First walk with E-410, critique me too

[raven15]

I have a few pictures, so I'll post them in pairs. Please criticize and critique the ones you want (don't feel like you need get them all). This was my first real photography spree with my E-410, previously I had only shot pictures of non-photogenic stuff around my house, and a few from a truck traveling on a somewhat-maintained dirt road ($@#* I need image stabilization! lots of fun though, but very blurred pictures). And of course prior experience on my Canon A710IS.

All pictures taken in 1/4 mile long x 200 yard strip that I walk every weekday. Most within 2 hours in the early morning, some this afternoon.
Lenses Used: ZD 14-54 mm f/2.8-3.5 with Hoya polarizer
ZD 40-150 mm f/3.5-5.6

The last lens is real fun, because it has 300mm equivalent but is freakin' tiny. It's half the size of the other! I find it very amusing to see a bird in the distance and think "It's time to pull out the little lens!" or "bring out the small guns!". People watched me switch from one to the other and they seem less interested in me when I have the telephoto on because it is so small. Even though it has 3x the wallop!

I viewed these on a very new 19" widescreen LCD monitor and a 1998 flat screen very large 20" dell CRT. The two show very different pictures. Sorry, I post processed to match the LCD with the CRT, so if things are very contrasty that might be the reason.

Pictures to follow:

[raven15]

"Dark Side of the Pigeon" or "Evil Eye"?
Both with 40-150, mild PP in irfanview. (contrast, I take all pictures in jpeg at lowest contrast setting).

[raven15]

"I'm Just a Bird in the World" or "Guy Sweeping Roof"?

Again 40-150mm lens. Mild PP.

[toriaj]

It looks like you have potential, good eye for lighting and shape. Keep it up, keep taking pictures, keep posting :)

[raven15]

"Walking and Talking" or "Architecture"?

14-54 mm lens. usual PP (contrast & gamma correction)

Sorry, those are a little big.

[raven15]

"PP Overexposed Duck" or "Me Too"?

40-150mm lens. Usual. I must have a thing for telephoto. The overexposure was tragic, because the slow shutter speed also allowed motion blur, not to mention blown highlights.

[raven15]

"Saturated", "Black & White", or "Over Exposed"?

I think these are three completely different shots, tuned to their strengths.

14-54mm lens.

[raven15]

"Flower" or "Stop Sign"?

Last batch. The stop sign originally had no PP, until I saw it on the CRT and it seemed to lose a lot of contrast the LCD gave everything. So I tuned the contrast to the CRT, don't know if that is how everyone sees it. The flower has a blue part in the middle, but I can't see it anymore.

Both with 14-54mm lens, the only shots in the afternoon.

I was going to add 3 more (6 more pictures) but I think thats enough.

[raven15]

So, what do you think? What works best, and which ones don't work at all? What is your favorite or least favorite & why? Or just too many pictures at once :D.

Thanks for your input.

Edit: Hmmm. Maybe shoulda put this in "galleries". But I just saw another critique thread here, so that's what I was thinking of.

[JTL]

Honestly? Some pretty sloppy shooting. Framing, exposure, focus and sometimes complete lack of a true subject are all problems that I see. Personally, I don't think any of them are keepers. Do you?

I could go shot by shot, but if you really look critically, you'll come to the same criticisms and conclusions that I would post. :)

[Seafood]

Sometimes I have to laugh at the folks that think they arrived "overnight" as the god of all things photographic. JTL...I am sure you meant well I would just suggest that you think back to your first photos...I'll bet they werent all that great either. I have seen alot worse "first time photos". This poster shows potential to see thing creatively.

My favorites of the bunch are the first and then the last two. I really like the flower one for some reason. I like that the grass is really dark...if you could keep it that dark but somehow pull out a bit more detail it would be really cool. But then again I am the guy who was asking for help too! :)

[JTL]

Sometimes I have to laugh at the folks that think they arrived "overnight" as the god of all things photographic. JTL...I am sure you meant well I would just suggest that you think back to your first photos...I'll bet they werent all that great either. I have seen alot worse "first time photos". This poster shows potential to see thing creatively.Hey, people ask for critiques, they get critiques. Pats on the head? Well that's what grannys are for.

