Got a thin skin? Then look elsewhere. Post a link to an image that you've made, and invite others to offer their critiques. Honesty is encouraged, but please be positive in your constructive criticism. Flaming and just plain nastiness will not be tolerated. Please note that this is not an area for you to showcase your images, nor is this a place for you to show-off where you have been. This is an area for you to post images so that you may share with us a technique that you have mastered, or are trying to master. Typically, no more than about four images should be posted in any one post or thread, and the maximum size of any side of any image should not exceed 950 px.
Moderators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators
Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent.
Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature.
Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread.
Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
by jamesw on Sat Jun 23, 2007 11:51 pm
i was so excited about my d200 that i went outside tonight and took some photos... foxtel reckons its 5 degrees outside
like the title says, something very different from me. no flash, no bmx. probably not the best shot, it was taken at about 10pm with poor ambient light at high iso and hand held (read: shivering!!!)
i like the feel of it though, dont know why.
1/6 sec, f2.8, iso 800, handheld.
Last edited by jamesw on Sun Jun 24, 2007 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
body: nikon d200, d70s, f4s, f601. lens:nikon 35-70mm f2.8, 70-300mm f4-5.6, 10.5mm f2.8, 20mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8. flash: nikon sb600, sunpak 383 (x1), sunpak 555 (x4), pocketwizard plus II (x4) jamesdwade.comdishonourclothing.com
-

jamesw
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 771
- Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:36 pm
- Location: norwood, adelaide
-
by jamesw on Sun Jun 24, 2007 1:06 pm
another one
1/10 sec, f2.8, iso 1600
super noisy but i think it almost works in b&w

body: nikon d200, d70s, f4s, f601. lens:nikon 35-70mm f2.8, 70-300mm f4-5.6, 10.5mm f2.8, 20mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8. flash: nikon sb600, sunpak 383 (x1), sunpak 555 (x4), pocketwizard plus II (x4) jamesdwade.comdishonourclothing.com
-

jamesw
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 771
- Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:36 pm
- Location: norwood, adelaide
-
by Reschsmooth on Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:04 pm
The second one is good, the first - well, you definately don't see too many UC toranas around! 
Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935.
Our mug is smug
-

Reschsmooth
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 4164
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:16 pm
- Location: Just next to S'nives.
-
by Cre8tivepixels on Sun Jun 24, 2007 4:29 pm
I personally don't see any point to these images at all. There is NO focal point nor anything interesting (well for me anyhow) in frame.
Sorry...
Dan
-

Cre8tivepixels
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 999
- Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:21 pm
- Location: Malabar - Sydney
by jamesw on Sun Jun 24, 2007 6:22 pm
Cre8tivepixels wrote:I personally don't see any point to these images at all. There is NO focal point nor anything interesting (well for me anyhow) in frame.
Sorry...
Dan
yeah fair enough, just conveying a mood of being fucking cold i guess.
got a bit excited about my new camera. went for a walk. took photos. admittedly this is not the type of photography that i usually dip my toes into, i shoot a lot of action stuff, and i was shooting in very poor conditions
NO OFFENCE but wouldnt mind creative crit though, like, they look soft, or noisy, rather than straight out criticism buddy 
body: nikon d200, d70s, f4s, f601. lens:nikon 35-70mm f2.8, 70-300mm f4-5.6, 10.5mm f2.8, 20mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8. flash: nikon sb600, sunpak 383 (x1), sunpak 555 (x4), pocketwizard plus II (x4) jamesdwade.comdishonourclothing.com
-

jamesw
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 771
- Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:36 pm
- Location: norwood, adelaide
-
by ozczecho on Sun Jun 24, 2007 6:31 pm
jamesw wrote:NO OFFENCE but wouldnt mind creative crit though, like, they look soft, or noisy, rather than straight out criticism buddy 
IMHO, "no focal point" is a valid critique, and in this case I concur with Dan....I don't even get the feeling you were cold through the images...sorry.
-

