Im a noob! Please critique my pics.

SyDuck

hi, im a noob to this forum and to photography. i am experimenting with my dad's digital rebel.. still learning the basics. here are some pics i took of my friends cars. please critique. i havent taken photography classes yet, just taking pics based on what looks good. i also used photoshop to adjust color on these pics. dont be afraid to be harsh, just offer constructive criticism and suggestions :wave

ps. im 17 and going to take a AP Studio Art exam later on in the school year. i might concentrate on photography, not sure. so please be honest about your criticisms. i want to pass!!

ian408

Welcome to dgrin!

Ah, first of all, where the heck were you in CA that you had sun today

I like the composition of the first shot. The sky is a little over exposed
and your shadow against the car is distracting.

The second shot is not as compelling (to me at least) as the first.

Looking forward to more posts!

Ian

SyDuck

thanks.. this was a while ago with a canon 4mp camera not drebel

by the way, any suggestions on making my pics a bit better

wxwax

Hi Sy! Looks like you have a good eye. Nice composition. I agree, the second shot isn't as interesting. First one may be a trifle hot on the license plate - if you shoot RAW, you could layer two exposures to bring it down. Try to avoid getting your shadow in the shot (very hard when shooting with the sun low in the sky and behind you, I know.) You could also play games with depth of field in the first shot, to make the background blurrier - that'll make the car standout more.

Steve Cavigliano

Hiya Sy and welcome to dgrin


I'm with WX and Ian, the 2nd one doesn't do much for me. The 1st one is better, except I'm not quite sure what you were going for (what story is the picture trying to tell?). Is it supposed to be a pic of the car, the nice colored leaves on the trees, the houses on your street? If it was the car, you could have gotten closer for a kewl effect, or farther back to get more of it in the frame. A different perspective might have minimized the backgound distractions (and gotten your shadow out of the pic). Also, it may just be my old POC monitor, but the car looks soft and the trees and houses in the BG look pretty sharp. Or, maybe I need new glasses too :lol I guess, you must have been going for the car, otherwise why would it be in both shots?....lol

Sorry, if this came off harshly. You wanted a critque and if you will be taking an AP test soon, I'm not gonna blow sunshine up your skirt. They certainly won't hesitate to be critcal of your knowledge/skills. Plus, there's always the distinct possibility, that I am totally missing your meaning and am just too ignorant to see the subtleties of your shots

Welcome again and I hope you do well on the test


Steve

wxwax

Glad you mentioned soft Steve, I kinda thought the same thing but I don't trust my eyes.

SyDuck

Thanks! i liked your critique, you gave alot of input of what to be improved. i took another picture today with a digital rebel. please do the same. Let me know your honest opinion!

SyDuck

oh yeah, i am looking at others' photos and trying to learn some of the techniques they use in their photos and incooperate them into mine.

i have a few questions:
-what are a few things you look for when shooting your subject

well actually just that question. pretty general.

ian408

SyDuck wrote:

i have a few questions:
-what are a few things you look for when shooting your subject
well actually just that question. pretty general.

Your question isn't general...it cuts right to the heart of photography. Two
people look at the same thing through different eyes yet one produces an
image that is lasting and the other, a snapshot. Not that either is a bad
photograph just that one photographer is able to communicate what he (she)
sees through the viewfinder better.

Ian

wxwax

I look for some kind of story, or something that looks really interesting. By those measures, your first shot of the second pair doesn't really offer much - what's the shot about, what's it of? Also, the sign isn't in the most powerful place, and it's soft.

The second one makes a lot more sense to me. It's a nice shot, I think. Still, in my personal opinion (other might disagree) it's not really giving much except for the nice brushed metal texture and the red.

ian408

wxwax wrote:

I look for some kind of story, or something that looks really interesting. By those measures, your first shot of the second pair doesn't really offer much - what's the shot about, what's it of? Also, the sign isn't in the most powerful place, and it's soft.

The second one makes a lot more sense to me. It's a nice shot, I think. Still, in my personal opinion (other might disagree) it's not really giving much except for the nice brushed metal texture and the red.

I think the story needs to be obvious to the viewer tho. No?