Did or did not the OP ask "which ones don't work at all?" Yes or no? Well? For me, the HONEST answer is, NONE of them work at all. I'd be happy to go shot by shot if the OP wants, but I think the OP should give themselves a self-assessment first.

So, I really don't see what your problem is and I find your "god of all things photographic" comment childishsly inappropriate and very defensive. Maybe you're feeling a little sensitive about my critique of your work as well? ;)

All I did was ask the OP to look critically and honestly at the work themselves. If someone can't be honest with themselves, they certainly won't be able to internalize honest feedback in any meaningful way. :)

I would just suggest that you think back to your first photos...I'll bet they werent all that great either. How much money do you have to lose on such a bet? :cool:

[Seafood]

Maybe you're feeling a little sensitive about my critique of your work as well? ;):

Actually I was appreciative and thankful for your response to my post. No issues there at all.

How much money do you have to lose on such a bet? :cool:

If we could have an open vote and you would actually show us some of the first images you ever captured? I would put Muy Muy Dinero on it. Noone comes out of the gate hot. :)

What I dont want to do is hijack the OP thread. I would like for him/her to get the same kind of great feedback that was given me.

[Nickcanada]

I think you posted this in the right place. I like the first one the most. I think you have some good shots. Keep on shooting. I think JTL was a little harsh but those are the kind of critiques I love receiving so I can't fault him for expressing his opinion although I disagree with him. I think you have a good start.

[raven15]

I don't mind at all. At this point I took the pictures too recently to look at them objectively, so it's hard to do a self-critique. Could you choose, say, two, and let me know the reasons? Just saying "none of them" is not that helpful, though it might be true. Feel free to get them all if you want, but that is time. Ok, I'll choose two: "Guy Sweeping Roof" and the brick building. What could be improved with those? I do some vicious critique jobs, so you can't hurt me.

[pas49ras]

I'll bite..the guy on the roof, its the subject matter..you only see his head and its hard to even tell what he is doing. Most of your pictures you posted looked to dark on my computer. The brick building..I like the color in the first one but that branch in the left corner is very distracting for me. Also..to much sky and not the complete building at the bottom . It's also taken at a angle so it screws up the prespective..makes the building look slanted. Keep working on the subject matter to make the picture more apealing to the viewer

[raven15]

Pigeons: first one is clearly underexposed, but that was the point (though not at time of shooting), and it was exaggerated slightly in post processing. Second one seems like it could show more ground to the right of the bird, easy fix since I cropped it.

Roofs: The guy sweeping may be underexposed slightly, though it is hard to say because it looked a lot like that (the sun had just risen) and the different monitors I've used give different views. The picture appears slightly tilted. Don't see anything wrong with the small bird on the roof, all I can think of is it was just plain boring.

Guy walking: Agree something seems off, but I don't know what.
Wide angle arch: Don't see anything bad, maybe needs cropping?

Overexposed duck: Name says it all.
"Me Too" different cropping? Ok, this must be the focus one. Clearly, the goose was not originally the center of focus.

Building: At a loss to see anything, not even sure which version is best. I couldn't get the ground below because a bunch of cars were parked there, not pretty.

Flower: Probably too much contrast (done in PP accidentally) because I no longer see the blue part in the center.
Stop sign: Slightly tilted. Could have been better framing perhaps (thirds), but I wasn't able to fix it with a crop because it lost the nature of the shot. Agree I could have spent more time framing this. On the other hand, the sign was only reflecting light from a certain angle, so I didn't have any movement available to me. And it was centered because I was using center-spot exposure, that was the weak spot possibly, should have used click-and-drag exposure to get it into a third-spot.

Now, this is what I saw, but probably not what you would have said.

[raven15]

Seafood: I know, I responded to your post! But then I didn't do the same thing to some of my own, correct for under exposure.

JTL, I know someone whom I just had a conversation with who approaches things from the same way as you, so I'm pretty used to it. But one thing I always tell him is, a critique cites evidence, not allowed to just say "no". :) Saying "look critically and narrow it down to a few then come back" is useful to a lesser extent, but understandable, given time constraints.

