Number 1:
I think this is the weakest of the three. There is really no part of the image that is in sharp focus and the deep blue arches are so distinct in color that they immediately draw the viewer's attention.
Number 2:
On the other hand, this photo is really striking, maybe even mysterious. I think this is a very stong image. There's a clear sharp point of focus in exactly the right spot. The colors lead to some ambiguity for me (a good thing here) in that it's not immediately clear what we're looking at. Is the wall covered in paint? ... stucco? ...moss? Is the music the top layer or the bottom or in between. And finally... what in the world is the story behind why there's music there in the first place.
Number 3:
In this one there's a sharp focus on the left edge of the corrugated metal, but the whole right side (maybe 2/3's of it) is out of OOF and distracting. (Interestingly, the same portion of the frame is OOf in #2, but the bold color and intriguing subject make it work better). The bland color palette and washed out plywood don't really pull the view in like the one in the middle. It might do better with more saturation.
As everyone else has said, #2 is quite nice. I think it might have been improved by a tilt lens, which could have made the plane of focus follow the diagonal of the music paper on the wall, but I don't have one of those either.
With #1, the most distracting thing about it is the nasty, hard-edged quality of the bokeh. The three bright highlights on the blue arch on the left really jump out at the viewer, and the rest of the bokeh has a rather busy, textured quality for basically the same reason. This sort of shot needs a fast, high-quality lens with smooth bokeh. The EF 50mm f/1.8 II is not that lens, though at least shooting it wide open gave you round highlights instead of pentagons.
Thanks to everyone for the input. I also think #2 is the strongest, though I felt like I missed it a little, but can't put my finger on why. BTW, it is a painted wall, and it looked like it might have been a flier of some kind announcing a musical performance or even music lessons, that had been left only mostly ripped off the wall.
About the Bokeh on #1 - yes, I agree it's not as smooth as I'd like it to be, but I don't have better glass (yet!). Is there any way to get better Bokeh with the "nifty fifty" or that's as good as I can expect it to get? I still kind of liked the colors and the happy feeling of the image, but I agree that technically it is flawed...
#2 is stunning. Shooting #2 at that angle to get the curve of the peeled paper was a superb idea. I can't find a reason to study the other two very hard. #1 is closer to working than #3. Had you gotten closer to the center flower and brought it into sharp focus and just had the one blue thing oof behind it might have worked for me. Your lens did fine on #2, you should be able to make it work on the flowers.
Comments
Number 1:
I think this is the weakest of the three. There is really no part of the image that is in sharp focus and the deep blue arches are so distinct in color that they immediately draw the viewer's attention.
Number 2:
On the other hand, this photo is really striking, maybe even mysterious. I think this is a very stong image. There's a clear sharp point of focus in exactly the right spot. The colors lead to some ambiguity for me (a good thing here) in that it's not immediately clear what we're looking at. Is the wall covered in paint? ... stucco? ...moss? Is the music the top layer or the bottom or in between. And finally... what in the world is the story behind why there's music there in the first place.
Number 3:
In this one there's a sharp focus on the left edge of the corrugated metal, but the whole right side (maybe 2/3's of it) is out of OOF and distracting. (Interestingly, the same portion of the frame is OOf in #2, but the bold color and intriguing subject make it work better). The bland color palette and washed out plywood don't really pull the view in like the one in the middle. It might do better with more saturation.
Check out billseye photos on SmugMug
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think Bill nailed it. #2 is the winner.
With #1, the most distracting thing about it is the nasty, hard-edged quality of the bokeh. The three bright highlights on the blue arch on the left really jump out at the viewer, and the rest of the bokeh has a rather busy, textured quality for basically the same reason. This sort of shot needs a fast, high-quality lens with smooth bokeh. The EF 50mm f/1.8 II is not that lens, though at least shooting it wide open gave you round highlights instead of pentagons.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
About the Bokeh on #1 - yes, I agree it's not as smooth as I'd like it to be, but I don't have better glass (yet!). Is there any way to get better Bokeh with the "nifty fifty" or that's as good as I can expect it to get? I still kind of liked the colors and the happy feeling of the image, but I agree that technically it is flawed...
Again, thanks all!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
http://wernerg.smugmug.com/
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
Just a note/idea If you can try to compose the photos like this as
landscape and portrait for Stock.You might just make a sell --
http://www.photographersdirect.com/
No bull
http://danspage.smugmug.com/
Scratch Nikon I switched to
Canon 5d mark II
There are no specular highlights in #2, and the level of contrast and color variation in the OOF areas is fairly low.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.