# Brutally Honest Critiques



## vroom_skies

Hey all,
 I thought this would be a fair idea for a thread. I've seen it else where so I thought it would be nice to bring it over here. 
In the past we've had users ask for critique on a photo only to get very generic responses. Obviously that isn't going to help them learn from their "mistakes" or improve upon their technique. If we'd be honest everyone of us has room to grow and in turn if we listen to the feedback given, have the chance to become a more knowledgeable photographer.

In a nut shell this thread will be about giving honest reviews of photos posted. Try to base the critique more on knows "truths" rather then personal opinion, however don't be afraid to include that either. So consider: exposure, composition, photo technique (shutter speed, aperture, iso etc), and what ever else comes to mind. 

I envision this thread working as a first come first serve basis. So if I posted up a photo, that photo would have to have some critique before the next photo can be posted. Please try to make the critique worth while and not a quick word or two. Also feel free to post up a edited or re-edited version of the photo your reviewing to show the user how you envision their shot.

Hope that makes sense.

I'll start off the thread with this photo:


----------



## Nanobyte

It's not clear what the subject is supposed to be - if the boat in the foreground is it, the background should be more out of focus.  I found the boat in the distance caught the eye due to its brightness and light on the water.  The two fluorescent items are distracting. I would have manually desaturated them unless the photo was intended for the boat owner in which case, just the distant buoy.

Viewing on a web page is not the best.  The initial impression comes from wherever you happen to scroll down to.


----------



## Rit

Can photo-noobs give their point of view in hopes of learning the lingo?


----------



## vroom_skies

Nanobyte said:


> It's not clear what the subject is supposed to be - if the boat in the foreground is it, the background should be more out of focus.  I found the boat in the distance caught the eye due to its brightness and light on the water.  The two fluorescent items are distracting. I would have manually desaturated them unless the photo was intended for the boat owner in which case, just the distant buoy.
> 
> Viewing on a web page is not the best.  The initial impression comes from wherever you happen to scroll down to.


Thanks for the tips mate :good:. The subject was indeed the boat, although as you pointed out the background is fairly distracting. I looked right over the two fluorescent items, so at some point in time I'll be sure to correct them.
Agreed on the web page. Unfortunately there isn't much that we can do about that.
Thanks



Rit said:


> Can photo-noobs give their point of view in hopes of learning the lingo?


Of course, that's one of the main reasons for this thread.


----------



## Rit

I'm not much of a photographer, even though recently I'm trying to get into it as a hobbit. Over all it's a 'nice' picture, but not 'great'. Like Nanobyte said, there's no one object that stands out and what caught my eye for some reason was how dark and well, black the lower half of the picture is. So to me the picture seems a little out of balance.

I tried save your picture, but when I view it in Windows Photo Viewer, it gets super stretched. But looking at other boat/dock pictures it seems like that's fairly common due to the lack of light under the dock, so it seems that you need to get the right angle to try to minimize that darkspot.


----------



## Nanobyte

Rit said:


> ....what caught my eye for some reason was how dark and well, black the lower half of the picture is.... so it seems that you need to get the right angle to try to minimize that darkspot.


The light was not very good for this shot.  In order to get the subject brighter, the Sun needed to be more behind the camera.  One does not always have a choice.  You could increase gamma (midpoint) but it would decrease the contrast.  I quickly tried that and it was better than I thought because it also washed out the background.  If the background were out of focus in addition, it wouldn't be bad.


----------



## diduknowthat

The photo seems unbalanced. There's a lot of stuff to the right and nothing to the left to balance that out.


----------



## speedyink

Anyone else think of networking when looking at the name of the boat? 

Nice shot, but the background seems to be at better exposure than the subject..subject is a tad dark.  Besides that and toning down the buoy it looks pretty solid.  

So does the picture poster let us know when they're content with the critique or do we use our own judgement?


----------



## vroom_skies

Thanks for the critiques all.

Speedy- Each photo should get a bare minimum of one review before the next image is posted. Preferably two or three reviews, but that wont always happen. My shot has had more then enough so bring on the next image.


----------



## Nanobyte

Should pics be linked thumbnails or full size image?

I'm having difficulty finding any images that aren't obvious what needs doing.


----------



## vroom_skies

How I posted it above will most likely be the easiest method.


----------



## speedyink

I'll give it a go.

Critique prease!


----------



## Fatback

This is a great idea, and I can see myself using this thread a lot in the future. I'm a member of the photo forum, but usually when I ask for critique they just put my photos down. They never actually critique it, so I just stopped posting. 

@Vroom I actually like the picture. What I think takes away from it though is all the stuff on the right side. I'm thinking maybe a crop would help get ride of some of the distraction.

@Speedy I'm not sure about this one, I defiantly like it though. The rock/cliff seems to be the main focal point, but the tree on the left is very distracting to me. There just seems like there is so many things going on in the picture. It keeps my eyes wondering around it. Which is a good think, you always want to capture peoples attention. I think it's could use a saturation boost, to bring out a little of the blue, and green. Other then that I don't see a lot wrong with it. Just remember next time, to try a lot of different angles. Great Capture none the less.


----------



## Rit

Fatback said:


> @Speedy I'm not sure about this one, I defiantly like it though. The rock/cliff seems to be the main focal point, but the tree on the left is very distracting to me. There just seems like there is so many things going on in the picture. It keeps my eyes wondering around it. Which is a good think, you always want to capture peoples attention. I think it's could use a saturation boost, to bring out a little of the blue, and green. Other then that I don't see a lot wrong with it. Just remember next time, to try a lot of different angles. Great Capture none the less.



I completely agree with this, the tree on the left throws it off and I can't tell if you had the whole tree or none of the tree would make the picture better. But I love the color/sharpness of this picture, such a beautiful view! Where was this taken?


----------



## speedyink

Fatback said:


> @Speedy I'm not sure about this one, I defiantly like it though. The rock/cliff seems to be the main focal point, but the tree on the left is very distracting to me. There just seems like there is so many things going on in the picture. It keeps my eyes wondering around it. Which is a good think, you always want to capture peoples attention. I think it's could use a saturation boost, to bring out a little of the blue, and green. Other then that I don't see a lot wrong with it. Just remember next time, to try a lot of different angles. Great Capture none the less.



Thanks for the input 




Rit said:


> I completely agree with this, the tree on the left throws it off and I can't tell if you had the whole tree or none of the tree would make the picture better. But I love the color/sharpness of this picture, such a beautiful view! Where was this taken?



Yeah I also agree, that tree is distracting.  
Thanks man, it's at little mountain, vancouver island.


----------



## Nanobyte

I'd have to disagree on the tree.  This is a classic foreground/background shot.  Excellent day for clouds.  The windblown tree on the right skyline would make a good photo in a totally separate shot especially with this sky.

If this was intended to be arty, I would be inclined to clone out the signs of habitation around the road and the white spot in the foreground woods.

To get a different look you could increase contrast up to white saturation, giving a more dramatic sky.  That's not a criticism, a could-do.


----------



## Russ88765

Epic shot speedy. It left me wondering if there was supposed to be a castle down in that clearing though. Was anything taken out of the shot?


----------



## Justin

Can I have a go?

This was the best I could do on a really overcast day. I shot this with a Polarizer filter to cut some of the haze. I've been told on other forums that it's a good photo which I like but I'm not that satisfied with it.


----------



## Russ88765

Great shot I think, there is a little rendering noticeability on the sky where there are no clouds though. It isn't really a huge thing though, and the rest of the photo looks like you did a good job.


----------



## Justin

thanks for the feedback 

What do you mean by rendering? I opened up the .RAW file again too see and all I did was boost contrast, saturation and some sharpening.