I narrowed it down to: both pigeon shots and both roof shots. Please comment on what could be improved with those. I will re-process them and come back. My criteria will be "Would this look good on a calendar/magazine cover? If not, why not?"

I concede that poor framing (flower and sign, both arches) and impossibility to get a good shot (building, water fowl) did in the rest. I'll try again on the building when its base isn't cluttered with cars. Maybe. There might be handicapped parking signs, I'll look. The guy on the roof will never be an award winner, because as pas49ras says the parapet blocks view of the action, but I'd like to tweak it.

[griptape]

I don't mind at all. At this point I took the pictures too recently to look at them objectively, so it's hard to do a self-critique.

This raises a great point. Whenever you stare at the same image for too long, you lose your ability to detach yourself from it. The same can be said for a lot of things. If you're in a band, you start hearing what you think the song sounds like in your head. If you're a photographer, you start seeing the picture the way you see it in your head. Any time I do any post processing (or listen to tracks again for that matter), I always do what I think I should, let it sit for at least an hour, and then come back and look at it again through somewhat fresh eyes. It makes it easier to pretend it isn't your's, and judge it from a more impartial standpoint.

[Phill D]

Raven15 that is exactly the way to take C&C brilliant. The comments & your feedback are help to many of us out here too. Often posts/e-mails can come over a bit abrupt when they are not mean't that way.
I'm guessing you feel the same way about the shots you posted as I did when I took my first shots with my digicam, Ok but slightly dissapointed? Sometimes on a bad day I'm not sure I progressed very far, other times I think I just got lucky! Anyway I can't give you any expert C&C but here are a few comments on some of them from an enthusiastic P&S amature. For the man on roof shot I'd just crop out more of the bricks from the bottom & LHS of the image so it contains a bigger proportion of empty sky & the eye then settles on the man more quickly. The observer can then wonder what he's up to. I'd do a similar crop to the bird on roof shot getting rid of much of the foreground. To be honest I wouldn't actually bother too much with either of these shots sorry but they are just a bit boring really (I've taken dozens of boring shots myself too!). The flower one I do really like but for me I'd just crop it a bit closer to leave less of the dark background. I like the way the sharp vibrant flower emerges out of the fuzzy dark background & the slightly obscuring leaf adds to the peeping out feel. The man walking is also a nice shot but again I'd crop off the bottom part where the pavement seems to dip towards the viewer & also crop off the RHS to remove the post. For the brick building I would have tried to get more branches into the top of the image to help to create a frame or just leave them out. Just a few thoughts & feel free to critique anything I post when ever you like. Hope JTL gives you some more specific feedback I've learn't a lot from his posts in the past.

[TheWengler]

Raven, I'm bored so I'll offer my opinions...

Pigeon 1 - Underexposed. Poor framing. Generally it's more pleasing to lead the subject into the frame rather than out of it. For example, if the subject is looking down and right then place them in the top left. Use the rule of 3rds as a guide, but it doesn't always work so you don't always need to use it.

Pigeon 2 - I'd get rid of that tree. There isn't really enough of it there to add anything to the picture.

Guy on roof - This shot lacks pop. I'm not sure you could have done anything to improve this. Just a boring subject I guess.

The one after guy on roof :confused: - This could be an abstract. When you crop I suggest you try to remove distracting elements such as the lettering on the bottom left. I might have also tried to eliminate the trees from the image when composing the shot. They don't add anything.

Guy on sidewalk - This one is okay. Maybe step in front of the sign on the lower right so that clutter doesn't make it into your image.

Arch - This one is okay too. It could use more of the roof. If an arch takes up a whole frame then it may be best to use it to frame an interesting subject.

Duck - It's blurry and over exposed. Poor dead center crop. Use the 1/focal length = SS to help avoid camera shake. Bump up the ISO or open up the lens to avoid motion blur.

Swan - This one is decent. If you shoot from a lower angle then some of the background would be included. Assuming it's an interesting background then it would add more depth to the picture.

Building series - I wouldn't clip the bottom of the building off like that.

