Emmasmom Loc: Missouri

Here are a few shots I have taken, what do you all think and what I can do better?

14kphotog Loc: Marietta, Ohio

Like #s 1-2, #3 seems OOF.

Emmasmom Loc: Missouri

That was on purpose, that was a special lens that I had for my camera that blured the outer edges.

Raider Fan Loc: Lake County, IL.

On # 1 I would add some contrast and crop it down to more of the squirrel and log. On # 2 I would use a CPL and add more contrast as well. DOn't do # 3 again!!LOL

Emmasmom Loc: Missouri

do you mind if I ask why? I thought it was kind of neat looking.

Raider Fan Loc: Lake County, IL.

For me it is just a matter of personal preference, but if it it is something you like then by all means go for it.

molsonice Loc: Grand Blanc, MI

I would of shot 3 normal and use the blur tool in PP.

Emmasmom Loc: Missouri

thanks for the advice

sinatraman Loc: Vero Beach Florida, Earth,alpha quaudrant

i really like number three. acurate reality is so overrated. as a photography as an art form guy i like creative aproaches to photo cliches. your number three worksfor me, its like it was shot with an holga. However the photography as science people will abhor anything soft at even the sub atomic particle level. different strokes for different folks thats what i like about photography. iI also agree that #1 should be cropped closer. here is a guideline. when you have an interesting subject and boring background, fill the frame of your viewfinder with the subject.

Cecil Loc: United Kingdom

Hi Emasmom
What do you think?
Cecil

Emmasmom Loc: Missouri

I like the trees for sure, it makes the colors of the trees pop more but it also makes the water look a little muddy to me.

LinksUp

I like the higher contrast in the water. The detail that I can now see in the trees is much better. The trees now "pop" out at me. I can clearly see the towers in the re-touched up version. I missed them in the original. Overall, very nice job!

Greg Loc: Maryland

You removed all the 'mystery' from the shot!

jolefont Loc: Brooksville, FL

was it a lenbaby? I love mine for artistic shots

Linden

Hi Emma's Mom, I think you have a good eye for capturing great photos. I feel compelled to offer my .02 worth. In photo #1 unless you are trying to emphasize blurry green backgrounds or dried wood, the subject is lost in the background and the foreground. That's why everyone is saying to crop it tighter. That will have the effect of being closer to the squirrel. In #2 I think you have a choice of improving it by either bringing out or creating some some detail such as Cecil did in his rendering(nice work) or cropping off the lower one third of the image to get rid of that clearer portion of the water to leave the image balanced. In #3 I have trouble understanding the use of that lens effect with the subject matter. It's a nice effect, but perhaps a different composition. The blur should be supportive of the subject, in this picture it tries to take over the subject, fights with it, so just a matter of composition. I noticed the nice picture of your avatar in another posting and my only comment would be that sometimes blending many similar hues of color in the same image renders a flatness to the shot. This image is dominated (albeit purposefully) with pinks, and whites. You have flesh tones and light colored hair. There is a lot of beauty in it, but composing with the use of a little bit of darker shadow area would complete the picture. The chair rail too seems a little awkward. Moving ahead, you won't have to change much at all to keep your photos interesting. Numbers one and two are simply pp (post production) work one the computer, and three and your avatar are more subjective.
Cheers