Luckydip of Jervis bay

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.

Luckydip of Jervis bay

Postby rokkstar on Sun Oct 16, 2005 9:48 pm

These are the first 4 I have processed from my trip to Jervis Bay. No rhyme or reason why, they just caught my eye.
Would appreciate critique and comment.

Image
Image
Image
Image

Cheers
Matt
User avatar
rokkstar
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 4:27 pm
Location: Miserable cold wet England - D200

Postby birddog114 on Sun Oct 16, 2005 9:52 pm

Hi Matt,
First read, I thought there were some skindip as well :oops: :lol:
Nice composition, hope you have had good times down there with Sam.
Birddog114
VNAF, My Beloved Country and Airspace
User avatar
birddog114
Senior Member
 
Posts: 15881
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Belmore,Sydney

Postby stubbsy on Sun Oct 16, 2005 10:21 pm

Matt

I'm going to be frank (=brutal) with these since I think you can take it and I know the excellent quality of your work.

#1 - the B & W isn't punchy enough so all you get is a black blob of trees on the left, rather than trees and shadow. Needs more PP to push the contrast more. Maybe the shot isn't worth the effort.

#2 - Great capture, but needs a bit more saturation and contrast to make it zing. The image is of your usual high quality, but the PP lets you down.

#3 - PP again I'm afraid. The CP works well, but the image as a whole is too dull. The trees and water need to be more vibrant. This has the makings of a "tourist brochure" shot, but neds a pump in saturation and contrast

#4 - Perfect - The PP is spot on as is the image. Great lines and the birds sitting along the top really MAKE the shot. One I'd love to see nice and big and framed.

1 out of 4 are great, 2 of the other 3 have strong potential waiting to be realised.

Of course read the disclaimer in my tagline :wink: and apologies if I've offended you

Edit: Looks like you made the right choice it's been drizzly and overcast in the Hunter most of the weekend.
Peter
Disclaimer: I know nothing about anything.
*** smugmug galleries: http://www.stubbsy.smugmug.com ***
User avatar
stubbsy
Moderator
 
Posts: 10748
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: Newcastle NSW - D700

Postby rokkstar on Sun Oct 16, 2005 10:31 pm

Peter, of course you haven't offended me, I completely want honest feedback. If it's shit, tell me!! I love the fact that you've actually taken the time to go through them one by one.

I agree about the second image, I'm having some monitor problems, what I see on my PP monitor, isnt what I get! Need to fix it.

#3 is a tourist shot - yep, no denying. It's a bit predictable, and again the monitor is I thnk hindering PP.

#4 is my favourite too. I'm happy with this one.

#1. Hmm, you see, I like this, I agree that it could be punchier, and my monitor is a big fucking reason for this I think. I think it's worth saving, so I'll have another go with it.
Matt
User avatar
rokkstar
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 4:27 pm
Location: Miserable cold wet England - D200

Postby DionM on Sun Oct 16, 2005 10:34 pm

Number 4 followed by number 2 for me. Number 2 needs just something little extra to make it really sing, I think.

Canon 20D and a bunch of lovely L glass and a 580EX. Benro tripod. Manfrotto monopod. Lowepro and Crumpler bags. And a pair of Sigma teleconverters, and some Kenko tubes.
http://www.dionm.net/
DionM
Senior Member
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 10:11 pm
Location: Holland Park, Brisbane

Postby Greg B on Sun Oct 16, 2005 10:38 pm

2 and 4 are great. Very nice work Matt. I think 2 has enough contentwise, I really like it. Peter's comments re PP are constructive and helpful.
Greg - - - - D200 etc

Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
User avatar
Greg B
Moderator
 
Posts: 5938
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:14 pm
Location: Surrey Hills, Melbourne

Postby stubbsy on Sun Oct 16, 2005 10:40 pm

Matt
Re: #3 - there's nothing wrong with "tourist shot". For me it's not a pejorative term. My point was that the image lends itself to that sort of interpretation (which is where I'd be heading with it if it was my shot), but is not quite there yet.

Re: #1 - sometimes I'm too succinct :x WHat I meant by not worth the effort is that in order to get the shot to show the trees properly might require a significant amount off PP work (layering and the like) if the ORIGINAL lacked that detail, rather than the problem being caused by the PP. In such a case the time may be better spent on PP of other shots that were easier to do. Does that make more sense.
Peter
Disclaimer: I know nothing about anything.
*** smugmug galleries: http://www.stubbsy.smugmug.com ***
User avatar
stubbsy
Moderator
 
Posts: 10748
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: Newcastle NSW - D700

Postby sirhc55 on Sun Oct 16, 2005 11:09 pm

Matt - I like #1 and if you increase contrast the image would become darker in the dark areas (if that is possible).

You might get a result by using the highlight/shadow control and then using selective contrast control in PSCS.
Chris
--------------------------------
I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
User avatar
sirhc55
Key Member
 
Posts: 12930
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: Port Macquarie - Olympus EM-10

Postby stubbsy on Sun Oct 16, 2005 11:18 pm

Chris

Of course you're right! Increasing contrast would make it worse. Shadow/Highlight is the go. :oops:
Peter
Disclaimer: I know nothing about anything.
*** smugmug galleries: http://www.stubbsy.smugmug.com ***
User avatar
stubbsy
Moderator
 
Posts: 10748
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: Newcastle NSW - D700


Return to Image Reviews and Critiques