submit a photo to the urban75 critics

[weltweit]

mauvais, I think it is all about the fantastic colour - I love it

 

[Hocus Eye.]

^ Seeing as this is the criticism thread...

I like it but for me two things stop it from being great photo-

1) I think it's a bit too symetrical, ie boring composition-wise
2) It maybe falls between two stools by being sort of a bit abstract, but not abstract enough.

I don't think the symmetry is a problem in this picture. It is self framing, if you cropped or moved the camera to one side or the other you would lose the framing effect. It is not completely symmetrical but only nearly so which gives it a bit of an edge. I have taken symmetrical pictures before now when the subject was symmetrical. No composition rule is compulsory.

It is a powerful image redolent of fire or even an explosion, nothing boring to me. I had a little think about the fact that the eye level is halfway up/down the picture frame. However cropping some of the foreground would take out the tips of those finger like leaves that seem to point towards the corner. There is also a red leaf towards the left sitting with the tips of its separate leaves just touching the lower edge of the picture which is a good component of the composition as it stands.

 

[mauvais]

I forgot I'd posted here. Cheers for those, interesting. I'm quite pleased with it if only because I haven't taken a good shot in ages, so I think I'll get it printed big.

You can have a couple more if you like

 

[teuchter]

^ The second one is very nice indeed.

The fuzziness at the bottom right bothers me slightly though.

 

[weltweit]

mauvais, I love the first (the red one) it is very lovelly, I expect it was UK but the shape of the leaves in the bottom right corner make me think of the orient. I like the second also but not as much as the first.

 

[mauvais]

^ The second one is very nice indeed.

The fuzziness at the bottom right bothers me slightly though.

Oh boo, you've spoilt it for me now

I don't know what that's about. Wind, mucky lens maybe, or misfocused somewhere into the scene - seems to be the whole RHS.

 

[teuchter]

Oh boo, you've spoilt it for me now

That's what this thread is all about.

What about a bit of cropping?

 

[mauvais]

My, this thread's doing well isn't it.

Camera on a tripod, lit different areas of the scene for different exposures, and then reassembled in Photoshop, choosing the right bits of each.

 

[TruXta]

I'm a rank amateur, but for me that's too bright.

 

[mauvais]

The lighthouse, or the whole thing?

 

[TruXta]

The lighthouse, or the whole thing?

The whole thing. Technically (again a rank amateur) it looks very nice, but it lacks a bit of darkness IMO.

 

[teuchter]

I think it's very good; slightly unreal looking and I like the slightly seasick composition.

 

[mauvais]

The whole thing. Technically (again a rank amateur) it looks very nice, but it lacks a bit of darkness IMO.

I was going to say it probably depends on your monitor, but it's a fair point, there's no deep blacks in there. That's kind of inherent to long exposure night photography though - the sky is always brighter than the darkest scenery. I'll have a meddle with it next time.

 

[teuchter]

Oh, but just on a technical point to annoy you, there is a little bit of posterisation visible in the sky in the middle.

 

[teuchter]

I was going to say it probably depends on your monitor, but it's a fair point, there's no deep blacks in there. That's kind of inherent to long exposure night photography though - the sky is always brighter than the darkest scenery. I'll have a meddle with it next time.

I don't think this is a problem really.

 

[mauvais]

Oh, but just on a technical point to annoy you, there is a little bit of posterisation visible in the sky in the middle.

Oh yeah. That's 'cos I'm a lazy slapdash shit.

 

[TruXta]

I was going to say it probably depends on your monitor, but it's a fair point, there's no deep blacks in there. That's kind of inherent to long exposure night photography though - the sky is always brighter than the darkest scenery. I'll have a meddle with it next time.

You'd know all that much better than me . Don't get me wrong, in many ways it's a cracking shot.

ETA I just now saw the tree pics above on this page - NOW we're talking

 

[Quartz]

^ The second one is very nice indeed.

The fuzziness at the bottom right bothers me slightly though.

Fuzziness? ITYM out-of focus area. Maybe it's my monitor but I would also point out the smoke bottom middle as possibly being over-exposed - it's just a block of white.

 

[mauvais]

Fuzziness? ITYM out-of focus area. Maybe it's my monitor but I would also point out the smoke bottom middle as possibly being over-exposed - it's just a block of white.

It can't be out of focus if the foreground & background are sharp - but it can have been moving.

 

[Quartz]

It can't be out of focus if the foreground & background are sharp

It is the object the furthest distance from the camera, so it can most certainly be out of focus.

 

[mauvais]

It is the object the furthest distance from the camera, so it can most certainly be out of focus.

I had a look at the detail in the background and bits of it are sharp - it really is a left to right deterioration. It's 1/160sec at 38mm though so very little potential for movement in the scene. Don't know what happened there.

No clipping in the smoke by the way - plenty in the sun, and in the sky on the left.

 

[mauvais]

At the risk of it just being me, another one:

I'm quite pleased with that, although not necessarily because it's any good as a whole. Can you spot anything wrong with it? I'll post the original later.

 

[Ranbay]

just point and shoot on my new Nikon D5100, im still a leaner... just really like this shot

 

[Quartz]

At the risk of it just being me, another one:

I'm quite pleased with that, although not necessarily because it's any good as a whole. Can you spot anything wrong with it? I'll post the original later.

Why are the shadows on the chains different? On the left of the bridge they go at 5 o'clock; on the right, they go at 6 o'clock. I'm assuming multiple light sources - I can see one bottom left - but I don't see multiple matching shadows.

 

[mauvais]

There were multiple light sources, though none of them under my control - just ordinary street lighting on the harbour. You're along the right lines though. I'm abroad at the mo but I'll post the unedited copy when I get back.

 

[mauvais]

just point and shoot on my new Nikon D5100, im still a leaner... just really like this shot

Can't really tell the exposure and quality on this laptop, but composition wise, this is excellent. Has almost everything going for it - shame the reflections are chopped off, but isn't major. Timing's excellent so they're both off the ground. Great work.

 

[Quartz]

just point and shoot on my new Nikon D5100, im still a leaner... just really like this shot

Compositionally, it's excellent. You've got the photograph neatly divided into thirds - beach, land, and sky. Everything is artisticly indistinct, giving the whole a slightly abstract feel. The only distinct thing is the contrail. This allows the viewer to superimpose their own youngsters on the children in the foreground. And therein it fails as art. It's too bland and generic.

 

[mauvais]

Here's my one from before:

Took aaaages. Not worth it, but never mind.

 

[Marc Fairhurst]

Some really nice photographs in here. I'm gonna go with this. River Thames. Camera: Nikon D7000

 

[extra dry]

A friends coffee shop on a Tuesday morning