# The Photography Critique Thread



## Culhwch (Oct 1, 2010)

This as an idea that was floated at the end of August's photo challenge, but never really got started. So here I am, starting it. This thread is for serious critique of photos, so if you only post for fun, don't post here. But if you are looking to get some valuable feedback and work to improve your photography, this is the place to hang out. I'm sure I don't need to say this, but constructive criticism only, please. 

So, first at bat here...

I've been playing with using adding texture layers to photos recently. This is one of (I think) my better attempts. Thoughts? Is it too much? Is it appealing? Unappealing? Am I on the right track but not there yet? 

All comments and critiques welcome!


----------



## The Judge (Oct 1, 2010)

Oh ****.

I just did a long spiel, hit the wrong button and it all went.

I'll try again.  Sorry if this sounds abrupt this time round as a consequence of my boring myself.

I do like the texture you've given to the background with the scratching, and I don't think it's too much, with the possible exception of the scratch at bottom left which echoes the line of the leaf -- it's slightly too obvious.  I'd like it to be played down and made a little more subtle, so that we see it sub-consciously.  

The scratches and the muted colours give the impression of aging, which with the transience of the flower itself is a nice touch -- thoughts of mortality and so on.

I wonder if the bleached out section is too bright and too large, or in slightly the wrong place.  It seems to me to be drawing the eye to the base of the flower which is actually the least interesting part of it, especially as the second leaf makes the stem appear thicker and more prominent, almost unpleasant (perhaps that could be faded a little to reduce the effect?).  I love the light on the petals, but I'd like to see a little more texture in there, picking up the veins etc, to bring it to life a little.

As for composition, I love the shape of the main leaf and the flower curving away from each other, but that inner leaf is definitely getting in the way of my enjoyment of the whole -- it needed to have stayed closer to the stem, instead of pulling away to the left (damn flowers never grow as they should!)  

Also, to my mind you've cropped too much on the right. The distance from the leaf tip to the left edge is greater than the petal tip to the right edge, and since the flower is heavier, it needs that extra room on the right.  I can't get the whole picture onto my screen so I'm having difficulty assessing the height.  Certainly you've cropped it nicely at the bottom with the detail of the leaves splitting which is very good, but I'm not sure if it needs a fraction more space at the top to give balance -- though you might then be putting the base of the flower too much in the middle, which wouldn't be a good idea.  I think it's one of those things that would be more easily seen if it was printed out large and you stood at a distance.

I do like the colours you've got, and the muted effect, but I think the bottom corners of the background need to be fractionally darker than the top, to give weight there.  Nothing too much, it's just as the moment it appears to be the other way round, and since the flower is so large you need to counter the top-heavy effect a little more, perhaps.

That's all I can think of at this point, but my partner is the photographer, so I shall pick his brains to night and see if he has any technical thoughts.

I hope that helps a little.  And yes, I liked it.  Well done.


----------



## Culhwch (Oct 1, 2010)

Many thanks for a thoughtful and thorough critique! Here I was worried that this thread was going to die a sad, lonely death.

All very valid, well-reasoned points, and I have no argument against any of them. Some I can have a tilt at correcting (framing maybe, the lighting) but some I have no chance at - the second leaf, for instance, which certainly is distracting. These are the things I don't see until I bring the photo up on my monitor - I always miss them when shooting...


----------



## Vertigo (Oct 1, 2010)

Nice one Cul. A very calming image to look at. I think the muted background colour enhances that beautifully. Though I do agree with The Judge that the one "scratch" in the bottom left is a little distracting. I also agree the cropping is a little tight on the right but only a little and I don't think I would change the top crop. As it stands the centre of the flower pretty much falls dead on the thirds. I also like the diagonal link between the top right thirds (the flower) and the bottom left thirds (the sparation of the leaves and stem).

Did you soften the focus on the leaves? Or is that just how it came out. Either way it is very effective in concentrating your attention on the flower.

I looks to be pretty much full frame and I do have a preference for the squarer proportion of 5:4. So if it is possible I would balance the left/right cropping by adding to the right rather than taking from the left.

