it. I can also now see lot's of triangles within the pic, really adds to the composition. Very well done.
Darrin, I couldn't resist having a quick go at your photo. However, being 'the season' it really has been a 'quick' go. I think the photo has a lot of promise, but the placement of the river directly in the middle of the picture bothered me too. It seemed to me (and feel free to differ with me anyone) that the main focus of the picture should be on that gorgeous willow like tree. Beautiful colour and such an elegant shape. So I cropped the photo differently. I also played with the levels, curves and saturation and sharpened the image slightly. Finally, I added a border. Don't know if you'll like it, but this is my attempt.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/21-Dec-2004/23081-Alt-QuietGarden-forweb.jpg
Kate.

[gobigblu9]

And yet again, it's taken me ten years to get back to this thread :eek: Well, not ten years exactly but you get my meaning :D
Sweetbaby, thanks for your comments, like Wendy, I'd never thought of things from that angle.
Chris, no way am I carrying any stepladders! You're on your own for that one, lol.
Hi Wendy! :wave:
Veronica, I like the way you've managed to retain the blue sky in Asy's photo, also like what you've done with Erin's pic. The colours seem much richer in your version and I agree that as much of the water should be kept as possible. I love the altered version of your own photo, you've done a great job of manipulating it. I can also now see lot's of triangles within the pic, really adds to the composition. Very well done.
Darrin, I couldn't resist having a quick go at your photo. However, being 'the season' it really has been a 'quick' go. I think the photo has a lot of promise, but the placement of the river directly in the middle of the picture bothered me too. It seemed to me (and feel free to differ with me anyone) that the main focus of the picture should be on that gorgeous willow like tree. Beautiful colour and such an elegant shape. So I cropped the photo differently. I also played with the levels, curves and saturation and sharpened the image slightly. Finally, I added a border. Don't know if you'll like it, but this is my attempt.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/21-Dec-2004/23081-Alt-QuietGarden-forweb.jpg
Kate.

Kate I think that it looks tons better already. At the risk of wasting your time with a dumb question, what are the purpose of curves in PS?

[katcocat]

Kate I think that it looks tons better already. At the risk of wasting your time with a dumb question, what are the purpose of curves in PS?
There's no such thing as a dumb question Darrin, and you're certainly not wasting my time. Funnily enough, I've just put up a thread in the darkroom about this very thing. It's called 'Using the Curves Tool' I tried to put a link in for you but it didn't work.
Glad you liked the photo.
Kate.

[bthphoto]

I'm clearly a very late comer to this thread, but I think it's great and just wanted to add a few thoughts.

First, with digital photography becoming mainstream, many people seem to think (partly at the urging of shortsighted magazine articles) that they no longer need some of the basic tools of creative photography like filters, and that they don't have to worry about light as a compositional element when shooting, because it can all be added or fixed in Photoshop. I shoot about 80% digital these days, so I'm no film purist, but I still believe that creative photography has to begin in front of the camera. I think the majority of the photos posted in this thread could have been made better by either shooting at a different time of day or by using light-modifying filters, such as a graduated ND or a polarizer.

Second, one of my favorite techniques is to critique the photo in the viewfinder. Decide what you "would have done differently" before you shoot. It sounds simple, but it's not an easy habit to develop, because we all tend to see what we want to see when we look through the view finder rather than what's really there. The film (or the digital sensor) doesn't lie, though.

Third, if you really want to get into the details of being able to describe why you like/don't like a photograph, there are two must-read books. Criticizing Photographs by Terry Barrett, and Perception and Imaging by Richard Zakia. They're not light reading, but I guarantee they'll improve your ability to finish the sentence "I like it because ..."

Finally, in the spirit of the thread, here's one of my rejections. I really wanted to capture the feeling of the low ceiling of clouds and the miles and miles of rolling hills, but it just didn't come through. Any thoughts on how I could have done better? -Tim

http://www.bthphoto.com/tmp/lsn14.jpg

[Manstein]

I think the foreground rocks are just a distraction if you could have framed the image as a series of layers starting with the green sward at left and progressing as a series of layers upwards to the clouds it might have worked better.

[Windy]

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/24-Dec-2004/29406-pano_crop.jpg

I think maybe if the fore ground was cropped making it more of a panoramic, might work

[katcocat]

I'm clearly a very late comer to this thread, but I think it's great and just wanted to add a few thoughts.
All thoughts very welcome here Tim, late or otherwise :D Welcome to the thread!

I still believe that creative photography has to begin in front of the camera.
I would definitely agree with you here. One of the things that we aim to do with the monthly projects is look at how we can improve our skills in this area.

I think the majority of the photos posted in this thread could have been made better by either shooting at a different time of day or by using light-modifying filters, such as a graduated ND or a polarizer.
Which is why I orginally started this thread. The idea was to look at what we'd do differently if given the same photo opportunity again. The thread sort of evolved into correcting in photoshop though. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I for one have learnt a lot along the way. I am very interested though, in ways to improve my photography before I get as far as photoshop.

