Members: Madatit >> Critiques Written

Register

Critiques: Critiques Written | Critiques Received | Comments
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  >

PhotoCritique [Translate]

Madatit Gold Star Critiquer [C: 96 W: 40 N: 157] (580) [2016-06-18 18:00] [+]

Pretty cool shot, Philippe.

Was this hand-held?
Have to admire the lack of motion blur at f1/30 @ 200MM.

Pretty eye catching shot, with a nice composition.
The empty space on the left is creatively balanced with the subject matter on the right, and i like how you've cradled the moon in the tree branches.

Perhaps a little noise to the shot, but aperture/ISO/Shutter speed and focal length have played a part in that flaw to get a decent shot preventing motion blur from the tree and moon

Nice one.
:-)

Madatit Gold Star Critiquer [C: 96 W: 40 N: 157] (580) [2016-06-18 16:44]

I do like this one Bob.

Like you say, possibly not everyone's cup of tea, but we're critiquing the shot, not the subject.

for me, this is technically prefect in every way.
Exposure, - spot on, taking into account the diverse light between the foreground/background
Focus / Depth of field - Spot on
Framing/Composition - Spot on
Detail and definition - Spot on
Saturation - Spot on.

Great shot Bob, others may learn form this one.

Madatit Gold Star Critiquer [C: 96 W: 40 N: 157] (580) [2016-06-18 16:34]

Sorry Jonathan, but I can't see the perspective you're trying to portray here.

I've had to look at the shot for several minutes to fathom out the detail, shadows, distance and depth.
The whole image is truly flat, simply 1D, without any real definition, contrast or vibrancy and has no real awe to capture the imagination.

I know this was taken way back in '07 on a 35mm film plane camera, but in their day, the FujiChrome film series were arguably the best 35mm films to use, and the Nikon 801 was a real competitor.

Maybe the scanning has destroyed the shot here, bur for me, I find it hard to see the beauty you're trying to show. Sorry.

Martin

Madatit Gold Star Critiquer [C: 96 W: 40 N: 157] (580) [2016-06-18 16:18]

Can't argue with the beauty, the definition, the details or the colours in this shot Silvio, but I have to ask..............why a portrait shot of a landscape scene?

This is just my personal opinion,, but for all the brilliance of the shot, I feel it's ruined in the mode you've selected.
With the 18mm lens you had attached, i reckon you could've shown us a lot more in a landscape shot.

Still, a very pleasing image.

Cheers

Martin

Madatit Gold Star Critiquer [C: 96 W: 40 N: 157] (580) [2016-06-18 16:10]

Oh how I empathise with you wanting to take the shot from where "The other photographer is".
Been there myself, and it took a while before i could get on the causeway to take the shot i wanted (posted on the site almost 4 years ago)
I ended up with water taxis in my shot!

Without a doubt, one of the most sought after viewpoints in the UK as far as a photograph goes.

This one brings back memories of my trial, and I have to admit, i like this one.
Although the subject itself (The "Mount") is central in the shot, you've got a good lead in with the causeway to the left and the rock formation in the centre to create decent interest in the foreground of the shot.

Exposure and detail are good here Bob, but i think using a UV filter on the lens, or adding a little more contrast at the editing stage to remove the UV haze would enhance the shot no end.

Having said that though, a well executed and composed shot.

cheers,

Martin

Madatit Gold Star Critiquer [C: 96 W: 40 N: 157] (580) [2016-05-03 10:10]

Hey Phillipe. In total agreement with Fiona,

You might also find it extremely useful to change the focal points from multiple select to the centre focal point only.
That way, you can track the subject and use the centre focal point to keep that point on the moving subject when firing the shutter

Good luck.

Martin

Madatit Gold Star Critiquer [C: 96 W: 40 N: 157] (580) [2016-02-17 19:12] [+]

You mention jolting, speed and something to record your journey?

Where's the jolting?
Where's the speed effect?
Where's the record?

This is just another road shot. Nothing depicts anything you're trying to relay to the audience.
For all we know, this could just be a road in Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Turkey or Greece.

If you want to provide photographic records, get evidence to support them. Try photographing the cars with road signs, advert boards, border crossings etc.
Try removing those horrible watermarks too. They dominate your shots and add nothing but distractions.