----------



## Fatback

I like it, and see nothing wrong with it. Have you thought about a crop though?

something like this


----------



## Justin

Nope not really. I intentionally wanted to include the cliff thing as well.


----------



## Nanobyte

jnskyliner34 said:


> This was the best I could do on a really overcast day. I shot this with a Polarizer filter to cut some of the haze


Some of the few downsides of digital cameras are that the cheaper models have no facility for adding filters and that people tend to point and shoot without thought (film and developing costs are out the window).  You can't even add a UV filter to most cameras which is necessary for almost any scenic shot.

In Speedyink's pic you could get more pronounced cloud by increasing contrast as I noted.

You may have gathered I don't care for intrusive detail.  I would clone out the stanchion in the lower foreground or crop slightly, but not to Fatback's extent.


----------



## Rit

@jnskyliner34: 
Awesome picture! I really don't see anything wrong with this picture, but if I was super knit-picky, I'd say that there's a color balance issue from the right side of the picture to the left side. And it's not your fault for that, it's just how the picture came up. The right side seems to have more bold colors, and it fades as you move to the left. And like you said, that is more likely from the overcast.


----------



## powerpack

I am a complete noob on this. I like the photo. I like the cliff in the foreground it follows the rule of thirds.

On the very specific critical comments on some of the "rendering" and such. How can we comment on that on this photo sized and scaled as such? I am asking on that as I am no expert? I just think maybe link to larger version with greater file size.


----------



## Fatback

Nanobyte said:


> Some of the few downsides of digital cameras are that the cheaper models have no facility for adding filters and that people tend to point and shoot without thought (film and developing costs are out the window).  You can't even add a UV filter to most cameras which is necessary for almost any scenic shot.



I'm confused by what your talking about. What does this have to do with his photos?


----------



## Nanobyte

Fatback said:


> I'm confused by what your talking about. What does this have to do with his photos?


Jnskyliner34 used a polarizing filter which you can't do if your camera has no filter mount ring.  Many people would not think to put such a filter on anyway because it's too easy to point and click.  If you want a simpler explanation, Jnskyliner34 thought about the shot before taking it and did the necessaries.

You can do a lot nowadays with digital editing but it still helps have a good shot to work with.


----------



## powerpack

Nanobyte said:


> Jnskyliner34 used a polarizing filter which you can't do if your camera has no filter mount ring.  Many people would not think to put such a filter on anyway because it's too easy to point and click.  If you want a simpler explanation, Jnskyliner34 thought about the shot before taking it and did the necessaries.
> 
> You can do a lot nowadays with digital editing but it still helps have a good shot to work with.


I am a noob and even I know I can put a $5 pair of sunglasses in front of the lens and get a polarized filtered photo. I think that is at odds with part of your point?

And your last comment? I just hope it came out wrong.


----------



## Fatback

Nanobyte said:


> Jnskyliner34 used a polarizing filter which you can't do if your camera has no filter mount ring.  Many people would not think to put such a filter on anyway because it's too easy to point and click.  If you want a simpler explanation, Jnskyliner34 thought about the shot before taking it and did the necessaries.
> 
> You can do a lot nowadays with digital editing but it still helps have a good shot to work with.



Ok but I still can't figure out how your comment had anything to do with this thread. It's was just kind of random to me. Maybe I just don't get it


----------



## Ramodkk

He was just adding an extra comment, I don't see the confusion


----------



## Nanobyte

Fatback said:


> Ok but I still can't figure out how your comment had anything to do with this thread. It's was just kind of random to me. Maybe I just don't get it


I guess not.



powerpack said:


> I am a noob and even I know I can put a $5 pair of sunglasses in front of the lens and get a polarized filtered photo. I think that is at odds with part of your point?


"Many people" apparently does not include you



> And your last comment? I just hope it came out wrong.


No.  Exactly as intended.


----------



## Fatback

Ramomar said:


> He was just adding an extra comment, I don't see the confusion



And a fine comment it was, I just thought it was kinda random, and out of place.


----------



## Justin

don't worry Fatback, I had to backread to understand it.  Cheers everyone! especially Nanobyte.  Shooting in better weather would've made loads of difference eh?


----------



## Fatback

Alright I got one. I've got a lot of great comments on it, but I've had a few people say it just doesn't work. That the angle, and crop is wrong. So what do you guys think.





larger size: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4114/4925149774_ea3019143b_b.jpg


----------



## Justin

i like the her pose and your position relative from her. though i don't like how her head's been chopped up top.  maybe some more light hitting her face would be better.


----------



## Fatback

jnskyliner34 said:


> i like the her pose and your position relative from her. though i don't like how her head's been chopped up top.  maybe some more light hitting her face would be better.



Yeah thats the same thing a couple of people have said as well. 

Here it is with a different crop, and different B&W edit http://a.imageshack.us/img836/538/paige2.jpg


----------



## Justin

if you mind, i had a go at it. i re-did the crop to get her whole head in but still kept that tight feeling which i liked in the one you posted.  and i adjusted in curves as well.


----------



## Rit

I like the updated picture better, gives more dimension to her versus her head chopped off and all you see is a majority of her hair/back. For the first one I can kind of see it for like an advertisement, while the 2nd is for a portrait, so it all depends on what you were going for.


----------



## Nanobyte

I'm not at all keen I'm afraid.  Terrific subject.  To me it's shifted too far left.  Her face is way off-centre and you can't see or guess what she's looking at.  If her face had to be over there, her eyes to the camera or slightly off right may have been OK, as in "What are you looking at?" or "What's that behind me?".  I'm sure other shots were made at the time more along those lines or centred.  Adding to Rit's last comment, it's a bit like a Sunsilk ad.  The B&W is nice as is the detail.


----------



## Fatback

jnskyliner34 said:


> if you mind, i had a go at it. i re-did the crop to get her whole head in but still kept that tight feeling which i liked in the one you posted.  and i adjusted in curves as well.



I like it for the most part. Did you sharpen it though? cause it looks like it's over sharpened, but it may just be my display.



Rit said:


> I like the updated picture better, gives more dimension to her versus her head chopped off and all you see is a majority of her hair/back. For the first one I can kind of see it for like an advertisement, while the 2nd is for a portrait, so it all depends on what you were going for.



Yeah I see what your saying, each edit gives it a whole different feel.



Nanobyte said:


> I'm not at all keen I'm afraid.  Terrific subject.  To me it's shifted too far left.  Her face is way off-centre and you can't see or guess what she's looking at.  If her face had to be over there, her eyes to the camera or slightly off right may have been OK, as in "What are you looking at?" or "What's that behind me?".  I'm sure other shots were made at the time more along those lines or centred.  Adding to Rit's last comment, it's a bit like a Sunsilk ad.  The B&W is nice as is the detail.



What do you mean her face is off center? are you saying it should be in the middle of the frame? Cause if thats what you mean I have to disagree. Also not sure why what she is looking at matters. As the photo is of her, not whats shes looking at. Also no this is the only one I have. It wasn't a photo shoot, it's just a photo I took at a family gathering.


Also thanks for the feedback guys. It's nice to get actual critique instead of "i don't like it", or "it sucks".


----------



## Justin

Fatback said:


> I like it for the most part. Did you sharpen it though? cause it looks like it's over sharpened, but it may just be my display.



nope, didn't sharpen it.


----------



## speedyink

Nanobyte said:


> I'd have to disagree on the tree.  This is a classic foreground/background shot.  Excellent day for clouds.  The windblown tree on the right skyline would make a good photo in a totally separate shot especially with this sky.
> 
> If this was intended to be arty, I would be inclined to clone out the signs of habitation around the road and the white spot in the foreground woods.
> 
> To get a different look you could increase contrast up to white saturation, giving a more dramatic sky.  That's not a criticism, a could-do.