ozczecho
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 785
- Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 9:41 pm
- Location: Beecroft, Sydney
by jamesw on Sun Jun 24, 2007 6:40 pm
fair enough, no hard feelings. ah well.
body: nikon d200, d70s, f4s, f601. lens:nikon 35-70mm f2.8, 70-300mm f4-5.6, 10.5mm f2.8, 20mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8. flash: nikon sb600, sunpak 383 (x1), sunpak 555 (x4), pocketwizard plus II (x4) jamesdwade.comdishonourclothing.com
-

jamesw
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 771
- Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:36 pm
- Location: norwood, adelaide
-
by Geoff on Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:01 pm
James - the 2nd one is superior IMO, it has a real eery feel to it which appeals to me for some reason hehe. It could be somehow used in an advertising campaign, what exactly I'm not sure but some creative marketing dude on a horrendously high salary could work that out surely?  For hand held I thought they were very well done. Enjoy your new toy!
-

Geoff
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 7791
- Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 12:08 am
- Location: Freshwater - Northern Beaches, Sydney.
-
by jamesw on Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:05 pm
Geoff wrote:James - the 2nd one is superior IMO, it has a real eery feel to it which appeals to me for some reason hehe. It could be somehow used in an advertising campaign, what exactly I'm not sure but some creative marketing dude on a horrendously high salary could work that out surely?  For hand held I thought they were very well done. Enjoy your new toy!
yes i preffered the second shot, for sure. the street just seems dead, i guess thats how streets are late at night.
the first shot would have been so much better minus all the cars...
body: nikon d200, d70s, f4s, f601. lens:nikon 35-70mm f2.8, 70-300mm f4-5.6, 10.5mm f2.8, 20mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8. flash: nikon sb600, sunpak 383 (x1), sunpak 555 (x4), pocketwizard plus II (x4) jamesdwade.comdishonourclothing.com
-

jamesw
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 771
- Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:36 pm
- Location: norwood, adelaide
-
by PiroStitch on Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:26 pm
the second one has more of a meaning than the first. it portrays how desolate suburbs can be late at night even though during the day it's bustling with activity.
-

PiroStitch
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 4669
- Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:08 am
- Location: Hong Kong
-
by Cre8tivepixels on Sun Jun 24, 2007 9:21 pm
jamesw wrote:NO OFFENCE but wouldnt mind creative crit though, like, they look soft, or noisy, rather than straight out criticism buddy 
Ohh but its fine for you to come out in another post saying Quoting You "i was just having a look through someone elses' photos and i wasnt a huge fan of the exposures i started wondering... did this guy just shoot all auto or something?" in this post http://www.dslrusers.com/viewtopic.php?t=26982
and didn't have the balls to name names and give THEM some constructive C & C......i thought that was just snide post to be honest!
And as for some constructive C & C i believe the first image is way out of focus.........
Dan
Last edited by Cre8tivepixels on Sun Jun 24, 2007 9:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-

Cre8tivepixels
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 999
- Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:21 pm
- Location: Malabar - Sydney
by Reschsmooth on Sun Jun 24, 2007 9:32 pm
Geoff wrote:James - the 2nd one is superior IMO, it has a real eery feel to it which appeals to me for some reason hehe. It could be somehow used in an advertising campaign, what exactly I'm not sure but some creative marketing dude on a horrendously high salary could work that out surely?  For hand held I thought they were very well done. Enjoy your new toy!
Geoff or Jamesw, if you want to pay me a horrendously high salary, I can come up with an advertising compaign for use with the photo? 
Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935.
Our mug is smug
-

Reschsmooth
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 4164
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:16 pm
- Location: Just next to S'nives.
-
by the foto fanatic on Sun Jun 24, 2007 9:39 pm
Cre8tivepixels wrote:Ohh but its fine for you to come out in another post saying Quoting You "i was just having a look through someone elses' photos and i wasnt a huge fan of the exposures i started wondering... did this guy just shoot all auto or something?" in this post http://www.dslrusers.com/viewtopic.php?t=26982and didn't have the balls to name names and give THEM some constructive C & C......i thought that was just snide post to be honest! Dan
C'mon guys!
We don't have tit-for-tat criticism here. Let's keep the critiques constructive and to the point.
Thanks
-

the foto fanatic
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 4212
- Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 7:53 pm
- Location: Teneriffe, Brisbane
-
by Cre8tivepixels on Sun Jun 24, 2007 9:42 pm
My post is valid and to the point?
I can express that surely, and it wasn't a tit for tat response, he didn't like me being honest....i cop it in every thread i ever post on here? (honesty in my threads that is) 
-

