photosbytw Loc: Blue Ridge Mountains

All critiques welcomed.................

(Download)

conkerwood

I have to be honest and say that for me there are a number of problems with what could have otherwise been a nice pic. Firstly if you look at the leaves that border the sky and also at the foliage next to the far right upstairs window you can see that they are ragged and have bits missing. This happens when the sky is blown and the edges of the leaves are overwhelmed with the strong light. You have pulled the sky back in the B&W conversion but unfortunately you are still left with the telltale patchy leaves and twigs. The sky itself is featureless though quite noisy but it gives the impression that there is absolutely nothing behind the house which to my eye tends to flatten the whole pic. I like the placement of the large tree trunk as you end up with a nice balance, in fact I like the whole 'peak though' feeling that the trees and bushes give.. But in my opinion the house taken at this distance should have the verticals adjusted, the left side is leaning in. I guess my only other concern is that you have chosen to crop though the fence at the front. To my eye this doesn't work, it clutters up the bottom of the pic and and places the base of the house too close to the bottom of the pic.

I hope this helps.

Peter

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

I like it but then I favor architect. I think it is well framed and very pleasant. I think it could be a little sharper but that might be a limit on the lens. I wouldn't over sharpen it in PP. :)

photosbytw Loc: Blue Ridge Mountains

Good eyes Peter, this was just a funky shot I took almost 5 years ago riding around with nothing else to do. It was a cold wet miserable mid April day(those are pine trees BTW) when I saw an interesting house. I wouldn't even get out of the car to take the shot.

I usually bring these images into PSCC to experiment with. This time it was in filters, the sharpening filters(shake reduction) to see how it would perform. I like getting feedback as I have long resisted PS and have some catching up to do.



Thanks waegwan,

Very good, the lens was an old Canon kit lens(18-55) I leave rattling around in my car. It's wasn't a bad lens but still...... :roll: :roll:

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

just from a composition POV:
Had the camera"/ perspective been from a bit to the left you would have allowed some space between the edge of the gallery roof and the big trunk on the right. Then let that trunk be the right edge. Might provide a bit more emphasis on the house's architecture.

Dave

photosbytw Loc: Blue Ridge Mountains

Very True......thanks

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

I have a few of those lenses, one is on a Canon Rebel film camera. It still works fine on the digitals. I've picked up three good used L series lenses lately and I'm really surprised at the difference in sharpness. I just lately gave my Rebel XSi to my brother. :)

photosbytw Loc: Blue Ridge Mountains

I always seem to have the wrong lens when I get the urge to use the car as a tripod, in other words, driving around on miserable days. I never got rid of the kit lens on my first dslr but I have passed on a couple of bodies to those who started showing a serious interest in photography.

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

The kit lenses can still be useful in my opinion, but they need to be used for family snapshots or something like photojournalism where the subject or action is more important than the sharpness of the photo or the artsy-ness of it; something like catching a celebrity in a crowd or a little league home run. I have a 28-200 kit lens that is really handy for walking through markets and just hanging around because it has great range and it is really compact but I would not use it on architecture, landscape or portraits if I have better lenses available; if not you got to use what you got. But I'm not a professional, just a hobbyist. :)

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

I was going to say what Dave said. The first thing I saw was the merger of the gallery roof with the tree trunk, but I also know you shot in miserable weather from your car. The Exif shows you shot at 40mm (wide open) at 1/25 sec, f/5, ISO 200. That shutter is half what the guideline is (one over the focal length minimum), so that would tend to account for some camera shake. It also would be tough to step to your left if you lacked a tripod, but on the other hand kicking your ISO up to 400 wouldn't have hurt just to gain one shutter speed. I like the picture! :)

mallen1330 Loc: Chicago western suburbs

I agree with all the technical suggestions above... To me, composition is the first step of many that lead to a good final image. If the composition is off, no amount of PP will fix it.

photosbytw Loc: Blue Ridge Mountains

That's not completely true...........cropping an image in PP can/will correct or improve composition. Thank you very much for the comment.

photosbytw Loc: Blue Ridge Mountains

Thanks for the comments...........when I'm "cruising" about in rotten weather I rarely use the tripod unless there is a to die for shot to be had. Somewhere I picked up a "Puffin Pad" which is nothing more than molded foam that allows you to balance a camera/lens on the car door/window for stability. It's not perfect as you need to turn the engine off but it's better than a bean bag.