I'm mixed opinionated on the tree, lol.  Thats a great idea for the windblown tree, wish I took one like that now 

I dunno what I was going for, just a picture I guess.  I could clone that stuff out, and I agree on the white spot, didn't really notice that before.  

Thanks for the input 



Russ88765 said:


> Epic shot speedy. It left me wondering if there was supposed to be a castle down in that clearing though. Was anything taken out of the shot?



Thanks man.  No, nothing photoshopped out.  Just a couple Lightroom tweaks


----------



## Nanobyte

I had a lot of difficulty finding anything worth posting.  This was taken with a friend's camera and definitely point-and-shoot.  Although I had a good idea of what it would turn out like, I was completely blinded.


----------



## vroom_skies

Few things that came to my mind.
- Horizon is tilted a few degrees to the left.
- The sun & sun flare detract from the photo for me. I like the highlights on the water, however it's just to much and you've ended up with a lot of clipped highlights. However I understand that's hard to accomplish when you need to expose the rest of the photo correctly.


----------



## Nanobyte

Sloping horizon is a correct answer!  I like the Sun flare but mixed feelings about the unexpected upward flare off the water.


----------



## Punk

Yes the glare is just too burned.

Another thing is that with the sun glare, the eye goes from the highlight of the water to the sun, without looking on the sides... You're only using a small portion of the picture.


----------



## Nanobyte

Punk said:


> Yes the glare is just too burned.
> Another thing is that with the sun glare, the eye goes from the highlight of the water to the sun, without looking on the sides... You're only using a small portion of the picture.


I think the Sun is attractive in itself, especially without the coloured rings/hexagons you often get.  Not much could be done about the Sun in the water being saturated white.  Although not planned that way, I think the bright water forms a good separation between the lighthouse and the sea it's looking over.

Unfortunately not enough time to wait for the Sun to be directly behind the light, neither to hike to the other side of the light, which would have been preferred.


----------



## vroom_skies

I just wanted to throw this out there.

It looks like a lot of people feel the need to defend their shots from the critique that is given. This thread isn't here to prove who's opinion is "correct". Everyone has a different idea of what makes a great photo and what might be amazing in your eyes, could very well be garbage for someone else.
This thread is for other members to point out what they would have done differently or change in some form. Does that make you wrong and them right? Of course not, it's just their brutally honest critique... which is after all the thread title.

So if your not open to receiving what could be very direct and potentially harsh feedback, then I'd recommend not posting a photo for review.

Hope that clears up a few things.


----------



## Punk

Nanobyte said:


> I think the Sun is attractive in itself, especially without the coloured rings/hexagons you often get.  Not much could be done about the Sun in the water being saturated white.  Although not planned that way, I think the bright water forms a good separation between the lighthouse and the sea it's looking over.
> 
> Unfortunately not enough time to wait for the Sun to be directly behind the light, neither to hike to the other side of the light, which would have been preferred.



The reflection near the lighthouse is WAY too much overexposed, I mean very burned. if you shot it at let's say F11 or F13, the sun and it's glares would be smaller. 

What I meant is that when you look at your picture, your eye goes to the bright sea, then to the sun, but doesn't go around the scenery, you're only using a small portion of your composition.

I'm gonna try now, open to any suggestion 






This is a picture from the IRC Rally De Monte Carlo 2011 (last thursday) 

The driver is Hanninen


----------



## Nanobyte

vroom_skies said:


> I just wanted to throw this out there
> So if your not open to receiving what could be very direct and potentially harsh feedback, then I'd recommend not posting a photo for review.
> Hope that clears up a few things.


Putting the valid tech comments aside, the main focus of the photo is and was intended to be the Sun and it's play on the water.  I picked a photo with a good selection of flaws other than deleting the main subject!

Incorporating Punk's comment, when you shoot directly into the Sun the camera on Auto, the camera will always be at fastest speed, smallest aperture. The Sun and its play on objects in the sightline will always be the focus no matter what else is in the picture.


----------



## Punk

Nanobyte said:


> Putting the valid tech comments aside, the main focus of the photo is and was intended to be the Sun and it's play on the water.  I picked a photo with a good selection of flaws other than deleting the main subject!




If the sun is the subject, then it should have taken a bigger place in the picture, because when we look at you're picture, the subject is the lighthouse and the rocks.



Nanobyte said:


> Incorporating Punk's comment, when you shoot directly into the Sun the camera on Auto, the camera will always be at fastest speed, smallest aperture. The Sun and its play on objects in the sightline will always be the focus no matter what else is in the picture.



Then we agree on what I said. If auto is bad, why keep it? Do it again in manual. That's the point of D-Camera, you can take lots of pictures...


----------



## vroom_skies

Nanobyte said:


> Putting the valid tech comments aside, the main focus of the photo is and was intended to be the Sun and it's play on the water.  I picked a photo with a good selection of flaws other than deleting the main subject!



My previous post wasn't targeted at any single member. It was a general all encompassing reminder. So, lets all take a step back, relax, and start over.

I'll put one up to start fresh.





PS- Did a little thread cleaning.


----------



## Punk

vroom_skies said:


> My previous post wasn't targeted at any single member. It was a general all encompassing reminder. So, lets all take a step back, relax, and start over.
> 
> I'll put one up to start fresh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS- Did a little thread cleaning.



yeah Thanks for the thread cleaning, I was about to PM you .

I like your picture, very good! the only thing I could say is that the green leafs kinda fade into the green background.


----------



## Rit

vroom_skies said:


> PS- Did a little thread cleaning.


Awww.. but the 14 rules are essential!  Oh well! 

Very nice picture, I like how some of the leafs are focused on and some aren't, it's a really nice mix and it's easy on the eyes. Rather than having all blurred or all sharp leafs. For the picture itself, it's fine, but for the cropping maybe do a little more?  It feels like there's too much green at the bottom and it takes the focus off the rose itself, but if you do too much then it's just a stick floating in air.


----------



## Punk

I'm gonna try now, open to any suggestion 






This is a picture from the IRC Rally De Monte Carlo 2011 (last thursday) 

The driver is Hanninen 

PS: Rit, we got it, you don't like the black borders.


----------



## Justin

i see nothing wrong with it. i like the angle that it was taken. i like the composition. maybe if it were exposed a bit more. a bit dark for my liking.


----------



## Punk

jnskyliner34 said:


> maybe if it were exposed a bit more. a bit dark for my liking.



Yep that's true , but since it was taken at the end of the day, under deep fog and snow, there wasn't much light


----------



## vroom_skies

I quite like the shot, but I would change a few things.
- I'd personally remove the people, unless you wanted to keep the whole feel of a rally. Though I prefer it w/o them.
- While I like the foggy/ misty feel, I don't like the dingy color to the snow. So I would just fix that to bring a little crispness into the shot.


----------



## Punk

I disagree on the people, I'll keep them, they give balance top the composition.

As for the color, maybe I made it too "redish".


----------



## Russ88765

The car looks digital or something. It's a good shot though, not too clouded due to snow.


----------



## Justin

noob to film and the 35mm format.


----------



## Punk

I like the colors!

I don't really know what to look at, it's just a tree, in front of Czech flag? If there was only that tree, maybe it woould have worked but the branches on the left and right kinda ruined the picture in my opinion.

Good try nonetheless!


----------



## Justin

Philippine flag.


----------



## Punk

jnskyliner34 said:


> Philippine flag.



Sorry about that


----------



## Justin




----------



## Punk

The picture itself is well done, we have the moving impression . But I don't see any use of it except for a commercial, maybe because there is nothing really catching my eyes... If I want to be picky, I'd say the sky is a little overexposed  (on the left)


----------



## Justin

Punk said:


> . But I don't see any use of it



for fun  i wanted to take this photo with my nikon f60 and 19-35 since it's ultra wide angle. i tried it before with my canon 1000d and 18-55 and the crop factor ruined the photo imo.  i used iso 100 film and left it in aperture priority mode at f/8 so i guess the camera properly exposed the dashboard.