Madatit Gold Star Critiquer [C: 96 W: 40 N: 157] (580) [2016-02-17 18:56]

Hmmm:
poor composition here I'm afraid Miro.


The reason it looks so flat is there's absolutely no sense of motion
The ultra short perspective and vanishing point is so compressed, the dynamics of what is is you tried to achieve have been lost.
Are the subjects moving or are they static? There's absolutely no sense of speed, motion or direction at all.
The bus looks like a puppet suspended from the power/telephony lines running across the top of roof of the vehicle too.

The quality of the shot is really very poor too, and I don't think this is a camera/lens failure, but purely a media conversion failure.
There is very prominent evidence of pixel ghosting, particularly around the heads of the roof riders. The shot is VERY noisy, and the colour saturation is appalling.

What's with the copyright watermark?
I don't think you need to copyright this or any other shot. I don't think there's any finance to be gained by anyone wanting to Steal or sell your shots.

Madatit Gold Star Critiquer [C: 96 W: 40 N: 157] (580) [2016-02-17 18:00]

Hey Missy,
Not a bad attempt, and I can see the idea behind the shot.
The composition, framing and exposure could be better though.
Composition:
No tide line to give interesting lead in. No angle to complement or scale the depth. The wave line is slap bang level across the horizontal losing depth and distance, plus you have 3 horizons.
Horizons consist of:
1. The foreground showing the birds up to the start of the white water/waves
2. The start and end of the white water/waves.
3. The end of the white water/waves and the "actual" sea/sky horizon.
This could have been bettered by taking 30-40 steps to the left then and however many steps backwards to get the sand/sea line and getting lower by kneeling or even lying on the sand to balance the perspective giving a more natural lead in and also removing the 3rd uninteresting and unnecessary horizon. We know what the scene is, so we don't need to be told 3 times.
Framing:
What's the most dominating part of the shot? For me, it's the ultra bright, over exposed sun burst through the clouds.
Had you taken that 30-40 steps to the left, along with however many steps backwards to get the sea/sand line in the shot, you would have had the camera pointing more to the right, therefore having the sunburst and sunrays more naturally positioned on the left third of the frame. The only interesting sun rays are actually on the right hand side, everything to the left are lost due to overexposed burn out, so the drama is lost, therefore you could have removed them without losing the dramatic effect you were seeking in the composition/framing stage.
Exposure:
The automatic settings on the camera has exposed for the bright sun, resulting in over-exposed sun, under exposed foreground.
If you'd had the camera on a manual setting (AE or TV) you could've compensated by adding an exposure compensation (EV) to give a correct exposure for the entire frame.
Personally, I'd have taken a meter reading of the sea (The darkest part of the shot) then dialled in an EV compensation to allow for the strong lighting of the sun which would've balanced the exposure across the shot, which in turn would have really dramatised the sunrays by slightly under exposing them, retaining their colour, strength and depth.
Bob's workshop has kinda corrected a few things, but due to the burn out on the original over-exposed shot, loads of detail is still lost in the sky.
For future shots like this, Exposure compensation and correct meter readings are the only way to retain details in the shots.
For what it's worth:
Always shoot in RAW format.
It's always worth under exposing shots like this. Dark/lost details can be recovered and enhanced at the processing stage. Over exposed / burnt out shots are irrecoverable due to pixel burn (White outs)
Nice view though, and i'm pleased to have had the opportunity to view and critique your upload.
Keep it up,

Cheers,

Martin

Madatit Gold Star Critiquer [C: 96 W: 40 N: 157] (580) [2016-02-17 15:21] [+]

You've been a member since 2005.
You've got 2392 current shots in your gallery
You've given 888 critiques.
That only averages 6 critiques a month in 11 years, yet you upload everyday.
You used to be a civil engineer. Do the maths.

You once replied to me stating you take on average 80-85 shots a day.
Why not take a week off uploading your persistently out of focus, distorted and grainy shots, and spend a bit of time looking/commenting/critiquing other people's work and sharing a bit of appreciation?

This is a two way street Mike.

Your last point giving comment (NOT CRITIQUE) was 4th Dec 2015.
Do you think it fair to post an image every day and expect to receive any feedback without giving anything in return? I don't.

Perhaps this selfishness you portray on a daily basis is one of the reasons the site is in such dire straits.