|
About mudgeon/Del
All photos
167 photos
Art and Architecture
11 photos
Assignments
12 photos
Black and White
12 photos
County Fair
4 photos
Greenville
6 photos
JAPF
6 photos
Landscapes
24 photos
Nature and Animals
37 photos
People
14 photos
Special Effects
9 photos
Sports
7 photos
Still Life
12 photos
Technology
2 photos
The Glade
6 photos
Travel
5 photos
Photo critiques
1,126 critiques
Discussions
95 discussions
Journal entries
3 journal entries
|
The Old Man and the Sea
(21)
johngoyer/John (84,171)
|
|
|
from mudgeon/Del (5,899) 
on November 18, 2009 4:48:09 PM CST
(2)
Hard to be certain without knowing the speed of the bicycle, but I believe you have gone too slow in this case. The trade-off is clear; there needs to be an indication of speed for the bicycle, with different speed effects seen in the moving water in the background. And a faster shutter will reduce the background blur. Still, seeing nothing sharp detracts from the effect. A motion-stopped head or head and torso might be enough; most of the body in sharp-edged...
|
 | | |
childhood memories
(10)
istanbullu811/Istanbullu (1,710)
|
|
|
from mudgeon/Del (5,899)
on November 18, 2009 4:41:33 PM CST
(4)
You succeeded in panning, to the extent that one horse is partly sharp. The problem is that the horses are moving in circles, and your pan cannot keep parallel to their motion. You could still achieve a very interesting effect with panning, but the task is more difficult. As in portrait photography, when we see an animal or animal toy, we look for the eyes. Due to the relative circular motion, your pan had more effect on the body than the head. I suggest the head as a...
|
| | |
Lonely
(21)
ollie0626/Jonathan (2,546)
|
|
|
from mudgeon/Del (5,899)
on November 18, 2009 4:34:40 PM CST
(4)
Jonathan, you and I have similar outcomes; in breaking rules, we did not have enough photo left. In this case, I can't find anything in focus. In high and low key, we emphasize one end of the brightness scale but have some of the other end as an anchor. The same applies here, and is seen in Susan Burnstine's work; there is a zone of clarity, frequently near the center, and sharpness changes in a gradient as the eye moves away from it. You have almost the opposite;...
|
| | |
3 Backlit Leaves & Moss
(21)
robinab/Robin (54,723)
|
|
|
from mudgeon/Del (5,899)
on November 18, 2009 4:04:32 PM CST
(2)
At first glance I was going to be critical of the bokeh, but I believe it is flare. Soft focus areas at bottom right are nice, not so with the circles at left. One of the challenges of contre jour. The spider web and hanging moss make me want to see it clearer. I can see the connection, and the placement is pretty good; they appear to be behind the leaf, and are somewhat distracting. I would like to see them either much softer or in sharp focus. Exposure looks good,...
|
| | |
Sabbath Resubmit
(6)
laurenw/Lauren (1,496)
|
|
|
from mudgeon/Del (5,899)
on November 18, 2009 3:58:16 PM CST
(4)
Lauren, it just doesn't work. There are pieces here that could form the basis of a good photograph, but as presented there is just not a sufficiently coherent subject. First, it seems excessively dark, to the point you are losing shadow detail; visible in the person's suit and storefronts at left, in particular. With that detail missing, you miss a chance to connect the figure with the title. Is this an observant Jew, walking on the sabbath? We can't tell from the...
|
| | |
Maple Leafs In The Sun
(21)
donnalee/Donna (7,450)
|
|
|
from mudgeon/Del (5,899)
on November 11, 2009 6:46:05 PM CST
(5)
It is always difficult to choose what to keep sharp and what to leave soft when shooting this close. Keeping the stem relatively sharp was a good idea; also good to have some of the leaves in good focus. Unfortunately, the largest leaf is out of focus, and it serves as an eye magnet. You had two principles running counter here, keeping the sun behind the branch and finding a shooting position that let you manage the in and out of focus areas; very difficult.
Del
|
| | |
Vintage Postcard
(30)
baba/David (30,025)
|
|
|
from mudgeon/Del (5,899)
on November 11, 2009 6:43:11 PM CST
(2)
Very nice faded Kodak look. The long exposure and the fading treatment give it almost a cheap printed graphic look. Overall, a very successful vintage 60's look.
