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 Geoff M on Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:56 pm
We have collected 700mm in our rain gauge during January, just over 500mm of it has fallen in the past five days. With all this water around the creeks are in full flow and I tried to capture this volume of water in the following images taken during an extended lunch break yesterday. Normally the creek is just a trickle but unless you were to do a side by side comparison with another image of the same creek with normal water flows would you know this is a high volume of water? I don't think I have succeded in conveying that, what do you think? I am often dissapointed in my landscape shots as for me they fail to convey what my eye sees  Perhaps it is my PP work or the compo or something else, what I do know is that it is a genre where I need to spend some more time to try and improve.   
-

Geoff M
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 1225
- Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 10:54 pm
- Location: Tamborine Mountain QLD.
by Remorhaz on Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:30 pm
Hi Geoff - I think the first is the strongest of these. The first two definitely give me the feeling of a swollen creek so I think you've succeeded in that. I think the second image has a little too much at the top and might be stronger with half the top green chopped off? To me they also look a little too yellow but I'm stating to think that suits the image.
D600, D7000, Nikon/Sigma/Tamron Lenses, Nikon Flashes, Sirui/Manfrotto/Benro SticksRodney - My Photo BlogWant: Fast Wide (14|20|24)
-

Remorhaz
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 2547
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:14 pm
- Location: Sydney - Lower North Shore - D600
-
by biggerry on Tue Jan 31, 2012 8:48 pm
Geoff M wrote: would you know this is a high volume of water? I don't think I have succeded in conveying that, what do you think?
I think this just looks like a normal (relatively full) stream, so in that sense I don't think you have convey the high volume, that said it may well be very hard to do so without teh comparison image. Geoff M wrote:I am often dissapointed in my landscape shots as for me they fail to convey what my eye sees  Perhaps it is my PP work or the compo or something else, what I do know is that it is a genre where I need to spend some more time to try and improve.
I think its a little from both sides of the camp which contributes in these images. The second has the best compo imo, but the processing has left it looking flat and overly green, pushing the brown (warmth in this case) may give a better cast) The other aspect that hits me, is, for lack of better word, the sharpness of the water, you have obviously gone for a longish exposure to accentuate the water flow, however the processing seems to have worked against this and etched it. Possibly postign up a original of the second and see waht folks can come up with may help you.
-

biggerry
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 5930
- Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 12:40 am
- Location: Under the flight path, Newtown, Sydney
-
by aim54x on Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:40 pm
I love the movement that you have captured here. I would consider playing with some crops as I find the foreground debris in #1 quite distracting...and there may be other crops in the others that may work well as well.
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 surenj on Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:10 pm
Geoff, these look about 1 stop under on my screen. WB is too green (which is natural because of the bushes) and perhaps too much blacks.
#1 and #2 have the best compos.
I can't see any sign of a large swell perse. I reckon that aspect may be difficult to convey unless you exaggerate by going really low near the water etc.
If you like, I'd like to see the originals 1 and 2. I am sure that we can tweak it a little better. I assume Gerry will also try.
-

surenj
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 7197
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:21 pm
- Location: Artarmon NSW
by Reschsmooth on Wed Feb 01, 2012 8:50 am
I like the composition of the first although I find it lacks depth. I imagine this is due to the wall of green that sits behind the creek.
Alternatively, I like number 3 the best. To me, it shows very wet forest. Perhaps not the swollen creek that you were after, but it shows an environment that has been 'cleansed' by all the rain. Given that, I would also like to see a black and white version of number 3.
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 surenj on Thu Feb 02, 2012 7:46 pm
Geoff these tiny toony pictures don't have much latitude so harder to edit. This is a 90 second edit 
-

surenj
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 7197
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:21 pm
- Location: Artarmon NSW
by biggerry on Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:46 pm
Geoff M wrote:Here are SOOC shots for the first two (except resize of course), please do have a go but let me know what you have done
Let me know if you want me to expand. 1) D-light 2) warmth 3) reduce highlight and midtone contrast 4) u-point on the water (white) and desaturate 5) u-point on the black tree on the left to lift light in that area 6) contrast adjustment 7) saturation 
-

biggerry
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 5930
- Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 12:40 am
- Location: Under the flight path, Newtown, Sydney
-
by chrisk on Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:50 pm
That's very impressive Gerry. I really need to spend some time getting better at tht.
EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75 l AW1 l V3
-

chrisk
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 3317
- Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:50 pm
- Location: Oyster Bay, Sydney
-
Return to Image Reviews and Critiques
|