In the first shot, there's a high voltage sign on a concrete block near the
ground. Only someone like 'gus or greaper would know there's a underground
vault there. A more powerful shot would be the same sign on a power pole
with the sign in a prominent position and the top of the pole in the frame.
I'm probably not describing it correctly--but this would be a more clear
image for the viewer of "high voltage".

Sy, what other art are you involved in? How does it differ from photography?

Ian

SyDuck

ian408 wrote:

I think the story needs to be obvious to the viewer tho. No?

In the first shot, there's a high voltage sign on a concrete block near the
ground. Only someone like 'gus or greaper would know there's a underground
vault there. A more powerful shot would be the same sign on a power pole
with the sign in a prominent position and the top of the pole in the frame.
I'm probably not describing it correctly--but this would be a more clear
image for the viewer of "high voltage".

Sy, what other art are you involved in? How does it differ from photography?

Ian

hey, thanks guys, i really appreciate it. i am involved in alot of art from figurative drawing to watercolor. now i see that a photograph and a canvas dont really differ much in that communication is still the key.. i guess the ability to capture a still life image with the press of a button distracted me, unlike art, where you have to be able to draw what you are trying to communicate.

well in the first pic, i was trying to convey "man v nature" theme... showing that man has built his instrument on the earth, and has placed rocks to keep nature away, yet plants still have managed to poke through. i guess it wasnt too obvious.

the second pic, is just aesthetics, i tried to take a picture of something that looks good.

any other input would be great. i havent taken any photography classes so i am pretty clueless, but you guys have helped me alot. i have something to aim for now instead of taking pics of random objects.. thanks

wxwax

SyDuck wrote:

now i see that a photograph and a canvas dont really differ much in that communication is still the key.

I've come to that conclusion as well, and look at paintings as a learning opportunity. I study them for composition, lighting and subject matter.

Steve Cavigliano

SyDuck wrote:

hey, thanks guys, i really appreciate it. i am involved in alot of art from figurative drawing to watercolor. now i see that a photograph and a canvas dont really differ much in that communication is still the key.. i guess the ability to capture a still life image with the press of a button distracted me, unlike art, where you have to be able to draw what you are trying to communicate.

Perfect Sy, this paragraph sums it up very nicely. I'd interject that you may even be better off looking at photography as a blank canvas art. In that you choose what's in the pic and what isn't. You choose what get's emphasized and what doesn't. You choose the post processing treatment (dark, bright, colorful, drab, sharp, soft, color, B&W, duotoned, etc). Yes, you don't get to create the objects/subjects you capture, but you should be capturing them from your own perspective and in such a way that they convey your thoughts to the viewer. Just like canvas arts. Sort of like the 2nd shot. Not much of a story, but I like it. I liked the textures and colors, But most of all I liked the on-your-belly perspective. IOW, if I walked by that car, I wouldn't have seen that metal from the same (much more interesting) perspective. Not that it belongs hung on a wall, but it does show that you are thinking and not just taking snapshots.

In photography your canvas will almost always be cluttered. It's up to you to remove what you don't need, to better emphasize your point/story. Perspective, exposure, composition, watching out for what's in the background and taking multiple shots until you get what your after are all part of photographic art.

I am really creatively challenged and can barely draw stick figures. But, to me photography seems similar to the canvas arts. If you have done well with these arts in the past, IMO, once you get pointed in the right direction, you're gonna really kick butt photographically

I'd also like to thank you for accepting my input in the vein it was given. Your rersponse was exactly what I was hoping for. I have managed thousands of people during my life and I always love it when a person accepts critcism constructively and uses it as motivation to improve. You are very mature for a person of your young years

Steve

ian408

Sy,

You're very welcome! I look forward to seeing more of your work. I
definetly think you're on the right foot.

If I may suggest it, try photography for a while before you decide to take
a class (that is unless it frustrates you in which case sooner rather than later).
Sometimes, self discovery is the best part.

Ian

SyDuck

thanks guys. i really appreciate it. we arent going too much into photography in AP Art class, we're already starting to work on our AP portfolios, so ill just continue to experiment with my pics, and practice more with my dad's camera.

thanks everyone for your input