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 Chica on Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:43 pm
Hi everyone.... Here is a photo of the white tiger I took at Singapore Zoo - in 4 different versions! Would be interested in comments and critiques - I am very new to photoshop so any comments more than welcome. Version 1: Straight out out of the camera:  Version 2: Slight adjustments, corrected levels, sharpened a bit  Version 3 - More photoshopping to get rid of water 'junk' and added a little saturation  Version 4: Black and white (obviously) 
-
Chica
- Member
-
- Posts: 248
- Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:33 pm
- Location: Mawson Lakes, South Australia
by surenj on Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:50 pm
#3 is the best IMHO.
While the BW is good, it seems to take away the context of the photo somewhat.
-

surenj
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 7197
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:21 pm
- Location: Artarmon NSW
by Big V on Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:56 pm
Cathy, number 3 for me
Canon
-

Big V
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 2301
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 1:37 am
- Location: Adelaide
by biggerry on Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:03 pm
While the BW is good, it seems to take away the context of the photo somewhat. there is not much colour in these images hence the BW option is definitely viable, however the BW makes the tiger look like he/she is floating in the water at a funny angle, the inclusion of the step or stuff in the top left gives the image context, hence #3 is my choice here as well.
-

biggerry
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 5930
- Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 12:40 am
- Location: Under the flight path, Newtown, Sydney
-
by hrpremier on Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:14 pm
Number III for me.
I think the 4th version looks to obvious that it's been photoshopped while the little colour in the water ands interest and keeps the image believeable.
Jase
Guess What! ........I Have A Fever........And The Only Perscription........Is More Cowbell.
-

hrpremier
- Member
-
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:18 pm
- Location: Cairns, Queensland
by Wink on Mon Nov 23, 2009 3:50 pm
Somewhere between 2 and 3 for me.
I agree with removing the crap floating on the water. However, you've removing the objects from under the water behind the tigers back and the ripple on the water creating a black empty space. That looks a little odd to me.
I'd say remove the floating debris and leave the underwater objects and ripples on the water.
-

Wink
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 911
- Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 4:23 pm
- Location: Seymour, VIC
-
by aim54x on Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:23 pm
I will buck the trend here, on my screen all the reworked versions seem to have a bright spot at the base of the neck....this means I actually prefer the original the most, but if you rework the contrast adjustment to avoid this blown out highlight then somewhere near #3 is the go.
Cameron Nikon F/Nikon 1 | Hasselblad V/XPAN| Leica M/LTM |Sony α/FE/E/Maxxum/M42Wishlist Nikkor 24/85 f/1.4| Fuji Natura BlackScout-Images | Flickr | 365Project
-

aim54x
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 7305
- Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:13 pm
- Location: Penshurst, Sydney
-
by sirhc55 on Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:16 pm
#2, reason being that the water junk does add some depth to an excellent photo.
Chris -------------------------------- I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
-

sirhc55
- Key Member
-
- Posts: 12930
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: Port Macquarie - Olympus EM-10
by wendellt on Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:15 am
i think the last version works best simply because the tiger sits against a clean background, which gives it a more surreal feeling. The orignal with all it's contextual clues to it's location makes it look more ordinary. I think what you have done is made the image more special and it's a very nice treatment and im a sucker for contrast
-

wendellt
- Outstanding Member of the year (Don't try this at home.)
-
- Posts: 4078
- Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 10:04 am
- Location: Dilettante Outside the City Walls, Sydney
-
by Hudo on Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:46 am
For me I like the B&W version..
Hudo
-
Hudo
- Member
-
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:18 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
-
Return to Image Reviews and Critiques
|