Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Photo Critique Section
Looking for a critique on this photo
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
Aug 16, 2020 19:28:36   #
Fitz424 Loc: Los Angeles
 
Shot with Sony A900 Tameron 28-200 1/1000 f8.0 ISO 200


(Download)

Reply
Aug 16, 2020 19:49:46   #
Architect1776 Loc: In my mind
 
Fitz424 wrote:
Shot with Sony A900 Tameron 28-200 1/1000 f8.0 ISO 200


Looks good to me.
Seems to have a mystery about it.

I am no expert though and only photos with things that bother me personally will get comment.

I like this as is.

Reply
Aug 16, 2020 20:06:42   #
PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago
 
Fitz424 wrote:
Shot with Sony A900 Tameron 28-200 1/1000 f8.0 ISO 200


Image looks great in download. Has a great tonal range and composition. You should be very pleased with it because it is a perfect image.

Reply
 
 
Aug 16, 2020 20:46:19   #
Cany143 Loc: SE Utah
 
What camera, what lens, and what their settings were are irrelevancies as regards critique of this --or almost any-- image. What is relevant in an image like this is content, composition, and ultimately, meaning; each of which will inevitably be more or less subjective.

Often, images --especially those shot in or converted to b&w-- should pass the (your) 'squint test.' By that, I mean literally squint you eyes such that detail is no longer a criteria, and you can instead 'judge' the balance of light and dark, the symmetry or asymmetry of the elements, and whether or not the whole justifies the means. Having passed that, then compositional forms/norms come into play, and by that I do not mean the so-called 'standards' of "Rule of Thirds" or "Golden Mean" or any of the dozens of other 'rules' that do actually help, but are not by themselves what does or does not make a good image. By this, I mean to state that whatever the particular elements in the image are, they should stand in some meaningful relationship with each other, in conjunction with the ranges of lights and mids and darks, at least as regarded by you.

Do you want a complete breakdown as I see it? Probably not. Especially since you probably see the relationships of elements somewhat differently than I might. What I do see, though, is a more than competent image.

Reply
Aug 16, 2020 21:01:16   #
hoola
 
Would like to see either more sky or none . Would like camera position more to right so as the two walls converge more into each toward center rather then side . Then would be less ground and more of the walls which to me is more interesting then ground . Real nice tonal range . Definitely a B&W image .

Reply
Aug 16, 2020 21:16:11   #
Fitz424 Loc: Los Angeles
 
Architect1776 wrote:
Looks good to me.
Seems to have a mystery about it.

I am no expert though and only photos with things that bother me personally will get comment.

I like this as is.

Thanks

Reply
Aug 16, 2020 21:16:33   #
Fitz424 Loc: Los Angeles
 
PixelStan77 wrote:
Image looks great in download. Has a great tonal range and composition. You should be very pleased with it because it is a perfect image.


Thanks

Reply
 
 
Aug 16, 2020 21:17:04   #
Fitz424 Loc: Los Angeles
 
Cany143 wrote:
What camera, what lens, and what their settings were are irrelevancies as regards critique of this --or almost any-- image. What is relevant in an image like this is content, composition, and ultimately, meaning; each of which will inevitably be more or less subjective.

Often, images --especially those shot in or converted to b&w-- should pass the (your) 'squint test.' By that, I mean literally squint you eyes such that detail is no longer a criteria, and you can instead 'judge' the balance of light and dark, the symmetry or asymmetry of the elements, and whether or not the whole justifies the means. Having passed that, then compositional forms/norms come into play, and by that I do not mean the so-called 'standards' of "Rule of Thirds" or "Golden Mean" or any of the dozens of other 'rules' that do actually help, but are not by themselves what does or does not make a good image. By this, I mean to state that whatever the particular elements in the image are, they should stand in some meaningful relationship with each other, in conjunction with the ranges of lights and mids and darks, at least as regarded by you.

Do you want a complete breakdown as I see it? Probably not. Especially since you probably see the relationships of elements somewhat differently than I might. What I do see, though, is a more than competent image.
What camera, what lens, and what their settings we... (show quote)

Thanks

Reply
Aug 16, 2020 21:18:04   #
Fitz424 Loc: Los Angeles
 
hoola wrote:
Would like to see either more sky or none . Would like camera position more to right so as the two walls converge more into each toward center rather then side . Then would be less ground and more of the walls which to me is more interesting then ground . Real nice tonal range . Definitely a B&W image .

Thanks

Reply
Aug 17, 2020 07:08:53   #
Stephan G
 
Fitz424 wrote:
Shot with Sony A900 Tameron 28-200 1/1000 f8.0 ISO 200


Great photo. My minor 'plaint is that it is leaning towards the right. Using structural slants for emphasis does its job. However, I feel that it is a distraction here.

Reply
Aug 17, 2020 07:44:11   #
Delderby Loc: Derby UK
 
Good picture - I was trying to find something to nit-pic, but it's pretty well perfect. I might just think about straightening the left hand wall in the corner. I especially like the way you have captured the detail in the shade to the left. The little bit of sky tells us how high the rear wall is.

Reply
 
 
Aug 17, 2020 08:29:19   #
ediesaul
 
I'm not sure what you wanted to photograph. The cross? The door? The texture of the walls?

Reply
Aug 17, 2020 09:22:31   #
Fitz424 Loc: Los Angeles
 
Delderby wrote:
Good picture - I was trying to find something to nit-pic, but it's pretty well perfect. I might just think about straightening the left hand wall in the corner. I especially like the way you have captured the detail in the shade to the left. The little bit of sky tells us how high the rear wall is.

Thanks

Reply
Aug 17, 2020 10:53:56   #
AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!
 
I find this image interesting, and all the comments that have been made. As I see it, the focal point is the small cross in the middle of this space full of big things - a big door, a big wall (several of them), a big empty space. That's intriguing to me. The textures are really nice, and the tones are really good. The wall to the left does seem to be leaning in, but so does the wall on the right. These are slight imperfections. And it's very possible, given the age of the building, that they are real imperfections and not manufactured in camera.

What I saw when I did the DDL was an apparently lack of DOF, which surprised me when you said it was shot at f8. The blocks on the back wall are very much in focus. But both the right and left walls are really out of focus. I'm not sure if you did multiple shots, but I'd like to see this shot at f16 to see if more of the side walls could be brought into sharp focus. That's just my opinion, and perhaps you did this intentionally???

Reply
Aug 17, 2020 11:26:49   #
Fitz424 Loc: Los Angeles
 
Thanks

Reply
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Photo Critique Section
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.