Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: gabriele on August 30, 2009, 12:31:13 pm
-
I'm a beginner, I've been playing with my Canon EOS 500D / Rebel T1i and Canon EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS for a month or so and been reading lots of articles and posts on LL. This is a photo I took on my vacations in Tuscany.
I'm keen on learning by making mistakes so any critique or comment is very much appreciated.
RAW development was done using Canon Digital Photo Professional, pixel editing and enhancement was done in Picture Window Pro.
-
I like it. Might have been better if you had stood further back in the arch so the top was visible, plus it would have led the eye into the photo. But still a good photo if you are just starting out - well done, and welsome to the forum
-
thanks ARD. it was quite a casual shot, I definitely should have stood back but the tower was very small and it was difficult to find a good position.
-
What attracted your attention so you shoot it?
-
I think you've balanced light and shadow very well, and I like the shot. My eye keeps coming back to the brush in the center (directly behind the iron gate), and I keep trying to look through it or around it. I'm not sure what it adds to the composition, although I do like the fact that its yellow is carried into the adjacent wall. Also, the top of the arch is cropped out of the frame- was this intentional?
John
-
I like the warm colors, the good balance between shadows and well illuminated surfaces. But I can't see a strong attracting point.
-
Whilst the over-cooking (saturation to an extraordinary degree) delivers a certain effect & style, I wonder how the image would be if colour was more natural?
-
When I look at this image, I find myself wishing I could see more of the countryside and less of the building/gate. I don't find the latter particularly interesting here, and feel it takes up too much of the image if it's meant to be a framing device rather than the subject (as your title implies).
-
I agree with ARD. I would like to see a little more in the shot, especially the arch on top. I think it's a good start for someone just starting to "play." And considering the recent discussion on this board, Christian's question is particularly relevant. What was your inspiration to click the shutter? Keep in mind that there is no right or wrong answer, but asking yourself the question will help you become a better photographer.
By the way, I do like the shot. I think the color saturation is excellent.
-
Thanks everyone for the welcome and the good suggestions.
Actually I wasn't particularly attracted by this shot in its original version until I noticed the two birds. Then I thought the gate and the birds outside created a nice composition inspiring a sense of "need for freedom".
I voluntarily exaggerated the saturation of some colors (creating a deep contrast with the crusty wall that I desaturated quite a lot) because I believed that would have stressed further the sense of liberty of the outside.
On the other hand, I think that leaving more room between the gate and the arch would have reduced the overall feeling. But this is just a speculation since I didn't really step back enough because the room was very small and uncomfortably hot.
-
...until I noticed the two birds. Then I thought the gate and the birds outside created a nice composition inspiring a sense of "need for freedom".
I voluntarily exaggerated the saturation of some colors (creating a deep contrast with the crusty wall that I desaturated quite a lot) because I believed that would have stressed further the sense of liberty of the outside.
On the other hand, I think that leaving more room between the gate and the arch would have reduced the overall feeling. But this is just a speculation since I didn't really step back enough because the room was very small and uncomfortably hot.
Aha. I asked since I didnt wanted to speculate, and I suspected you just liked the bushes. Im don't think your afterthought works, at least I didn't realize it. (Also the birds could easily escape through such a wide spaced fence, so it doesn't quite make sense in a logical way.) But showing the fence in itself, with its backdrop, that could possibly work as an image, and also suggest need for freedom, but in its current incarnation the view is not focused enough on it, it shows the fence as just one element amongst others. Maybe a shot, showing nothing but this fence could be more interesting.
Regarding the toning, it is just too extreme for me. This can work in other images, but I would not use such extreme tonings to "rescue" things. (That said, experimenting with different styles is of course always fun to try out and I don't want to discourage you from it.)
Just my thoughts.