Del
|
| | |
Ski Racing
(14)
cremmins/Ian (3,327)
|
|
|
from mudgeon/Del (5,899)
on November 11, 2009 6:40:33 PM CST
(6)
I don't believe you can claim to have used a technique successfully when its effect is not visible, and this photo really supports that. Without more difference in blur between the moving subject and the background, the illusion of speed is not present. It cannot be present without a visible effect of some kind that indicates speed in a still photo. What is left appears to be two people on water skis, with houseboats in the background. We know intellectually there must...
|
| | |
solitude
(8)
minis/Mindaugas (5,444)
|
|
|
from mudgeon/Del (5,899)
on November 11, 2009 6:34:31 PM CST
(4)
Your rule is successfully broken, but the result is not successful here. The pattern in the water might have some interest, but it is repeated in roughly the same tones, without strong lines or shapes. I have to ask, what would this be like without the red float? Because that is almost what you have. With nothing in the background to provide interest or draw the eye, the result is just a broken rule.
Del
|
| | |
Drifting Away
(20)
karin2007/Karin (11,140)
|
|
|
from mudgeon/Del (5,899)
on November 11, 2009 6:31:10 PM CST
(5)
I like your selection of shutter speed; blurring the water flow in this case might have been impossible unless the leaf were hung up on the rock, but if successful would have just looked odd. There is more dynamic interest in the bottom third. If you have more photo that is not shown here, a lower crop would be stronger.
Del
|
| | |
8th Avenue Deliveries
(25)
laurenw/Lauren (1,496)
|
|
|
from mudgeon/Del (5,899)
on November 11, 2009 6:28:49 PM CST
(5)
A different approach, and one that I like. Panning just enough that the bicyclist can be identified as such makes the rest of it sort of cubist, not quite abstract. That turns an ordinary street scene into a thought-provoking set of shapes. I don't care for the wide crop, and believe a tighter crop would add to tension between shapes and made a more interesting photo.
Del
|
| | |
Longing for home again...
(31)
istanbullu811/Istanbullu (1,710)
|
|
|
from mudgeon/Del (5,899)
on November 8, 2009 9:34:00 AM CST
(6)
I like everything but the perspective distortion. The composition is good, as is the toning. The shape of the photo and the card do not look as familiar to me as the common, at least in the US, roughly 4:3 or 3:2 aspect ratios, or the tall ones usually depicting standing people, but I will certainly accept the results of your research. What looks odd to me is the perspective distortion. The period you aimed for had sheet or plate negatives made on large cameras on...
|
| | |
Soccer Tryouts
(44)
thedavidwright/David (8,820)
|
|
|
from mudgeon/Del (5,899)
on November 8, 2009 9:25:52 AM CST
(5)
This is not uninspired, but it does not work very well for me. I think the problem is that your choosing a different photo for the ball, compounded with placing it overlapping the edge, have lost the connection between boy and ball. When I first looked at the photo something seemed out of place, and your explanation makes sense with what I saw. I don't know whether it is the sharpness of the ball with the blurred everything else, or the ball's placement, or the...
|
| | |
Faith
(16)
minis/Mindaugas (5,444)
|
|
|
from mudgeon/Del (5,899)
on November 8, 2009 9:19:48 AM CST
(4)
I like the look to this, with almost no mid-tones. Not really much else to say, the light source is positioned well behind the steeple, and the lighting falls out well between that blooming around the steeple and the dark shadows. The only thing I don't care for is the crop. When I see a crop the deviates substantially from the ordinary ones, I wonder why. Maybe to hide something unattractive, maybe just to take more advantage of the lines and objects in this photo. ...
|
| | |
16 elbows or 16 knees?
(20)
cremmins/Ian (3,327)
|
|
|
from mudgeon/Del (5,899)
on November 8, 2009 9:14:27 AM CST
(4)
I see your logic on rule breaking. Without your explanation, I would probably consider this as an abstract, and it succeeds as an abstract, so you have broken a rule and made a successful photo. I don't critique abstracts much, but do understand that almost any comment can be made and then argued about, so I can't say much about content. In terms of what I appreciate in photos, I would like to see more consistency in what is sharp and what is not. I like the soft...
|
|
