Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Photo Critiques

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 8, 2007, 9:29 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
spiderdan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 170
Default

It's a great photo
You could perhaps blur the background slightly to make the kid and the forground stand out better? That would change the photo's appearance though, depends on what you are trying to achieve.
spiderdan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2007, 5:05 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
kenmck15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,568
Default

i lie this shot

maybe try a lower anle, i think it would have been nice with maybe some oof flowers filling the foreground and a shallower dof

ken
kenmck15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2007, 7:17 PM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 75
Default

Keoeeit,

Thanks for your thoughts on the second photo. I knew something just wasn't right but I couldn't put a finger on it. You nailed it with the light pulling the subject to the right. I'll play around with other crops, but more important I'll just be more aware next time. Thanks again!

Keoeeit wrote:
Quote:
Photo #1: I agree with the others saying you need to crop some off the left. You might also get away with cropping away some of that clutter at the top too.

Photo #2: This one doesn't really work too well, mostly because of the direction of the light. You would first have to crop off that whole left side that falls off into the distance if you wanted to use it as-is. The light coming from the right wants to pull your subject out of the frame, rather than into the frame (like in your first photo). You could probably get away with a tight crop of just your subject in a vertical format, so more of the body was centered in the frame. The light would then have less of a tendency to want to pull the whole body out of the frame. A tight horizontal crop might work too, just past the edges of the logs, keeping in most of the foreground flowers, and a short distance above your subject's head, but not much more than that.
mattroth54 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2007, 7:55 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
GoCubs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 766
Default

I think this one is better, I hope you didn't take my critique to personally before. But this one does have a better BG, no big stump, only if it was blurred more, you will remember those settings next time. I know how it can be trying to keep the little ones attention, I have a few myself. It seems like you are trying to keep to some kind of rules of thirds in these shots, while landscape oriented shots with 1/3's can work sometimes, I think these would be better in portrait and with the little one filling more of the frame. Here I think you are giving us too much to look at. The rule of 1/3's can be used if you put his eyes on the upper 1/3 line, then he don't have to be all the way over on one side of the picture. remember we want to see the kid, not the whole forest.

Here's one of mine about a year and half ago to kind of show you what I mean, not saying they are perfect or better(there's problems with all of them too), just explaining the portrait vs. landscape orientation of the camera.
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=88
GoCubs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2007, 8:13 PM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 75
Default

GoCubs,

I wouldn't post in this forum if I would take any advice posted here personally. It is all very helpful in my develpoment and VERY appreciated! Thank you for taking the time to comment on my photos! I see what you mean by going outside the rules of 3rd's and playing around with landscape vs. portriat. I really like the examples you posted...I will try something like that next time I'm out. It's easy to forget that some rules are not ALWAYS meant to be followed.

GoCubs wrote

:
Quote:
I think this one is better, I hope you didn't take my critique to personally before. But this one does have a better BG, no big stump, only if it was blurred more, you will remember those settings next time. I know how it can be trying to keep the little ones attention, I have a few myself. It seems like you are trying to keep to some kind of rules of thirds in these shots, while landscape oriented shots with 1/3's can work sometimes, I think these would be better in portrait and with the little one filling more of the frame. Here I think you are giving us too much to look at. The rule of 1/3's can be used if you put his eyes on the upper 1/3 line, then he don't have to be all the way over on one side of the picture. remember we want to see the kid, not the whole forest.

Here's one of mine about a year and half ago to kind of show you what I mean, not saying they are perfect or better(there's problems with all of them too), just explaining the portrait vs. landscape orientation of the camera.
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=88
mattroth54 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:05 PM.