Christian
-
Gabriele, It's a very good try. Keep this kind of thing up and you'll do very well. You obviously have a good eye for it. You've composed the picture very well, except for the missing top of the arch. To me, the downsides are: (1) Pushing the color saturation usually is a bad idea. In this case the walls worked out okay, but you ended up with a wildly over-saturated sky. The greenery in the background is unrealistically green also. (2) The birds were a good idea, but they're awfully small. The situation is helped by the roof-line on the right that points downward toward the birds, but it's not quite enough. The bird thing is a minor point. With the rest of the arch and the saturation toned down it would be a very compelling picture.
-
Again, thank you for your kind appreciation and thoughtful critiques.
Just for curiosity, I wonder how the photo appear on different monitors.
I tried three different displays with very different results. On my MacBook Pro the colors and contrast are accentuated but still acceptable.
On a six years old notebook the colors look even washed-out and the picture looks dark, a bit underexposed.
On a Dell Wide Gamut display without proper calibration the colors look indeed very dull and contrast is barely acceptable. I did't try with a proper calibration, tho.
I tried both the original tiff with embedded Adobe RGB icc profile and the JPEG in 8 bit RGB optimized for the web (without icc profile).
How does it look like on your display? Anyone with a CRT?
-
Again, thank you for your kind appreciation and thoughtful critiques.
Just for curiosity, I wonder how the photo appear on different monitors.
I tried three different displays with very different results. On my MacBook Pro the colors and contrast are accentuated but still acceptable.
On a six years old notebook the colors look even washed-out and the picture looks dark, a bit underexposed.
On a Dell Wide Gamut display without proper calibration the colors look indeed very dull and contrast is barely acceptable. I did't try with a proper calibration, tho.
I tried both the original tiff with embedded Adobe RGB icc profile and the JPEG in 8 bit RGB optimized for the web (without icc profile).
How does it look like on your display? Anyone with a CRT?
On my MacBook Pro, colors & contrast are just a bit over the top. I'd say that this like under-exposed Velvia.
-
On my MacBook Pro, colors & contrast are just a bit over the top. I'd say that this like under-exposed Velvia.
On my carefully calibrated Dell Ultrasharp LCD I get about the same display Francois is describing.
-
I would not worry about different calibration settings influencing the viewing experience at all. If you get it right in the first place it will somehow make sense on all monitors. Its about the relations of the colors/tones to each other, and if these are right, it will pretty much work everywhere.
//edit: To put it a bit more provocative, the worse the actual editing, the more talk about color-management, at least in the discussions I witnessed
-
Its about the relations of the colors/tones to each other
Christian, That's why you calibrate your monitor -- so the color and tone relationships will be correct.
-
Sure. This is so trivial I never mention it. I dont like trivial conversations so I back off it.
-
The thing about pictures of Tuscany that always gets me is no matter what I think of the shot aesthetically or technically, it invariably makes me want to move there.
-
Thanks everyone for the welcome and the good suggestions.
Actually I wasn't particularly attracted by this shot in its original version until I noticed the two birds. Then I thought the gate and the birds outside created a nice composition inspiring a sense of "need for freedom".
I voluntarily exaggerated the saturation of some colors (creating a deep contrast with the crusty wall that I desaturated quite a lot) because I believed that would have stressed further the sense of liberty of the outside.
On the other hand, I think that leaving more room between the gate and the arch would have reduced the overall feeling. But this is just a speculation since I didn't really step back enough because the room was very small and uncomfortably hot.
Hi Gabriele,
This photo is not without merit, but maybe a little muddled.
I didn't notice the birds at all on first view. IMO what you have here is two photos rolled into one, maybe you'd have had more success with two distinct compositions. I think one shot of the grate and strong shadow [maybe from the other side, if you could get through...] against the wall, and another of the wider landscape with the bushes as foreground interest would have been lovely, strong sunlight light permitting. Of course, this is all easy enough to say with no idea if you could even get through the grate to achieve my suggested compositions.
I'm on a calibrated display and the blue sky in particular looks a bit over-saturated.
HTH
Fraser