Flower - Could be good. You should apply the rule of 3rds. Shoot from an angle that avoids a blurry blade of grass running in front of your subject.

Stop sign - There's nothing interesting here. If I were to try to take an interesting picture of a stop sign I would either shoot it from a low angle (at wide angle, portrait orientation) or I would shoot in landscape orientation, put the sign on one side of the image and include the street on the other side of the image. Maybe use a shallow DOF.

None of these are great but I wouldn't worry about it. When I look at some of my old images I want to go on a deleting rampage. Generally I would say your images are under exposed, but it may just seem that way because they need to be given some more pop in pp. Also, make sure the white balance is correct. If you're shooting in shade then the images might look flat on auto WB. Shoot in morning and evening light. Try to look at things from interesting angles. If you just stand there and snap a shot of a stop sign the same way everyone always sees them, what's exciting about that? That's all I got. I hope it helps. :)

[raven15]

Thanks all! I decided that it would be better if I just rewalked the route this morning and shot a whole new set of pictures. That was way better than trying to beat a dead horse on my computer.

Glad I did! The light was yellower, the sky was bluer, the air was clearer, and there weren't as many people around making me feel funny as I looked at everything from 20 points of view. Armed with the knowledge that my framing, exposure, and subjects sucked the first time, I turned out a substantially better set of photos. I am still reviewing them, hope to post them soon.

Biggest problem was I was fiddling around with my camera and forgot I left contrast on +2, so all the pictures have much more "pop" than I am used to (usually leave it on -2). Shooting white swans on dark water is very difficult with maxed-out contrast.

I'll post new and improved versions soon.

[Phill D]

Sounds like you had fun. I look forward to the sequal. It's good to see the Olympus threads getting some attention.

[raven15]

I couldn't entirely narrow it down, so there are a few again. Please let me know if you see one that is particularly good or bad and why. I think you'll agree with me that the new ones are much better.

All settings were basically the same as last time (14-54 & 40-150 lenses), except that I accidentally turned the contrast to +2 instead of -2 that I usually use, it becomes visible sometimes. I turned the aperture to ~f/11 or f/8 after the first few and left it there the rest of the day.

The new "arch" shot is framed much better, I think.

So is the new building. There were no cars in front.

Coming up next: "follow me to a portrait of a duck"

[raven15]

Portrait of a Duck: Today is a good day to be a duck. Every day is a good day to be a duck.

Portrait of a Swan: umm... what the name says.

Swan-flection: Might have been better if the %$@# contrast was not so high.

Twilight on the Marshes: or, possibly, high noon in the high desert.

[raven15]

Ok, at heart I'm a wildlife photographer, and that was the reason for buying the camera I did.

Swan Floating: water fowl always look happy.

Just Swan: Cleaning, not attacking. You should have seen it before PP!

Swan Dance: see above.

[raven15]

Bright Stuff: I don't take pictures like this. The fire hydrant looked like crap. I didn't think it would work. It worked.

Yellow Flower Revisited: um... yeah

After this, my pictures will be more controversial, I think.

[raven15]

Beep Beep!: This picture was so bad that when I hit "blur" in Irfanview nothing happened, but it shows this robin to be the world hopping champion speed demon that he is.

Does it work?

[raven15]

That's All Folks! Better?

Let me know if you see anything consistent, though just posting I have seen that a few could be better.

[great_guns]

How much money do you have to lose on such a bet? :cool:

I'll bet a pound. :p

I am an amateur myself and I have often taken constructive criticism very nicely usually using the points mentioned in such critiques to improve my shots. I must though say that JTL's "critique" was as pointless as the op's photographs in his opinion. It would be better critique if he pointed out exactly WHAT he means when he says "framing, exposure, focus are problems". Its like a mechanic telling a car owner that his car has problems under the hood, near the steering wheel and around the tyres. Utterly pointless and absolutely unnecessary.

[great_guns]

I like the Yellow flower.
The yellow flower tree with the fire hydrant - I would try to do a vertical crop on it around the three main foreground subjects.

I shall try to revisit the rest of the photos tomorrow and offer my humble opinion.

[erichlund]

"Saturated", "Black & White", or "Over Exposed"?