Cre8tivepixels
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 999
- Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:21 pm
- Location: Malabar - Sydney
by Geoff on Sun Jun 24, 2007 9:45 pm
Let's keep on topic here please ppls.
Back in your corners, take a big breath and let's move forwards!
Critique is just that...critique, can be taken with a grain of salt OR with emotion OR as a worthwhile suggestion.
I encourage all parties to refrain from flaming (or anything like that).
I don't want to lock a photo thread.
-

Geoff
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 7791
- Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 12:08 am
- Location: Freshwater - Northern Beaches, Sydney.
-
by jamesw on Sun Jun 24, 2007 9:51 pm
Cre8tivepixels wrote:jamesw wrote:NO OFFENCE but wouldnt mind creative crit though, like, they look soft, or noisy, rather than straight out criticism buddy 
Ohh but its fine for you to come out in another post saying Quoting You "i was just having a look through someone elses' photos and i wasnt a huge fan of the exposures i started wondering... did this guy just shoot all auto or something?" in this post http://www.dslrusers.com/viewtopic.php?t=26982and didn't have the balls to name names and give THEM some constructive C & C......i thought that was just snide post to be honest! And as for some constructive C & C i believe the first image is way out of focus......... Dan
grow up, seriously. your response was tit for tat - there was no need to bring up something from another thread, more or less unrelated to this.
i read your comment, initially, as pretty harsh. then someone else put it differently and i said no hard feelings. its C&C and i probably did the wrong thing by telling you to be constructive. but to my credit, i dropped my qualm pretty quickly.
again, in my defense, the reason why i didnt post in the other persons thread was because i didnt think my criticism would be constructive, it would just be hurtful. i think thats a fair enough reason to not post back to someones thread.
there is no need to be a dick about this shit... the reason why you seem to 'cop it' is because most of your posts seem to be fairly abrasive, blunt, and in some cases rude. don't act like your a victim... the internet is emotionless, people dont get to see your body language or understand your sense of humour (as ive been caught out on here before.)
if you dont like my photos, thats fine. chill out. its not like these photos are my pride, heck man, i was just excited about a new camera and had nothing better to shoot...
like i said, no hard feelings... i'd say your older than me, so please act it....
body: nikon d200, d70s, f4s, f601. lens:nikon 35-70mm f2.8, 70-300mm f4-5.6, 10.5mm f2.8, 20mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8. flash: nikon sb600, sunpak 383 (x1), sunpak 555 (x4), pocketwizard plus II (x4) jamesdwade.comdishonourclothing.com
-

jamesw
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 771
- Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:36 pm
- Location: norwood, adelaide
-
by Cre8tivepixels on Sun Jun 24, 2007 9:58 pm
jamesw wrote:there is no need to be a dick about this shit... the reason why you seem to 'cop it' is because most of your posts seem to be fairly abrasive, blunt, and in some cases rude. don't act like your a victim...
lol.really show me a recent post where i have been like those faceless descriptions??

-

Cre8tivepixels
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 999
- Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:21 pm
- Location: Malabar - Sydney
by jamesw on Sun Jun 24, 2007 10:01 pm
http://www.dslrusers.com/viewtopic.php?t=26743
CAN WE PLEASE JUST GET BACK ON TOPIC NOW. IF YOU WANT TO TALK MORE ABOUT THIS PM ME OR MSN ME JAMESDWADE@HOTMAIL.COM
body: nikon d200, d70s, f4s, f601. lens:nikon 35-70mm f2.8, 70-300mm f4-5.6, 10.5mm f2.8, 20mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8. flash: nikon sb600, sunpak 383 (x1), sunpak 555 (x4), pocketwizard plus II (x4) jamesdwade.comdishonourclothing.com
-

jamesw
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 771
- Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:36 pm
- Location: norwood, adelaide
-
by Cre8tivepixels on Sun Jun 24, 2007 10:03 pm
So to quote you "the internet is an emotionless" medium could those comments not have been taken the wrong way? I was just trying to get my point across.......but whatever, i don't have time nor the desire to continue this silly discussion...... 
-