Second, one of my favorite techniques is to critique the photo in the viewfinder. Decide what you "would have done differently" before you shoot. It sounds simple, but it's not an easy habit to develop, because we all tend to see what we want to see when we look through the view finder rather than what's really there. The film (or the digital sensor) doesn't lie, though.
I'm not at all sure about this one. I've had loads of photos which looked great in the viewfinder and I've been very happy with them. I know that I make every effort to examine my photo's as well as I can. Why waste the memory card space? I only want to keep the best. I still however, have many photo's turn out to be less than perfect once I see them on the computer screen. I think Cathy (Crias) mentions this in her examples too. Perhaps seeing the photo 'properly' in the view finder is something you have to 'learn' ? An 'acquired eye' so to speak.


Finally, in the spirit of the thread, here's one of my rejections. I really wanted to capture the feeling of the low ceiling of clouds and the miles and miles of rolling hills, but it just didn't come through. Any thoughts on how I could have done better? -Tim
I think that I agree with Chris and Windy that the foreground rocks are the main distraction. I keep wanting to look over them. I guess if we're keeping to the spirit of 'what would you do before you took the photo' I'd say 'Stand on the rocks! :D' If we're going to look at what you could do in photoshop then I'd crop the photo differently. I'd keep the foreground grass but lose a lot of the rock. Hopefully this would emphasize those great clouds which seem to go into the distance forever. Not the most brilliant piece of cropping but here's my attempt anyway.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/28-Dec-2004/23081-lsn14forweb.jpg
Thanks for joining in with this thread Tim, I found your comments very interesting. Given me a lot to think about. Thanks too for the book recommendations. I shall certainly look out for them.
Kate.

[Manstein]

Still think the rocks are a distraction as they havent the form or texture to add to the image.

[moore hill graphics]

Hi again - finally back after the holidays.

Tim, I'm not quite there with you and the others - I like the rocks! But I agree they dominate the picture at the moment. I tried shifting the POV:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/28-Dec-2004/23078-lsn14v1.jpg

by selecting the rocks and compressing them, and extending the mountains behind, and also giving more height to the clouds so that the sense of distance was enhanced.

Darrin, I love the garden. I tried shifting the proportions of the water to the land, as well as the angle of the water a bit:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/28-Dec-2004/23078-QuietGardenv1.jpg

Chris, I tried shifting the POV on your Wasdale Lake one as well, to give the walls more prominence. Couldn't actually manage a virtual ladder - pity... :p

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/28-Dec-2004/23078-Wasdale-Lakev1.jpg

I love this kind of thing. I know I know, we should be always trying to get it right "in the camera" - I couldn't agree more. But the process of trying to fix these things also helps to clarify what you want to achieve next time, too!

[moore hill graphics]

Here's a simple but clear and well-exampled article on composition:

http://www.apogeephoto.com/mag1-6/mag2-4closure.shtml

It just turned up in my e-mail so thought I would pass it along :)

[bthphoto]

Tim, I'm not quite there with you and the others - I like the rocks! But I agree they dominate the picture at the moment. I tried shifting the POV:

Wow, Veronica! That's some pretty impressive PS work. It's also much closer to the shot I was shooting for. I thought the rocks would add some foreground for perspective and give the viewer a sense of the "ceiling" of clouds, but clearly I would have done better to shoot from on top of the rocks.

I love this kind of thing. I know I know, we should be always trying to get it right "in the camera" - I couldn't agree more. But the process of trying to fix these things also helps to clarify what you want to achieve next time, too!

Good point. Kind of the same concept as sketching ideas before setting up in the studio, except you don't have to start from scratch.

Thanks. -Tim

[Manstein]

Veronica,

Thanks for your efforts I could wander among those walls all day! I have a very light stepladder think I might try it one day.

[moore hill graphics]

Thanks Tim - I liked how that turned out too.

clearly I would have done better to shoot from on top of the rocks.

Well, I think your instinct to include them was a good one, you just needed to be a tad higher (maybe borrow Chris's stepladder? :wink2: ) Without that texture and the touch of rust colour, I think the image would have lacked foreground and been a bit bland. Just IMO but there you are.

Chris, I don't wonder you love that area - what a wealth of images and textures! Looking forward to the stepladder thread... :cat:

[Manstein]

This is an image in which I think a dull foreground works.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/30-Dec-2004/13230-Ennerdale2.jpg

[moore hill graphics]

I agree, Chris, that that picture certainly works - it's gorgeous!
However, I don't agree that the foreground is dull - it's dark, and that is a good contrast to the middle ground, which, with the field and the colour in the clouds, is very active. You have 4 or five "grounds" in this image.
With Tim's landscape, if you remove the rocks, you have only 2, or possibly 3, but the foreground grass is tonally similar to the background mountains, so I don't know if, visually, That would count as an additional level.
IMO and all that :)

[laketrees]

Kate
This is a great thread and I hope I can puta photo in. :clap: :angel: :wave:

[katcocat]

... I hope I can puta photo in.
Yes please! The more the merrier.
Chris, I really like that photo you've posted. I think it works well.
Kate.

[Manstein]

Tim get back up that hill!

[bthphoto]

Tim get back up that hill!

LOL! Wish I could. Unfortunately it's currently under 6 feet of snow and it's -40 outside, so it will have to wait until spring.