----------



## osnola

speedyink said:


> I'll give it a go.
> 
> Critique prease!



*looks like arma 2 to me *

but not the sky


----------



## Punk

I'm bringing this thread back to earth. I'm quoting the first page so you guys know what this is about:




vroom_skies said:


> Hey all,
> I thought this would be a fair idea for a thread. I've seen it else where so I thought it would be nice to bring it over here.
> In the past we've had users ask for critique on a photo only to get very generic responses. Obviously that isn't going to help them learn from their "mistakes" or improve upon their technique. If we'd be honest everyone of us has room to grow and in turn if we listen to the feedback given, have the chance to become a more knowledgeable photographer.
> 
> In a nut shell this thread will be about giving honest reviews of photos posted. Try to base the critique more on knows "truths" rather then personal opinion, however don't be afraid to include that either. So consider: exposure, composition, photo technique (shutter speed, aperture, iso etc), and what ever else comes to mind.
> 
> I envision this thread working as a first come first serve basis. So if I posted up a photo, that photo would have to have some critique before the next photo can be posted. Please try to make the critique worth while and not a quick word or two. Also feel free to post up a edited or re-edited version of the photo your reviewing to show the user how you envision their shot.
> 
> Hope that makes sense.



Here is mine:


----------



## spirit

The wasp/bee on the flower is a little blurry and the flower itself seems a little too overexposed.

Very nice depth of field though! I know those shots are difficult to get by the way.


----------



## Kornowski

It's for a client, so stick it to me.


----------



## Life

I took some new pictures. 
This is the original un edited picture.




give Jason a hand for helping with this edit




Only added a little bit of contrast.




100% natural.




What do you think?


----------



## Ramodkk

{AL}-Life-{CoS} please follow the thread rules.



			
				vroom_skies said:
			
		

> I envision this thread working as a first come first serve basis. So if I posted up a photo, that photo would have to have some critique before the next photo can be posted. Please try to make the critique worth while and not a quick word or two. Also feel free to post up a edited or re-edited version of the photo your reviewing to show the user how you envision their shot.


----------



## Life

ramodkk said:


> {AL}-Life-{CoS} please follow the thread rules.



oops, sorry. Please just call me Life, or Ben.


----------



## Geoff

Kornowski said:


> It's for a client, so stick it to me.


Is it an ad for the faucet?  If so, great job.  If it's for another item than the faucet is the main focus.


----------



## voyagerfan99

Kornowski said:


> It's for a client, so stick it to me.



I very much like it Danny! Looks awesome!



{AL}-Life-{CoS} said:


> I took some new pictures.
> This is the original un edited picture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> give Jason a hand for helping with this edit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only added a little bit of contrast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think?



Rule of thirds bro. Don't center the subject; at least not in this case.


----------



## Life

voyagerfan99 said:


> Rule of thirds bro. Don't center the subject; at least not in this case.



I am sorry, but could you explain, I'm not sure what you mean with not centering it, and which photo? Because the focus, is meant for the dog, so I would think he more center, the better?


----------



## Geoff

{AL}-Life-{CoS} said:


> I am sorry, but could you explain, I'm not sure what you mean with not centering it, and which photo? Because the focus, is meant for the dog, so I would think he more center, the better?


You typically don't want to have the subject in the perfect center of the photo, just cropping it a bit gives the photo a whole new perspective.


----------



## Life

WRXGuy1 said:


> You typically don't want to have the subject in the perfect center of the photo, just cropping it a bit gives the photo a whole new perspective.



Oh yes it does, thanks for the tip


----------



## spirit

Put the rule of thirds grid on your Fuji, that'll help you a lot. There's a button you can press (I forget which one now) and then you can select 'Best Framing'. That'll put a rule of thirds grid up for you.


----------



## speedyink

Or just center it up, then move you're camera a little to the left or right 

This worked very well in my point and shoot days.  Center the subject, half click to focus on said object, then pan the camera a little to the left or right, then finish pressing the button.


----------



## TFT

WRXGuy1 said:


> You typically don't want to have the subject in the perfect center of the photo, just cropping it a bit gives the photo a whole new perspective.



I agree but disagree with the crop, the open space should be in the direction the dog is looking, also the tree to the left of the dog is pulling your eyes towards it and becoming the main focus.


----------



## spirit

Yes, I think TFT's crop is better than Geoff's, but having that Rule of Thirds grid on your LCD, Life, will really help you I think. 

OK guys, critique away... by the way if anybody wants to tweak this let me know and I can PM you the original RAW file. 




In a Rush by JasonBrown2013, on Flickr


----------



## Justin

Road is perfectly exposed. Good job there.
The bits of land beside the road are too dark. I would have done a second exposure to properly expose the land then blend them together in PS.


----------



## spirit

Thanks Justin. I do happen to have a shot just like this but darker/with less exposure, so could I blend them together in CS5.1?


----------



## Punk

Not much to say, nicely done, exposure is correct and I don't mind the darker sides personally


----------



## spirit

Thanks Ben. Much appreciated guys! :good: 

I think this thread is a good idea.


----------



## Geoff

TFT said:


> I agree but disagree with the crop, the open space should be in the direction the dog is looking, also the tree to the left of the dog is pulling your eyes towards it and becoming the main focus.


I agree that's better, but I was just showing an example of what I meant by rule of thirds.


----------



## Justin

Thought I'd have a go.
http://500px.com/photo/8016270


----------



## Kornowski

jnskyliner34 said:


> Thought I'd have a go.
> http://500px.com/photo/8016270



I like the composition! Was it a long exposure? The water looks smooth as. I think the highlights are a little blown out though. Diggin' the reflections/shadows, too.

Took this yesterday, not sure if the angle works?


----------



## Justin

Kornowski said:


> I like the composition! Was it a long exposure? The water looks smooth as. I think the highlights are a little blown out though. Diggin' the reflections/shadows, too.
> 
> Took this yesterday, not sure if the angle works?
> -snip-



Yup. 8 second exposure with a 10 stop ND filter. 

Spot on with the focus and exposure on your photo. I think a tighter crop would look better. Take off a bit of the top and remove the right most tree trunk so that the biker isn't right smack in the centre.


----------



## Life

jnskyliner34 said:


> Thought I'd have a go.
> http://500px.com/photo/8016270



It is perfect. It must be hard to take, but I had to be honest.


----------



## Punk

jnskyliner34 said:


> Thought I'd have a go.
> http://500px.com/photo/8016270



It feels a little overexposed to me but the composition is very nice!


Kornowski said:


> Took this yesterday, not sure if the angle works?



I would try to find a place where you don't have those two trees


----------



## voyagerfan99

I'm looking forward to what you say about these two.


----------



## spirit

The bird on the second one is a little underexposed in my opinion, otherwise pretty much perfect.


----------



## Punk

voyagerfan99 said:


> I'm looking forward to what you say about these two.



It looks very zoomed on, like cropped after the photo was taken (quality wise). Other than that I don't know if the first bird should on the upper right corner, I would have put him more on the lower left corner (not even sure about this...).

The second one feels underexposed but has a pretty cool attitude!


----------



## voyagerfan99

They were shot with a 100mm macro, so there was no extra zooming. I didn't crop it by much. I'm finding that macro lens to be pretty soft on farther shots.


----------



## Kornowski

voyagerfan99 said:


>



It's a shame the bit of it's wing is cropped out, otherwise, nice composition! I'd maybe raise the mids and lower the highlights a little though!


----------



## Justin

http://500px.com/photo/24378413


----------



## Geoff

voyagerfan99 said:


> They were shot with a 100mm macro, so there was no extra zooming. I didn't crop it by much. I'm finding that macro lens to be pretty soft on farther shots.