Cre8tivepixels
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 999
- Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:21 pm
- Location: Malabar - Sydney
by jamesw on Sun Jun 24, 2007 10:05 pm
mods please lock this thread its ridiculous, this is not going anywhere.... dan if you want to hear from me further please PM or msn.
thanks to dan and everyone else who commented i do appriciate it.
body: nikon d200, d70s, f4s, f601. lens:nikon 35-70mm f2.8, 70-300mm f4-5.6, 10.5mm f2.8, 20mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8. flash: nikon sb600, sunpak 383 (x1), sunpak 555 (x4), pocketwizard plus II (x4) jamesdwade.comdishonourclothing.com
-

jamesw
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 771
- Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:36 pm
- Location: norwood, adelaide
-
by Geoff on Sun Jun 24, 2007 10:19 pm
James - your photos deserve critique, the thread will remain open. 
-

Geoff
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 7791
- Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 12:08 am
- Location: Freshwater - Northern Beaches, Sydney.
-
by stubbsy on Sun Jun 24, 2007 11:04 pm
Dan and James please both get a grip and take a chill pill. Neither of you is blameless here and flaming each other does NEITHER of you proud.
And FWIW neither of these images grab me either, but I understand James isn't pretending they are high art. He has a new toy and he's excited. I would be too.
-

stubbsy
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:44 pm
- Location: Newcastle NSW - D700
-
by gstark on Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:15 am
Let me just add to what Peter has said, but not about the images: Both of you need to step back and get your egos out of this forum.
Pronto.
Your images are welcome here, but your egos MUST be left at the sign-on screen.
I will tolerate no more comments of a personal nature from either of you, ever again, in these forums. If you are unable to comment to comment on the images without making it personal, then .......
g. Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
-

gstark
- Site Admin
-
- Posts: 22924
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:41 pm
- Location: Bondi, NSW
by who on Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:11 pm
My comments as an uneducated photolooker.
#1 seems to have the focus not even at the Torana.... the number plate while legible is still fuzzy. Also, based on a comment on the Pasha Bulker - the far street light has a very green cast - white balance issue.
#2 - the slogan would be "Travel to Adelaide, its a happening place"
Good photo and feel in an abstract way, not wall material.... possibly a bit too dark though.
Interesting to actually see some high ISO shots from a D200.
-
who
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 543
- Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:38 pm
- Location: Ulverstone, TAS
by seeto.centric on Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:49 pm
heh heh, ill admit that the first shot didnt appear to have any focal point, but maybe if you stepped back or zoomed out a little, you would've been able to frame the streetlamp in the shot and maybe added a model to make them the focal point. thats what imo, it seems to lack but otherwise i like the orange cast from the sodium lamp.
the second shot i actually do like since its rather noir.. maybe you couldve left a battered helmet there and turned it into an anti-speeding campaign poster? or an old phone or some random object hehehe
maybe you might want to paint out the little bright bit front part of a house in the lower left?
both of you guys produce some great images but work in different fields, keep it up!
-j
-

seeto.centric
- Member
-
- Posts: 488
- Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 12:33 pm
- Location: Baulkham Hills/2153. Sydney
-
by jamesw on Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:12 pm
like i said a little earlier, i'm the first to admit these photos are not GREAT. however, i did like the second one, and i liked the light in the first.
however, they are by no means photos that i am proud of.
i was excited about how respectfully i thought the d200 performed in crappy conditions. i wouldnt consider the shots publishable, but they are respectable, and with some advanced noise reduction engines (i think neat image was mentioned in another thread), imho there is potential that shots at above iso 1000 would be usable in print.
body: nikon d200, d70s, f4s, f601. lens:nikon 35-70mm f2.8, 70-300mm f4-5.6, 10.5mm f2.8, 20mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8. flash: nikon sb600, sunpak 383 (x1), sunpak 555 (x4), pocketwizard plus II (x4) jamesdwade.comdishonourclothing.com
-

jamesw
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 771
- Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:36 pm
- Location: norwood, adelaide
-
Return to Image Reviews and Critiques
|