I think these are three completely different shots, tuned to their strengths.

14-54mm lens.

OK, let's talk about these buildings. I'm going to be critical, but I will give specifics.

First of all, you cut off the bottom of the buildings, so they have no foundation. This makes them disconnected from their place in the world. Always try to hold your camera level when shooting architecture. This will tend to keep all in proper perspective.

Then, the shots do not frame the buildings so that they look vertical. These shots all fall off to the left. When shooting architecture, it's imperative that you keep perspective correct so vertical lines are vertical. There are exceptions, but you are neither shooting in Pisa (for example), nor shooting for special creative effect. You were pointing the camera up to capture the tower in the center of the photo. This is generally wrong. However, if you had simply framed the WHOLE building in the center of the photo, that would have been much better. The key here is you need to learn how camera orientation affects your photos.

Google "photography rule of thirds". As you are learning composition, learn rules like this and apply them. When you get comfortable with them, then you will begin to know when it's time to break the rules, because there are times when they should be broken.

Go to a museum and study some art. Especially landscapes. Note where the artists place objects in their works, and how those things lead the eye into the piece. BTW: Even if you live in an area without a good library, you have a library. They have art and photography books.

Good photography takes some study and practice. Some have a knack for it, but most of use need to work harder to get better. Keep at it and your compositions will improve.

One last piece of advice. If you decide you want to do mostly architecture and landscapes, buy a good tripod. It will be the most important piece of kit you own, so don't skimp. See here (http://www.bythom.com/support.htm).

[erichlund]

Portrait of a Duck: Today is a good day to be a duck. Every day is a good day to be a duck.


Well, maybe not near a Chinese restaurant. Peking Duck does not refer to where the bird is from. :)

[SpecialK]

I've never recommended spending money to calibrate a monitor. I've always been happy with the old eyeball method. However, your photos suffer from something that seems to be underexposed/too contrasty, and a Huey or Spyder may benefit your results.

Try putting one in an existing gallery and see if it doesn't not stand out as being too dark (adjusting for everyone else's shot). The gallery images, from what I've seen, look OK processing-wise.

But yes, the bird shots are not really interesting, and most others seem to have exposure/gamma issues.

[erichlund]

I couldn't entirely narrow it down, so there are a few again. Please let me know if you see one that is particularly good or bad and why. I think you'll agree with me that the new ones are much better.

All settings were basically the same as last time (14-54 & 40-150 lenses), except that I accidentally turned the contrast to +2 instead of -2 that I usually use, it becomes visible sometimes. I turned the aperture to ~f/11 or f/8 after the first few and left it there the rest of the day.

The new "arch" shot is framed much better, I think.

So is the new building. There were no cars in front.
Coming up next: "follow me to a portrait of a duck"

You are still pointing the camera up. The camera should be horizontal. You have to move back or get a wider lens if that's what it takes to get the whole building in. Pointing the camera up is what causes the building to lean away from you.

I get the impression that once you raise the camera to your face, you don't take that long to really look at what's in your viewfinder. This is actually one reason for the tripod. It gives you time to examine your work before you press the shutter release. Take your time, and you will start to see things in the viewfinder and correct them without having to take multiple shots.

[raven15]

Wow, lots of posts here today. Thanks.

I wasn't aware that pointing the camera up when shooting a building is not how it's done. You are correct that I was shooting at the building's second floor rather than level. Cool.

Yeah, upon further review I decided that many of those really weren't as good as I thought, so from now on I'll wait at least a week before getting excited. I've already gone through and re-cropped a few of them (including the yellow bush/fire hydrant one) to get better composition, and decided some just weren't worth it.

Contrast and exposure are a problem for me, I think largely due to monitors. The computer where I do much of my PP work has a very bright, vivid, contrasty LCD screen that makes anything look good. The computer where I post from has a darker, low contrast CRT screen, but I also use it to work on many of my shots. I think between the two of them something gets weird. I might pull out my older CRT to look at things.

One of the biggest things for me to realize is probably that not every situation has a great picture in it, or that acquiring it might involve very specific timing and placement. Not that that would prevent me from taking a few dozen shots while waiting, being trigger happy as I am.