Well it is a macro lens


----------



## voyagerfan99

Kornowski said:


> It's a shame the bit of it's wing is cropped out, otherwise, nice composition! I'd maybe raise the mids and lower the highlights a little though!



Yeah unfortunately that's where he got in my lens.

How's this?


----------



## voyagerfan99

And to be fair to Justin I'll move his picture 



jnskyliner34 said:


> http://500px.com/photo/24378413



In my opinion it's too over-exposed in front of the couple.


----------



## Justin

It is? Looks properly exposed on my monitor.


----------



## spirit

Exposure looks fine here too.


----------



## Kornowski

If anything a little under-exposed, but nah, looks fine.


----------



## Geoff

voyagerfan99 said:


> And to be fair to Justin I'll move his picture
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion it's too over-exposed in front of the couple.





jnskyliner34 said:


> It is? Looks properly exposed on my monitor.





spirit said:


> Exposure looks fine here too.





Kornowski said:


> If anything a little under-exposed, but nah, looks fine.


Overall the exposure looks fine, but levels could be tweaked a tad.  The shadows cast by the trees over some of the faces are on the darker side, while the sun is causing overexposure on portions of the walkway.

BTW Travis, I think you should invest in some monitor calibration equipment


----------



## voyagerfan99

I need a real monitor. I'm using my 23" Vizio LED TV as my primary monitor.


----------



## Justin

TV's aren't great for working on photos.


----------



## voyagerfan99

Birthday present idea


----------



## Geoff

jnskyliner34 said:


> TV's aren't great for working on photos.


I have a 28" Hanns-G LCD and while it's not bad, it has horrible color reproduction.  I had to get a Spyder3 to calibrate it so it's usable.


----------



## voyagerfan99

WRXGuy1 said:


> I have a 28" Hanns-G LCD and while it's not bad, it has horrible color reproduction.  I had to get a Spyder3 to calibrate it so it's usable.



I just put a Spyder4 on my wish list on Amazon last night. I was playing around with the color settings on my ASUS monitor and saw quite a difference with each setting.


----------



## Kornowski

Can I get some critique on this?


----------



## Justin

Looks a bit out of focus. Also vignetting is a bit heavy. However, that's a solid capture of the bikers in the air!


----------



## Kornowski

jnskyliner34 said:


> Looks a bit out of focus. Also vignetting is a bit heavy. However, that's a solid capture of the bikers in the air!



It's Facebook bumming the quality, it's pretty sharp. Yeah, actually, it is a bit heavy - I have an addiction to vignettes, haha. Thanks, Justin!


----------



## Justin

Darn Facebook


----------



## EvanK

I'm about to enter this shot in a national contest with an "environmental" theme, so I'd like the bitter truth, don't be afraid to hold back.

If there's something else that you see on my Flickr Photostream, feel free to select something and tell me.

Thanks guys!


----------



## Punk

EvanK said:


> I'm about to enter this shot in a national contest with an "environmental" theme, so I'd like the bitter truth, don't be afraid to hold back.
> 
> If there's something else that you see on my Flickr Photostream, feel free to select something and tell me.
> 
> Thanks guys!



It's very nice but the exposure is a little unbalanced, especially the dark part on the top right corner. Other than that it's very well executed.

Have you tried having just the flower and reflection on the left? (just an idea)


----------



## spirit

Pull's Ferry By Twilight by JasonBrown2013, on Flickr

What do you think? Long exposure shot.


----------



## Ramodkk

Come on Mr. Danny you've come a long way taking those pics and editing them, don't slack on the uploading! Give us a flickr link or something!


----------



## Kornowski

ramodkk said:


> Come on Mr. Danny you've come a long way taking those pics and editing them, don't slack on the uploading! Give us a flickr link or something!



haha, I'll fix it now, just for you, Omar!


----------



## mr.doom

Ok, I'll bite. What do you think about this one?


----------



## spirit

Gotta get some critique on the one I posted on the last page before we can critique yours.



> I envision this thread working as a first come first serve basis. So if I posted up a photo, that photo would have to have some critique before the next photo can be posted.


----------



## mr.doom

spirit said:


> Pull's Ferry By Twilight by JasonBrown2013, on Flickr
> 
> What do you think? Long exposure shot.



Ok. Not much to improve, apart from that this shot could use some small HDR. It seems there is a big difference between heavily overexposed branches by the light (to the right, and the right side of the building suffers too) and then you have almost no details in the shadows to the left. Apart from that, everything is nicely framed and composed. I especially like the water. I love the "frozen" reflections.


----------



## spirit

Thanks but I never seem to be able to get my HDRs to look any good. They always look horrible so I never bother with it.


----------



## voyagerfan99

Bumping for the love of Bob


----------



## spirit

Looks alright but I personally think this would have looked better in colour. Unless you have one very obvious subject in your photo (for example a tree in the centre of the image) with no distractions in the background, snowy scenes tend to look better in colour I find.


----------



## Okedokey

Too much contrast for my liking.


----------



## Geoff

IMO it lacks anything that draws my attention, it seems more like a snapshot that anyone would take.


----------



## voyagerfan99

I just pulled out a picture to bump the thread with


----------



## Geoff

Haha, understood

I do find that if you really want to take a unique and intriguing photo, you should do things most people won't be able to do, or generally don't do.  Such as in sports most people take photos from the stands or sidelines standing up, I kneel or sit down to get an upward perspective of the players which makes all the difference.  For landscapes and so forth, most people don't have UWA lenses, so shooting in UWA or using a low aperture for pleasing bokeh make all the difference 

Just for comparisons sake, here is a photo a parent took from the stands, and is pretty common to see:





To one that I took of the same team:



Untitled by Geoff Johnson., on Flickr


----------



## spirit

Okedokey said:


> Too much contrast for my liking.


I wouldn't necessarily say there's too much contrast. Certainly looks fine on my monitor. 



WRXGuy1 said:


> IMO it lacks anything that draws my attention, it seems more like a snapshot that anyone would take.


I think this is more the problem...


----------



## NikonGuy

I can't find the photo on my laptop, so I'll post 3 Links, ignore descriptions please they are old. 

https://500px.com/photo/75203425/water-reflection-by-benjamin-holthaus?from=user

https://500px.com/photo/75203427/docks-by-benjamin-holthaus?from=user

https://500px.com/photo/83634039/puppy-life-by-benjamin-holthaus?from=user


----------



## Okedokey

spirit said:


> I wouldn't necessarily say there's too much contrast. Certainly looks fine on my monitor.
> 
> 
> I think this is more the problem...



Now thats another issue isnt it.  Do you have a calibrated monitor?


----------



## Geoff

NikonGuy said:


> https://500px.com/photo/75203425/water-reflection-by-benjamin-holthaus?from=user


The color tint seems to be heavily biased towards green, and I would have used a narrower aperture such as f/8-f/11.  The contrast also seems to be a bit much.



> https://500px.com/photo/75203427/docks-by-benjamin-holthaus?from=user


I'm not sure if it's the dock or the horizon, but it appears to be slightly tilted to the left.  Again though, you don't need a 1/1250 shutter speed for a photo like this, use a much narrower aperture, f/5 is not ideal for photos like this.  The contrast is also too high IMO.



> https://500px.com/photo/83634039/puppy-life-by-benjamin-holthaus?from=user


What was the reason for using a f/3.8 aperture with a ISO of 400?  What were you trying to focus on?  It appears to be in between the eye and ear.  The photo is also crooked.


----------



## voyagerfan99

NikonGuy said:


> https://500px.com/photo/75203425/water-reflection-by-benjamin-holthaus?from=user



Over-saturated and the tint is too green. The shadows are also too dark.



