DSLRUsers.com

It's taken a while to get the PP done on these and I was pretty unhappy with most of my shots which probably didn't help. Here are my pick of what I thought was worth keeping. You can find more HERE

I'd be interested in your thoughts on these.

OMG no comments. They MUST be crap.

Not Crap, but probably not up to the Peter Stubbsy standards we've come to expect.

#1 is meh, doesn't do much for me the harsh lighting blows what ever chance his shot had in colour, B&W might work.. but it still might be boring

#2 Nice blue tones, nice reflections but the top of the mast is missing.. Oops!

#3 Good, and I know it's your favourite building but what's this offering that hasn't been shown in any of your previous attempts of the same shot ? I'm being picky, but I do like the little puffy clouds

#4 Not bad, but looks like you copped some flaring on the RHS that has reduced the contrast a little looks a bit washed out. (could be wrong).

Following on from Craig's comments:

1. Composition is good, but the shadows seem to disrupt the flow of the trunks.
2. Is nice, but I can't work out whether it is meant to look soft or not (or, indeed, if it is simply my monitor). I normally see tack-sharp images from you and don't expect to see softer images like this. Disregard all of this if it is simply a monitor issue.
3. Strong composition, but, as Craig said, not one of your best.
4. Good shot, although could do with some more contrast?

Welcome to the world of minimal feedback

But, as Craig said, my initial thoughts were that I have become accustomed to more striking images from you.

P

Peter
That second shot has been beautifully processed and has a rare quality about it. A framer! It just looks so real! The others have an air of competence but don't sing out to me.

Peter,
These shots are good, but not great! As said not at your usual high standard.
I agree with Matt.K that the winning image here is no.2 . Don't let this stop you posting your usually fantastic pics!

They are good shots. Especially number 3 with the detail of the ripples, the stone wall, silos and the reflections. Also you were playing the tour guide/leader so you were distracted as well and maybe miss one or several 'money shots'

Yeah, they're crap.

Frank

JUST JOKING!

I like the last one - nice composition and colours. The rest are OK, but I agree with the others - not up to the usual top shelf standard.


Frank

Thanks for your feedback people. #2 was problematic for me - I chopped the mast at the top to remove distracting background. And the image was softened and destaurated to give at an oldy worldy kinda feel (not sure it worked given your comment Patrick - it actually started quite sharp).

The last shot was under exposed since it was a rush shot and I think the flare at the right edge is sloppy PP on my part

Here's #2 straight from DxO before I cropped and PPd it.

great shots peter, what PP did you do to that shot

Peter
Re the second shot....I think you deserve more feedback on why perhaps it does not work as well as it should. I learn more from examining shots that don't work than from those that do, and yours is a wonderful example of how composition can fail us. The AMP building on the left is the most dominant part of the frame. It is big and it is bright. It catches the eye and holds it....but when the eye scans the rest of the frame there is no other element of real interest. In effect, the right hand 3/4 of the frame lack any visual hook or interest, so it is wasted. There is no detail in the dark building and it seems visually dead. There is no visual tension or dominant colour on the right side of the frame, so the eye returns to the AMP building, which has already been scrutinised....and decides that it has had enough. The image may have been a little stronger if you had placed the dark building on the extreme right of the image space. This would have blocked in that side and the AMP would have been dominate. Perhaps then the viewer may have taken more interest in that wonderful shadow extreme left of frame. I suspect there was some element outside of the picture space that attracted your attention initially and caused you to take the pic in the first place? The boats on the water line lack sufficiant detail to be interesting and merely clutter the cityscape further. The waterline seems cramped and may have ben better excluded entirely as it adds no interest to the rest of the frame. The lighting is predicatble and unflattering...wrong time of the day. The only thing that could have saved this image would have been a red, hot-air balloon in the fore of the black building. Hope this accords with how you might see the image after revisiting it analytically.

stubbsy wrote:#2 was problematic for me - I chopped the mast at the top to remove distracting background. And the image was softened and destaurated to give at an oldy worldy kinda feel (not sure it worked given your comment Patrick - it actually started quite sharp).

Peter, my comment was not meant as negative criticism as I was in two minds about whether the soft effect worked (in my opinion) or not, and part of that was based on the intent. My basic view is that, if it was an intentional effect, I thought it was quite good (granted, chopping the top of the mast detracted, somewhat, although I didn't notice until someone else pointed it out). However, I just hadn't really seen that style from you.

So, given your comments, I like the effect in No 2 - it does add something to it, and you have avoided blowing the whites in the boats.

But, don't forget, I am just a newbie with 13 posts to my name!

P

Michael: PP on #2 - going on memory here - remove cyanish colour cast (Nik Color Efex), grad ND (nik again) to darken top, Contrast colour range to play with the blue contrast a little (nik again), desaturated it and gaussian blur in PSCS 3

Matt - thanks for the excellent critique (although I think you mean image #3 ). You've nailed what was wrong with the image - it didn't quite grab me but I couldn't work out why

Patrick - I understood you were not criticising re: the blur, just observing

Er...number 3 is what I meant.

Matt. K wrote:Peter
The only thing that could have saved this image would have been a red, hot-air balloon in the fore of the black building.

Fair dinkum - I recon it would have been hard to get a red balloon at that time of day!

A few years ago, you would have been able to capture lots of AMP shareholders jumping from the roof of the AMP building!

Don't be too hard on yourself Peter!

Cheers

Graham

Of all the images, I like the third one best, the birds on a tree, the contrast of colours, the ruggedness of the background. Just remember that beauty is always in the eye of the beholder...even if it is blind as a bat!