It's log, it's log, it's big, it's heavy, it's wood.
- Thread starter Knawx
- Start date
Hi Knawx,
There are two things in your shot, and they are not at the same scale or place:
The shot itself:
I dig the idea and the composition. High in the scale!
The PP:
This is where, IMO, the shot is hardly reaching above the basic line. Maybe you
went too fast, or plainly didn't care enough to properly render what could be
a very correct picture!
In any case, your professional occupation, as given in your profile, is not reflected
in this post. I do hope, however, to see a rendition where the post production will
present results reflecting your full skills.
There are two things in your shot, and they are not at the same scale or place:
The shot itself:
I dig the idea and the composition. High in the scale!
The PP:
This is where, IMO, the shot is hardly reaching above the basic line. Maybe you
went too fast, or plainly didn't care enough to properly render what could be
a very correct picture!
In any case, your professional occupation, as given in your profile, is not reflected
in this post. I do hope, however, to see a rendition where the post production will
present results reflecting your full skills.
Knawx
Senior Member
I have no idea what you are trying to say. I read through your response several times, but it's like trying to decipher a different language. You may have to dumb it down a bit for me.
Carolina Photo Guy
Senior Member
Kodiak IS French-Canadian…
Hello Pete,
Well, indeed, I am! Nevertheless, I consider myself fluent in three languages! That is,
if granted some clumsinesses here and there… =)
Hi Ryan,
I might not have put it this way but I think your translation is very receivable, thank you.
Have a good time!
Hello Pete,
Well, indeed, I am! Nevertheless, I consider myself fluent in three languages! That is,
if granted some clumsinesses here and there… =)
Hi Ryan,
I might not have put it this way but I think your translation is very receivable, thank you.
Have a good time!
Knawx
Senior Member
Okay, yeah, that is much more clear. Also, I didn't label myself as a professional photographer. I let the people who hire me, and pay me to take photos for them do the labeling for me.
I make my living with my Camera. I don't do it as a hobby, and I don't have a side job to make up for lack of work.
I make my living with my Camera. I don't do it as a hobby, and I don't have a side job to make up for lack of work.
ohkphoto
Snow White
. . . which is by definition a "professional" . . . and your profile states that you are a "director of photography." The bar is higher and Kodiak's comments are right on.
Hey Knawx,
Your profile says: Occupation: Director of Photography.
So, I talk to you as I would talk to any pro:
Maybe you went too fast, or plainly didn't care enough to properly render what could be
a very correct picture!
Of course, had you been described as a beginner, I would have say something like:
"Good shot! Great composition! Maybe your brush was too big when you unblocked
the shadows on the log… otherwise, good shot!"
And since you maintain being a pro, I respectfully stand to my post.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
I make my living with my Camera. I don't do it as a hobby, and I don't have a side job to make up for lack of work.
Are you talking seriously? Man, how old are you? I certainly did not want to irritate
you… sorry if I did… =\ …but on this terrain, I don't want to walk anymore.
Your profile says: Occupation: Director of Photography.
So, I talk to you as I would talk to any pro:
Maybe you went too fast, or plainly didn't care enough to properly render what could be
a very correct picture!
Of course, had you been described as a beginner, I would have say something like:
"Good shot! Great composition! Maybe your brush was too big when you unblocked
the shadows on the log… otherwise, good shot!"
And since you maintain being a pro, I respectfully stand to my post.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
I make my living with my Camera. I don't do it as a hobby, and I don't have a side job to make up for lack of work.
Are you talking seriously? Man, how old are you? I certainly did not want to irritate
you… sorry if I did… =\ …but on this terrain, I don't want to walk anymore.
Seeing this conversation from the point of view of a newbie, I am not knowledgeable enough to judge the photo for possible improvements. However, I think when you post in photo evaluation, knowingly being a professional photographer, the critiques should be expected and accepted as a chance for help to improve. I think if it was me I would ask my critics what they would recommend to help me improve. Then judge if the recommendations can be helpful in what you want out of your creation, so you can make use of the tips you like.
But if you just want to show your photos off, without too much critique, then posting in a different part of the forum might be a better choice for displaying your photos.
Cool looking shot.
But if you just want to show your photos off, without too much critique, then posting in a different part of the forum might be a better choice for displaying your photos.
Cool looking shot.
Last edited by a moderator:
ohkphoto
Snow White
Camera: Nikon D800
Lens: 16-35mm f/4.0
Style: HDR - 5 exposures.
Edit: Lightroom 4
All in all I would classify this as a "nice" photo. I'm not sure what your artistic intent was. The post processing needs a little more punch, imho. But there seems to be too much in the photo, so compositionally, it's bothersome. First of all, the horizon almost bisects the photo. Also, the sun seems to be the center of interest, not the log, if that was your intent.
If your intent was how BIG the log is, then your angle of shooting should have reflected that . . . shoot from the ground and up so that the log does look big. it seems like you wanted to get too much into the picture.
It would have been much more dramatic, with a lot more impact, if you were flat on the ground at one end of the log (3/4 view toward the lake) and even have the sun blocked by part of the log . . . the hdr would have taken care of the shadows)
Just my two cents' worth.
I like this critique - it wasn't rude.