I assume from your description that the background was added in post-processing. I would be interested to see the original and see how you separated the flower and stem from the original background.


----------



## Mouse (Oct 1, 2010)

I like it. Don't know enough to be able to critique, but I noticed the horizontal scratch at the bottom before the big one on the left.


----------



## The Judge (Oct 1, 2010)

Other half now had a look.  

He thinks there's possible over-exposure on the flower itself, as evidenced by the burnt out areas on the base and very tips of the petals.  He suggests another time it might be an idea to deliberately under-expose by one-third or one-half of a stop since it's easier to lighten subsequently without losing detail than to darken it.

He thinks it's an interesting treatment of the flower, but he wonders if it detracts too much from the true texture of the stem and leaf, particularly at the bottom (he's a purist -- he hates me playing around in photoshop!).  He'd also like to see the original image to see how it differs.


----------



## Culhwch (Oct 1, 2010)

Well I'll have to dig the original image out then, I guess! Got it around here somewhere...

Vertigo - No softening done on the leaves, just a shallow depth of field, f4.5. And I didn't add the background, simply overlayed a texture and played with the transparency to get it looking reasonable, then got rid of the texture on the flower bud to make it pop out. I must have played around with the tone, as well, because originally the background was a pale blue.

TJ - He's certainly right about the exposure, and if I had my time again I'd tone it down (plus I now shoot RAW, while this was taken back when I was still using JPEGs, so I didn't have much wiggle room).

EDIT: Here 'tis the original image I worked from - not the unprocessed image, mind you, this one has had some levels adjustments and whatnot. The unprocessed image is buried somewhere on my hard drive, and would take several men working eight-hour shifts over the course of a week to find. Possibly.


----------



## Vertigo (Oct 2, 2010)

Could I ask how you did the texture?


----------



## Culhwch (Oct 2, 2010)

I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you...

This was one that I found on DeviantArt, actually, in the Textures section under Resources and Stock Images (Browsing Textures on deviantART). There's a lot on there free for use, though you always need to check the fine print. Most folks don't mind so long as you don't use them commercially. I'm actually keen to start taking my own - anything can be used, old baking trays, cement, rough walls, old paper. You just need to take a nice 'flat' picture, then play around with the levels and contrast in your photo editing software to get it to the look you want. And when you are overlaying them, you just need to remember light textures suit dark photos and vice versa.


----------



## Vertigo (Oct 2, 2010)

Interesting, do you then just overlay it on the image using layers and a bit of masking and then play with the opacity?


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Oct 2, 2010)

|I have to agree with J's other half regarding the focus of the stem. When the new background is added the lack of definition suggests it is secondary and the flower is the only thing of interest - In which case why so much stem.



> Vertigo: I looks to be pretty much full frame and I do have a preference for the squarer proportion of 5:4. So if it is possible I would balance the left/right cropping by adding to the right rather than taking from the left.


 
In the original I would agree however, with the new background, I think it would odd having a bright spot off centre. If the bright spot were central, with the flower off centre, then it would concentrate the mind away from the flower.

I agree with J's other half (Why isn't he signed up?**) I actually prefer the original, if the bottle was absent. Although if you could crop away most of the bottle it would give the impression of a tulip standing in a lake with a slight meniscus/ripple where it emerges.




** Is it because you keep him chained up in the cells and only allow him out on special occasions?

Hang about.

In which case he's ideal material for Chrons membership, though it would mean giving him a 'chair'


----------



## Culhwch (Oct 2, 2010)

Vertigo said:


> Interesting, do you then just overlay it on the image using layers and a bit of masking and then play with the opacity?



Precisely. I copy all the original texture file, then paste as a new layer, go to the properties of the layer and change blend mode to overlay, then play around with the opacity. Then I just get an eraser and get rid of any bits I don't want, or elsewise use the clone brush to replace distracting bits (should have done a bit more of that here, evidently...).

And thanks for the analysis, TEIN. Much appreciated, and more to think about. I'm on the look out for more tulips to use as a subject, but haven't found any around. I must nag my mother to grow some so that I can steal them!