NikonGuy said:


> https://500px.com/photo/75203427/docks-by-benjamin-holthaus?from=user



Like Geoff said, too much contrast.



NikonGuy said:


> https://500px.com/photo/83634039/puppy-life-by-benjamin-holthaus?from=user



Focal point is too narrow. The nose is blurry while the fur on the head is clear.


----------



## spirit

NikonGuy said:


> https://500px.com/photo/83634039/puppy-life-by-benjamin-holthaus?from=user



I think it would have been better if there was just the sleeping dog in shot and you had waited until the dog behind it had gone before you took the shot.


----------



## NikonGuy

You guys must have good monitors... Because I don't see any of it...


----------



## Geoff

NikonGuy said:


> You guys must have good monitors... Because I don't see any of it...


The tilted horizons and the dog in the background have nothing to do with your monitor.  Remember, you are the one who heavily criticized Jason's work for areas being a bit soft, contrast, color, etc.

What monitor do you have?


----------



## spirit

Geoff said:


> What monitor do you have?



Looks like has two 1080p Acers going by his signature. Doesn't say which models though.


----------



## NikonGuy

Acer g215hv


----------



## voyagerfan99

NikonGuy said:


> Acer g215hv



That's why. Your color calibration is probably off by a lot, especially since it's not an IPS monitor.


----------



## NikonGuy

voyagerfan99 said:


> That's why. Your color calibration is probably off by a lot, especially since it's not an IPS monitor.



I've been trying to find a good monitor for a decent price since July..
I knew it was bad, but didn't think it makes that much of a difference?


----------



## voyagerfan99

You'd be surprised how big a difference things look from monitor to monitor.


----------



## Geoff

NikonGuy said:


> I've been trying to find a good monitor for a decent price since July..
> I knew it was bad, but didn't think it makes that much of a difference?





voyagerfan99 said:


> You'd be surprised how big a difference things look from monitor to monitor.


It makes a huge difference.  You can make your monitor better by calibrating it using a Spyder calibration device, but you're at the limits of a TN-based display.  If you don't want to buy one of those, use some online calibration charts and at least get your brightness and contrast set correctly.


----------



## Okedokey




----------



## Geoff

Okedokey said:


>


First thing I notice is that it's out of focus, how were you focusing on the stars?  What were the settings for this photo?  My guess is around 30 seconds, which I think is a bit too long since you have the beginning of star trails.


----------



## Okedokey

windows phone mate.  Thats how the stars look though...


----------



## NikonGuy

Okedokey said:


> windows phone mate.  Thats how the stars look though...



Pretty great for a phone...


----------



## spirit

Lumia 930 I'm guessing. It is a little out of focus and that bright light in the trees (is it some kind of camp?) is a bit distracting but for a phone shot it isn't bad at all! :good:

I am guessing this wasn't handheld?


----------



## Darren

I'm not photographer but that's a really impressive shot for a camera phone. My phone would just show you a black screen with a light blur at the bottom for a picture like that.


----------



## Okedokey

Yeah the Nokia 930 isn't a bad phone at all.


----------



## Geoff

Okedokey said:


> windows phone mate.  Thats how the stars look though...


In order to get those star trails, it had to of been a long exposure.  How long was the phone set to expose for?  It definitely was not hand held.


----------



## Okedokey

It was hand held.  Set to an iso setting, cant remember which one.


----------



## Geoff

Okedokey said:


> It was hand held.  Set to an iso setting, cant remember which one.


I call you out on that.  If you look at the star trails, the ones in the center are for the most part consistent in their location, while the trails get longer as you get further away from the center.  This is what happens when you take a long exposure of the sky, no way could this happen with just 1-2 seconds hand held.


----------



## Okedokey

Dude, the 930 has various iso settings which adjust things.  Im telling you, i took the photo with my phone.


----------



## Geoff

Okedokey said:


> Dude, the 930 has various iso settings which adjust things.  Im telling you, i took the photo with my phone.


ISO only adjusts the sensors sensitivity to noise, it allows more or less light to be picked up by the sensor.


----------



## Okedokey

Geoff said:


> ISO only adjusts the sensors sensitivity to noise, it allows more or less light to be picked up by the sensor.



I know that.  Geoff, get over it.  I took a photo and posted it.


----------



## NikonGuy

Okedokey said:


> I know that.  Geoff, get over it.  I took a photo and posted it.



His point is that photo was not taken HAND held as you claim. In order to get a holdable shutter speed you would need probably around 8000ISO or above, and especially on a phone if it even has that high of a setting would be unbearable.


----------



## Okedokey

NikonGuy said:


> His point is that photo was not taken HAND held as you claim. In order to get a holdable shutter speed you would need probably around 8000ISO or above, and especially on a phone if it even has that high of a setting would be unbearable.



My point is I TOOK THE PHOTO so i bloody well know how it was taken.

You people in UK and USA probably don't realise how bright the stars are here.  Secondly, if you want to look at how good the camera on the phone is, there is a whole section here http://forums.windowscentral.com/nokia-lumia-930/286159-3.htm

Many with low light etc.


----------



## Geoff

Okedokey said:


> I know that.  Geoff, get over it.  I took a photo and posted it.


You would be better off not posting claims that make absolutely no sense.

"Dude, the 930 has various iso settings which adjust things."


----------



## Okedokey

Geoff said:


> You would be better off not posting claims that make absolutely no sense.
> 
> "Dude, the 930 has various iso settings which adjust things."



Yes.  I am correct.  It automatically adjusts the shutter speeds depending on the ISO setting selected and with the nokia app, you are able to adjust white balance, focus, ISO, shutter speed and exposure value - giving you the same level of control as a full digital SLR camera..  You're just annoyed that my cheap windows phone gives your photos a good challenge and is probably a 10th the cost.


----------



## Geoff

Okedokey said:


> Yes.  I am correct.  It automatically adjusts the shutter speeds depending on the ISO setting selected and with the nokia app, you are able to adjust white balance, focus, ISO, shutter speed and exposure value - giving you the same level of control as a full digital SLR camera..  You're just annoyed that my cheap windows phone gives your photos a good challenge and is probably a 10th the cost.


You have nowhere near the same controls as a DSLR, you just have the basic exposure settings, which you can download on the Play Store for Android as well.  I'm aware you can adjust those settings, but your previous post implied that changing the ISO "adjusts things", in a way to explain it without actually knowing what it does.

I'm not annoyed, as it doesn't come close to my DSLR.  If it was truly taking with a phone camera that's impressive, I just don't see how you can get the circular star trails with such a short exposure.  With a comparable FL lens, I can take an exposure of ~15 seconds before there are any signs of star trails.  Normally I'd pass it off as camera movement, which is probably the reason why I see the star trails, but it appears to be a circular star trail that is moving around the stationary center stars.


----------



## NikonGuy

Okedokey said:


> Yes.  I am correct.  It automatically adjusts the shutter speeds depending on the ISO setting selected and with the nokia app, you are able to adjust white balance, focus, ISO, shutter speed and exposure value - giving you the same level of control as a full digital SLR camera..  You're just annoyed that my cheap windows phone gives your photos a good challenge and is probably a 10th the cost.


You realize I can run all your EXIF data from that photo anytime I wanted, and i'm willing to bet the exposure will be longer than 1second and anything past 1 second you could never hld by hand getting a result like that. I can believe this might have been done with a phone, possible, but there is no way on earth you just stood there pointed your phone at the sky and snapped that pic. No. 