Knawx
Senior Member
I seem to have hit a nerve when I said I make my living with my camera and that I don't have a side job to make up for lack of work. This is simply the truth, I don't know why it upset you?
Also, just to clear things up, none of my posts were meant to be taken as sarcastic, or hostile. I honestly could not understand what you were trying to say in your first post to this thread, which is why I asked for clarification. It seemed you left behind no constructive criticism at all of what you found to not be working in the photo. Your next post then passive aggressively attacked my title as a "Professional". I simply replied that I make my living with my camera.
So, next time I post a photo on here I would welcome your criticism, and critique with open arms. However, if you are just going to leave a post about how my photo doesn't live up to your definition of photographic professionalism, by all means, save yourself the keystrokes.
Knawx
Senior Member
Now this, is feedback worth consideration. I appreciate you taking time to do so!
Hi Knawx. Since I don't do HDR, I will comment on the composition itself. As Rick M stated, I too would have preferred a little more detail in the log as well as in the photo overall. I'm not sure why you shot at f/4, but my preference would have been to use a smaller aperture: the reason being the sun looks like it is starting to form a starburst from the aperture blades, and a smaller aperture would have pronounced that quite a bit more. Plus a smaller aperture would have offered more crispness in detail--both in the log as well as in the individual blades of grass, weeds, rocks, and distance.
Perhaps if you stood a few steps to your left and allowed the log to enter the photo from the bottom left corner of the frame on more of a diagonal, it would add a more dramatic leading line into the photo. Plus, I'm wondering if it would have moved the uppermost 'fingers' of the branches (for lack of a better term...the upper right branches that are reaching for the sky) away from the hill that is directly behind those branches. Do you see that open space on the right where the hill drops down closer to the water? I'd like to see the branches that are reaching upwards positioned there so they'd have the sky behind them rather than any land. Maybe if you took a few steps to the left and got even lower to the ground than you already were, it would change the perspective enough to allow the branches to have only the sky behind them without any of the hill, and it would also move the horizon line to a different position within the frame so it's not so close to the center.
I have a question for you...since I don't do HDR and don't know if or how it changes the colors from the original photo, I'm just wondering if the log was some type of drift wood. Do you know? It's not important...I just like drift wood.
Perhaps if you stood a few steps to your left and allowed the log to enter the photo from the bottom left corner of the frame on more of a diagonal, it would add a more dramatic leading line into the photo. Plus, I'm wondering if it would have moved the uppermost 'fingers' of the branches (for lack of a better term...the upper right branches that are reaching for the sky) away from the hill that is directly behind those branches. Do you see that open space on the right where the hill drops down closer to the water? I'd like to see the branches that are reaching upwards positioned there so they'd have the sky behind them rather than any land. Maybe if you took a few steps to the left and got even lower to the ground than you already were, it would change the perspective enough to allow the branches to have only the sky behind them without any of the hill, and it would also move the horizon line to a different position within the frame so it's not so close to the center.
I have a question for you...since I don't do HDR and don't know if or how it changes the colors from the original photo, I'm just wondering if the log was some type of drift wood. Do you know? It's not important...I just like drift wood.
Last edited:
Knawx
Senior Member
Hi Knawx. Since I don't do HDR, I will comment on the composition itself. As Rick M stated, I too would have preferred a little more detail in the log as well as in the photo overall. I'm not sure why you shot at f/4, but my preference would have been to use a smaller aperture: the reason being the sun looks like it is starting to form a starburst from the aperture blades, and a smaller aperture would have pronounced that quite a bit more. Plus a smaller aperture would have offered more crispness in detail--both in the log as well as in the individual blades of grass, weeds, rocks, and distance.
Perhaps if you stood a few steps to your left and allowed the log to enter the photo from the bottom left corner of the frame on more of a diagonal, it would add a more dramatic leading line into the photo. Plus, I'm wondering if it would have moved the uppermost 'fingers' of the branches (for lack of a better term...the upper right branches that are reaching for the sky) away from the hill that is directly behind those branches. Do you see that open space on the right where the hill drops down closer to the water? I'd like to see the branches that are reaching upwards positioned there so they'd have the sky behind them rather than any land. Maybe if you took a few steps to the left and got even lower to the ground than you already were, it would change the perspective enough to allow the branches to have only the sky behind them without any of the hill, and it would also move the horizon line to a different position within the frame so it's not so close to the center.
I have a question for you...since I don't do HDR and don't know if or how it changes the colors from the original photo, I'm just wondering if the log was some type of drift wood. Do you know? It's not important...I just like drift wood.
Fantastic feedback. Also, this shot was taken with an aperture of 6.3. I listed f4.0, because my lens is the 16-35mm f4 - That being said, I probably could have closed it down even more. I'm always hesitant to close it down too much because it seems the smaller the aperture, the more less sharp the image becomes. Sure, it extends DOF, but at the cost of overall sharpness within the range of focus. Is this true, or am I just crazy?
The Log is indeed an old piece of drift wood. The lake used to be much higher, so now the log is exposed.
Scott Murray
Senior Member
Camera: Nikon D800
Lens: 16-35mm f/4.0
Style: HDR - 5 exposures.
Edit: Lightroom 4
I am not very good at explaining what I think would make it look good and seeing as you have said yes to allowing people edit your photo this is what I have come up with a very quick edit from the jpeg, hope you dont mind.