[erichlund]

Sounds like what you really need is a monitor calibration device. I can recommend Spyder 3. Use it on each monitor that you will be used for editing, but leave it on your primary editing monitor, because it has an ambient light meter to keep your view consistent.

One thing that is quite likely is that your LCD is set too bright. Most are, as set from the factory.

[SpecialK]

At least use the top link and get your monitor in the ballpark for brightness and contrast.

http://www.jasc.com/support/kb/articles/monitor.asp

http://www.displaycalibration.com/brightness_contrast.html

http://www.displaycalibration.com/color_depth.html

http://www.photofriday.com/calibrate.php

[Beowulff]

Just a few generalised, overall comments about the majority of your images (most of the other guys have already covered the technicalities pretty well).....
Too many subjects dead-centre of frame - cropping issue?
Most images on my (calibrated) monitor underexposed.
Bits 'n' pieces missing(?) from images and/or cut off - cropping again - or composition in field?
Most images lack any particular point of interest - bit boring to me - need to generate viewer involvement.
Need to "see" what's actually in your viewfinder in the field - don't rush to take pic - think about finished image.
Few problems with exposure/DoF/focus etc - time will fix.
In general, nothing disastrous that can't easily be corrected with a little more practise. Take your time composing the image, and don't worry about taking half a dozen or even 100(!) shots of the same thing so that you can get it right back home. Think about using exposure bracketing or forcing the EVs up and/or down. Have a play around with different apertures with the same subject and note the effect on foregrounds and backgrounds. Don't be afraid to really stretch the camera to its fullest capabilities - even overextending it if you wish. And make more use of your tripod.Hope this is of some help.

Cheers :)

[raven15]

All right, thanks. I'll try to improve placement of subjects in future shots, and also put more thought into the best angle etc. I'll also try to identify more "interesting" subjects. That could be the hardest past.

I probably will not be a big tripod user, because a tripod would decrease the number of pictures I take to zero, unless for a special occasion. I do own a tripod I got free with my house, but I have yet to place my camera on it. I may try it sometime but I can't imagine walking around with it.

Exposure bracketing was one of the reasons I went with the E-410 (and why I dropped the D40 so quickly from my list), so I will definitely use it in the future and in fact have taken several hundred shots with it already. But ironically, I don't think any of the ones posted were taken with bracketing.

Another note, I am learning about posting too. In the future I will try to post just one image I especially like or have questions about. I may select my favorite 3 or so of what's in this thread and repost them with fixes.

[Beowulff]

I'll also try to identify more "interesting" subjects. That could be the hardest part.The subject in and of itself doesn't necessarily have to be interesting — it's often how you choose to represent a mundane subject in a new or dramatic or extreme way. Your STOP sign pic is a classic example that would lend itself to a bizarre shooting angle, extreme bokeh, intentional wide angle distortion, or even an artistic lens flare — you get the idea.

I probably will not be a big tripod user, because a tripod would decrease the number of pictures I take to zero, unless for a special occasion.It's hard to put into words that make sense, but for me the tripod "slows" me down and gives me "thinking" time. I can set up the shot and stand back and reconsider angles, lighting, timings etc, or wait for a cloud shift or some BiFs etc. If carrying a tripod P's you off, you might think about something like this small, ultra-lightweight Manfrotto: 715 SHB Tripod (http://www.manfrotto.com/Jahia/site/manfrotto/cache/bypass/lang/en/pid/3935?livid=68&lsf=68&child=2).
It's about 14" folded and weighs about 1kg.

In the future I will try to post just one image I especially like or have questions about. I may select my favourite 3 or so of what's in this thread and repost them with fixes.Excellent idea, as if for no other reason, you're much more likely to get constructive critique on 2 or 3 images rather than a dozen. Most folks won't have the patience — or the time — to give detailed responses to so many pics in one hit.

I'd also like to commend you on taking all these issues on board — it can be a pretty steep learning curve these days with all the extra high-tech issues to contend with too, and you're obviously moving along nicely. Well done! :D

Will look forward to seeing more of your stuff.

Cheers :)