Geoff said:


> You have nowhere near the same controls as a DSLR, you just have the basic exposure settings, which you can download on the Play Store for Android as well.  I'm aware you can adjust those settings, but your previous post implied that changing the ISO "adjusts things", in a way to explain it without actually knowing what it does.
> 
> I'm not annoyed, as it doesn't come close to my DSLR.  If it was truly taking with a phone camera that's impressive, I just don't see how you can get the circular star trails with such a short exposure.  With a comparable FL lens, I can take an exposure of ~15 seconds before there are any signs of star trails.  Normally I'd pass it off as camera movement, which is probably the reason why I see the star trails, but it appears to be a circular star trail that is moving around the stationary center stars.


This. While some new phones can take some pretty goo shots, you could never ever compare a phone to even a $1000 DSLR. Not happening. And the phone sure as hell can't handle such a high ISO that you would need to get a fast enough shutter to hand hold that.


----------



## Geoff

NikonGuy said:


> You realize I can run all your EXIF data from that photo anytime I wanted.


What a surprise, he stripped the EXIF data off the photo.

Just for kicks, upload the photo someplace that doesn't strip EXIF data so we can see what settings were used.


----------



## Punk

Geoff said:


> I call you out on that.  If you look at the star trails, the ones in the center are for the most part consistent in their location, while the trails get longer as you get further away from the center.  This is what happens when you take a long exposure of the sky, no way could this happen with just 1-2 seconds hand held.



Yeah I second what Geoff said, sounds like BS to me. You could end this by uploading the picture with exif but whatever...


----------



## NikonGuy

Geoff said:


> What a surprise, he stripped the EXIF data off the photo.



   


( ^ Sarcasm )  

@ Okedoke, The ONLY reason i'm making any deal out of this is I hate a lie when I see it. And until you can show us the actual info, it's a lie. If you are telling the truth than you should have nothing to hide. I'll admit I was wrong when you can show everyone I Was wrong. I mean cmon, you want to tell a group of photographers that ( Nevermind... )


----------



## Okedokey

Ok guys.  Yeah, I borrowed a 1000 dollar camera, went to the middle of nowhere, took a photo of some stars, copied it to my phone, uploaded from my phone to the photobucket, stripped the EXIF (whatever that is), and posted it here, just so I could cop a load of epic immaturity and accusations.


----------



## Ramodkk

It's okay Okedokey, you tried.


----------



## NikonGuy

Ramodkk said:


> It's okay Okedokey, you tried.



Seriously supporting him?


----------



## voyagerfan99

NikonGuy said:


> Seriously supporting him?



No, I believe Omar means he tried at faking us into believing he took that photo with his phone.


----------



## Okedokey

You guys clearly havent seen australian stars....


----------



## NikonGuy

voyagerfan99 said:


> No, I believe Omar means he tried at faking us into believing he took that photo with his phone.


I kinda figured something like that.


Okedokey said:


> You guys clearly havent seen australian stars....





C'mon, you are seriously going to stick with because aussie stars are brighter? We see the star trails going in a circle which clearly is NOT the movement from hand holding it...


----------



## Okedokey

Dude, why would i post a shitty photo like that and then call it a phone?  Why?  Also, there is nothing going in circles.

How do i upload without losing that exif thing?


----------



## Punk

Okedokey said:


> You guys clearly havent seen australian stars....



You haven't seen Alpine stars either, I know what bright stars is, that doesn't change anything. I'll repeat what Geoff. Above the campsite you'll see the stars as dots, if you look to the left, they'll have a trail. That's because you were further away from the North star to the left, and the trail you see is due to the Earth's rotation. But you usually see that trail at around 20 seconds exposure, especially at that focal length.


----------



## Okedokey

We do have alpine stars mate, plus much cleaner air and less light pollution.  The 930 has a lot of options including a multi-dial mode to quickly change ISO, shutter speed, focus and white balance and an option that takes multiple (10) pictures over a set time, which are then overlaid.  You guys really need to look up the phone before you lose your shit over it.  Its getting pathetic.


----------



## Punk

Okedokey said:


> We do have alpine stars mate, plus much cleaner air and less light pollution.  The 930 has a lot of options including a multi-dial mode to quickly change ISO, shutter speed, focus and white balance and an option that takes multiple (10) pictures over a set time, which are then overlaid.  You guys really need to look up the phone before you lose your shit over it.  Its getting pathetic.



What's getting pathetic is you trying to tell me alpine stars at 3000m high aren't brighter than Aus stars. Anyways now you're giving us something new. Did you use the stacking option? 

Instead of telling what your phone can do, tell us what you used (options). And even better, upload the exif data.


----------



## Okedokey

Hey punk. You know what is even better.  Shoosh.


----------



## Punk

Okedokey said:


> Hey punk. You know what is even better.  Shoosh.



Since this is going nowhere, let's move on from this BS.







It is an HDR of three different exposures spaced by 1 EV. It looks pretty much like what I was seeing but it isn't 100% perfect...


----------



## Geoff

Okedokey said:


> Ok guys.  Yeah, I borrowed a 1000 dollar camera, went to the middle of nowhere, took a photo of some stars, copied it to my phone, uploaded from my phone to the photobucket, stripped the EXIF (whatever that is), and posted it here, just so I could cop a load of epic immaturity and accusations.





Okedokey said:


> You guys clearly havent seen australian stars....


Oke, we are not saying this photo was not taken with your Nokia 930.  We are saying this photo was not a  ~1 second hand held shot, which you claimed it was.



Okedokey said:


> We do have alpine stars mate, plus much cleaner air and less light pollution.  The 930 has a lot of options including a multi-dial mode to quickly change ISO, shutter speed, focus and white balance and an option that takes multiple (10) pictures over a set time, which are then overlaid.  You guys really need to look up the phone before you lose your shit over it.  Its getting pathetic.


You act as if Australia is the best of the best for astrophotography.  There are many places in the world where one can find a clear sky, just look at where the major telescopes are.

ISO and shutter speed are all that matter here, white balance and focus don't make a difference in capturing that shot with that much light.  

As for taking multiple photos and combining them, I believe you are referring to HDR mode, which takes 3 or more shots (exposed, under exposed, and over exposed), and combines them.  This is not the same as image stacking which is used in astrophotography.  HDR mode will not help here, and will actually make the photo much worse due to the even longer exposure needed to overexpose this photo.



Punk said:


> Since this is going nowhere, let's move on from this BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is an HDR of three different exposures spaced by 1 EV. It looks pretty much like what I was seeing but it isn't 100% perfect...


I do like this photo, it looks very natural.  However because it looks natural, it lacks any sort of "pop" that one tends to associate with landscapes.  To be blunt, it looks very dark, dreary, and muted.  The trees look a bit underexposed as well as I can't see much detail in them, and the mountains look a bit soft, likely due to the cloud/fog in between.


----------



## Punk

I feel the same about the foreground, too underexposed


----------



## NikonGuy

Punk said:


> I feel the same about the foreground, too underexposed



The composition is really amazing though. You should try and go back there at a different time of day, maybe sunrise/sunset. :good:


----------



## Okedokey

Geoff said:


> Oke, we are not saying this photo was not taken with your Nokia 930.  We are saying this photo was not a  ~1 second hand held shot, which you claimed it was.



I never said that it was taken in a second.  I said that it was taken with my phone with the settings recommended for doing so.  Just because I don't know what EXIF is, or any of the other stuff, doesn't mean anything.  The night setting alone opens the shutter speed to 8 seconds.  Thats even without further adjustment.



Geoff said:


> You act as if Australia is the best of the best for astrophotography.  There are many places in the world where one can find a clear sky, just look at where the major telescopes are.
> 
> ISO and shutter speed are all that matter here, white balance and focus don't make a difference in capturing that shot with that much light.
> 
> As for taking multiple photos and combining them, I believe you are referring to HDR mode, which takes 3 or more shots (exposed, under exposed, and over exposed), and combines them.  This is not the same as image stacking which is used in astrophotography.  HDR mode will not help here, and will actually make the photo much worse due to the even longer exposure needed to overexpose this photo.



