At 06:19 AM 5/11/2005, Darin wrote:
>Hello All,
>
>I just joined the list a couple weeks ago and would like your
>comments, and critique of some of my photos. I would like to get more
>serious about photograghy, and thought this might be a good way for me to
>learn what I've been doing right/wrong.
Film Considerations:
If you want to do more with your photographs than put them into a photo
album, such as making large display prints, consider eventually switching
to the chromes: Kodachrome, Fuji Provia and Fuji Velvia are the three that
immediately come to mind. The latter two are pro films. The consumer Fuji
Sensia is the same as Fuji professional Astia; IMO it doesn't have quite
the saturation of Provia, and definitely not that of Velvia. The chromes
*will* be much more finicky with exposure. Transparency (aka slide) films
have less latitude compared to negative films; exposure is typically made
for the midtones. However, the colors are richer and bolder, and properly
made large prints from them tend to leap out at the viewer. Some of mine
have a realism that I haven't been able to duplicate very well with color
negative films. If the goal is smaller prints for a photo album . . .
color negative is likely a better choice. Consider trying Kodak's
High-Definition 200 (if you can find it; it used to be called Royal Gold
200), Fuji Reala, and Agfa Ultra. You might also want to try Kodak's
professional Ultra Color . . . I have two rolls of it for a specific shoot
later this month for which I need to use color negative. Haven't tried it
before and since the shoot isn't a critical one I can see what it
does. Each of the films I've mentioned have a "character" of their own
with saturation, contrast, etc. All that said . . . right now it might be
better (easier) to continue with color negative while you work on use of
light and composition.
General Comments:
Subject isolation! Every element in the photograph should contribute to
telling the story and not distract from it. Simplicity has greater visual
impact. Many of your photographs have a point of interest or subject dead
center which can either be too powerful (overpowering everything else in
it) or visually splitting the photo in two. See my short tutorial that
covers some of the most common compositional techniques used to make
photographs visually interesting and increase impact:
http://johnlind.tripod.com/art/artframe.html
Fungi Photographs:
Consider doing some "site cleanup" of debris before doing macros like
these. Home in on the subject and the only the portion of the environment
around the subject that contributes to telling the story about it or
provides an interesting backdrop for it.
Landscapes:
The two most interesting of these for me are the waterfall and Fern
Canyon. The waterfall could be improved by cropping the deep shadow area
with near zero detail at the top. Mt. Jefferson could also use some crop
at the bottom . . . if shot again from the same spot think about puting the
peak more toward the left of the frame to cut down the amount of dark
foreground hilltop in the photograph . . . and if there's something
distracting to the right, use a longer focal length. This also moves the
top of the peak off dead center. Three Sisters Iron Mountain also has deep
foreground shadow and cropping off the bottom fourth of fifth of the frame
would cut down how much of it is in that photography. The cabin is plagued
by shadow on the lower half of the cabin . . . and I'm wondering if a
different time of day would give that side full illumination . . . or at
least more illumination than it has. I'd also move closer to the cabin and
use the tree trunks at frame edge to "frame" it with them.
Huntin and Fishin:
In the "my first deer" photograph, move in closer to show the deer . . .
you don't need the entire back of the SUV . . . this would place the man
toward the left side of the frame, give a better view of the deer in the
back. Might work better not only closer in, but also vertically composed .
. . and the spare tire's white rim is a bright distractor . . . if you can
cover something like that with a tarp or blanket it can eliminate that. In
the "first steelhead" there's a lot of deeper shadow to the right . . .
think about background (or backdrop) for a photograph like this . . . and
subject is dead center again . . . move toward one side or the other . . .
and consider doing a vertical instead of horizontal composition.
Keep working at it by slowly incorporating compositional techniques one at
a time . . . and then work at using combinations of them. The only hard
and fast rule is there are no hard and fast rules . . . use compositional
methods to see if it helps give the story more visual impact, helps isolate
the story you want to tell from distractions and makes it more
interesting. Do it consciously long enough and suddenly you will find it
has become "second nature" . . . you will begin to "see" (visualize)
compositions of a scene automagically.
Keep shooting . . . it takes experience at doing it . . . go through your
own work when you get it back using your hands or pieces of paper to play
with cropping and thinking about how a different time of day (different
lighting) or different composition might improve it. Look at the TOPE
galleries and reverse engineer the compositional methods used in the photos
that have the greatest visual impact for you as you browse through the
thumbnails. Doing the same with other galleries and "coffee table" books
of photography (at the library) helped me greatly in understanding better
how and when various techniques can be used . . . and the effect they
have. The TOPE galleries are here:
http://www.millennics.com/olympus/tope/gallery.html
Within my own work I see things that can be improved all the time . . . a
different crop . . . or a change in time of day . . . or a different
lighting setup (I do some "studio" work) or a different composition.
-- John Lind
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|