The phone does image staking, and in regards to Australia and astroimaging, its is easily one of the best places in the world due to its location on the globe, the lack of pollution (light and atmospheric).  Many locations are recognised by the dark sky location.  Im not saying its the best, but you only have to look at a satellite photography at night to see what I mean.


----------



## C4C

I was in Alaska 4 days ago, and the stars still didn't look as good on my Nikon D3100 that I used my tripod with. 30 second exposure and it wasn't even near what you accomplished using your "Nokia 930 handheld".


----------



## Okedokey

That doesn't mean crap.


----------



## Punk

C4C said:


> I was in Alaska 4 days ago, and the stars still didn't look as good on my Nikon D3100 that I used my tripod with. 30 second exposure and it wasn't even near what you accomplished using your "Nokia 930 handheld".


That's because you didn't do any image stacking.


Okedokey said:


> I never said that it was taken in a second.  I said that it was taken with my phone with the settings recommended for doing so.  Just because I don't know what EXIF is, or any of the other stuff, doesn't mean anything.  The night setting alone opens the shutter speed to 8 seconds.  Thats even without further adjustment.
> 
> 
> 
> The phone does image staking, and in regards to Australia and astroimaging, its is easily one of the best places in the world due to its location on the globe, the lack of pollution (light and atmospheric).  Many locations are recognised by the dark sky location.  Im not saying its the best, but you only have to look at a satellite photography at night to see what I mean.



We finally have got the information we need! And please, you probably don't know what EXIF is but a quick google search would get your answers. It is the info attached to the JPEG that gives us the info on how you shot the picture like shutter speed, aperture etc.

If you have taken your picture at around 8 seconds, that's possible, but was it really handheld?

Australia does have some nice spot for astrophotography and yes, it has less light pollution, but please, alpine stars (because they are seen from the Alpes), seen at around 2500 to 3000m?


----------



## Okedokey

It was hand held as I have already said, I had to look up the settings as I didn't know what it was, and as per everything else you have claimed I have proven as simply baseless accusations.  If I hold it sitting down, similar to a sitting U sniper position (which I was trained in btw), you see how still you can get.  Secondly, alpine doesn't have a altitude definition so don't talk nonsense.  Mount Kosiosco is around 2300 m and that is where I was.  Also given that air pollution is directly proportional to pressure change with altitude, and given that the pollution point sources are far far lower than in almost anywhere else in the world bar Antarctica, I can assure you, Australia's peaks are probably much better than anything in mainland Europe.


----------



## Punk

Okedokey said:


> It was hand held as I have already said, I had to look up the settings as I didn't know what it was, and as per everything else you have claimed I have proven as simply baseless accusations.  If I hold it sitting down, similar to a sitting U sniper position (which I was trained in btw), you see how still you can get.  Secondly, alpine doesn't have a altitude definition so don't talk nonsense.  Mount Kosiosco is around 2300 m and that is where I was.  Also given that air pollution is directly proportional to pressure change with altitude, and given that the pollution point sources are far far lower than in almost anywhere else in the world bar Antarctica, I can assure you, Australia's peaks are probably much better than anything in mainland Europe.



Thing is, you only gave us a few info that when looking at your picture were pointing to a fake. If you had told us you were stacking your photos with shutter speed of about 8 seconds (because your night option gives you that) and you were holding it in a sniping mode, which is not like holding the phone while standing up we wouldn't have made those accusation. I made mine as soon as you called us immature instead of giving us all the info we asked you.

As far as stars goes, I'm not here for a pissing contest, you have beautiful stars in Aus, that's for sure and I know that, we also have beautiful stars in the Alpes. Let's keep it that way since we have different opinon/knowledge on the subject.

Moving on?


----------



## spirit

This isn't going anywhere. Time to forget about this and move on gents.


----------



## Okedokey

Punk said:


> Thing is, you only gave us a few info that when looking at your picture were pointing to a fake. If you had told us you were stacking your photos with shutter speed of about 8 seconds (because your night option gives you that) and you were holding it in a sniping mode, which is not like holding the phone while standing up we wouldn't have made those accusation. I made mine as soon as you called us immature instead of giving us all the info we asked you.
> 
> As far as stars goes, I'm not here for a pissing contest, you have beautiful stars in Aus, that's for sure and I know that, we also have beautiful stars in the Alpes. Let's keep it that way since we have different opinon/knowledge on the subject.
> 
> Moving on?



Fine move on, but lets get one things straight, I didnt KNOW the settings when asked, i simply put a picture.  From the first point on, everyone claimed it was BS.  Let me get another thing straight, I couldnt give a flying rats-claker what you think.


----------



## Punk

Okedokey said:


> Fine move on, but lets get one things straight, I didnt KNOW the settings when asked, i simply put a picture.  From the first point on, everyone claimed it was BS.  Let me get another thing straight, I couldnt give a flying rats-claker what you think.



:good:

Trying to move on, if you guys don't mind, I'd like to post another photo:


----------



## Okedokey




----------



## Punk

> I envision this thread working as a first come first serve basis. So if I posted up a photo, that photo would have to have some critique before the next photo can be posted. Please try to make the critique worth while and not a quick word or two. Also feel free to post up a edited or re-edited version of the photo your reviewing to show the user how you envision their shot.
> 
> Hope that makes sense.



But since I already posted not long ago, I'll let you post yours unstead.

Was this taken with a wide angle? Everything looks bent towards the center (trees on the left, house on the right)

Other than that I lack in finding something that catches my curiosity although it looks like it is a beautiful scenery.

Also maybe it's because of photobucket but the quality of the picture doesn't look very good...


----------



## Okedokey

Just the 930.  Automatic.  The resolution is 20MP on the original.


----------



## Punk

Okedokey said:


> Just the 930.  Automatic.  The resolution is 20MP on the original.



I guess it's a wide angle (under 50mm of focal length). 20MP doesn't mean a thing on small CCDs of phones, they are rather too much than helpful but yeah I get what you mean, supposed to look better, so that's photobucket killing the quality.


----------



## Geoff

Okedokey said:


> The phone does image staking


Can you show me proof of that?  Everything I found online when searching turned up zero results for image stacking.  The only thing closely related to that is HDR which combines multiple photos for a high dynamic range shot.



Okedokey said:


> Fine move on, but lets get one things straight, I didnt KNOW the settings when asked, i simply put a picture.  From the first point on, everyone claimed it was BS.  Let me get another thing straight, I couldnt give a flying rats-claker what you think.


You posted in the brutally honest critique thread, of course we are going to ask the settings used for shots and question things.  If you didn't want this, you should have posted in the "Post your pictures" thread.



Okedokey said:


>


This is very good for a camera phone, but the image is very over sharpened, the colors look good though.  Look in your camera settings and see if you can turn down the sharpening.


----------



## Okedokey

The sharpening happens with photobucket I think.  It looks a lot softer on my monitor with the original.


----------



## spirit

Photobucket isn't a great place to upload to. Messes with the image quality. Flickr is better and you get 1TB of storage for free.


----------



## Okedokey

spirit said:


> Photobucket isn't a great place to upload to. Messes with the image quality. Flickr is better and you get 1TB of storage for free.



Thanks mate.  I use it because 99% of the time it doesn't matter. But yeah, ill look into that.  Ta


----------



## spirit

Okedokey said:


> Thanks mate.  I use it because 99% of the time it doesn't matter. But yeah, ill look into that.  Ta



Yeah for screenshots and stuff it's fine but for photography go Flickr or 500px. :good:


----------



## Geoff

Okedokey said:


> The sharpening happens with photobucket I think.  It looks a lot softer on my monitor with the original.


If anything, Photobucket compresses the image and makes it look softer.


----------