So now we've picked apart my shortcomings, who is next on the chopping board?


----------



## Vertigo (Oct 2, 2010)

Culhwch said:


> ...So now we've picked apart my shortcomings, who is next on the chopping board?


 

I certainly wouldn't say shortcomings! And I still prefer the worked on image.


----------



## Mouse (Oct 2, 2010)

Does it have to be photos which have been photoshopped? Cos I took a couple today (only with my phone) when I was out with the dog and I'd like to know how to make them better!


----------



## Vertigo (Oct 2, 2010)

I would imagine that that would be equally valid. Do you have photoshop or equivalent to do work on them?


----------



## Mouse (Oct 2, 2010)

I've got photo express, and Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0. Which is really old, I know, but I can't afford the new one! You can adjust lighting and colour with it.


----------



## Culhwch (Oct 2, 2010)

No, they absolutely don't need to be shopped first! As much work (or more) is done with camera in hand as is done on the computer after - framing, composition, lighting, and so on. Post them up!


----------



## Mouse (Oct 3, 2010)

Ok, cool. So I took these yesterday on my mobile phone when I was out with the dog. I have a tendency to take photos of the sun (habit picked up from the stupid ex). But obviously, taking photos of the sun makes everything else dark... I guess you'd have to focus on something else, then move the camera?

Anyway, I couldn't really see my screen, so I just pointed the phone and fired - hence the sun being cut out of one of the pics. I've cropped one photo and done a bit of lighting adjustment, but not sure if/how they could be made better?



Click to see them bigger


----------



## Vertigo (Oct 3, 2010)

Unfortunately both images are bunched really heavily in the light and dark with not an awful lot of mid tones. With a shot like this you really need to get two shots and merge them; one exposed for the sky and one for the ground. Not sure if mobile phone camera and can preset their exposure in that way like normal cameras typeically can.

To try and pull something from these without full blown editing software would, I think, be quite hard. However would you like me to post my attempts at them up here - see what you think?


----------



## Mouse (Oct 3, 2010)

Yep, go for it! I think you can set the exposure on my phone, but it's a new phone and I've only just worked out how to answer phonecalls... 

I didn't think of the two image thing!


----------



## Vertigo (Oct 3, 2010)

As I said quite difficult with everything squashed into highlight or shadow and not a lot inbetween. For the first two I have lighten the ground and darkened the sky and not a lot more. Still essentially a straight shot:


----------



## Vertigo (Oct 3, 2010)

Then I have tried pushing things a little further. Adds more drama but more obviously a post process:










Then I have pushed even further going for a more abstract look:










What do you think?


----------



## BookStop (Oct 3, 2010)

Cripes Vertigo, excellent job. I especially like this second to the last picture.


----------



## Vertigo (Oct 3, 2010)

Thanks BookStop, I think that's probably my favourite as well. Shame the clouds at the bottom have gone a slightly brown colour. I might be able to fix that with more work. Lets see what Mouse and any more competent Photoshoppers make of it!


----------



## digs (Oct 3, 2010)

I don't know much about Photoshop or how to use it, but after looking at this thread, I'm going to try to learn! The flower shots look great, and I really like the last image Vertigo's worked on - kind of eerie and cool. Can't believe how much you've done with it.


----------



## Mouse (Oct 3, 2010)

Oh wow, Vertigo! Those look really good! And I can see that the dog is in the first shot now! 

The final one especially looks good 'n creepy! How'd you do that?


----------



## Vertigo (Oct 3, 2010)

Unfortunately I don't think the features I have used are available on Photoshop Elements. But here goes:

All selections were done using the lasso tool with a 50 pixel feather. That just means instead of the selection edges being sharp they are blurred over a 50 pixel boudary. With a higher resolution image I would have used a bigger feather.

First I selected the burnt out sun area and then inverted it so everything but the burnt out area is selected. There's nothing left in that burnt out area so if it had been included in any darkending it would have just gone a horrible grey. I then applied Curves to the remainder. This effectively lets you darken or brighten areas of different intensity. If you look just left of where it says Curves 1, that is the selection mask; the curves will be applied tothe white area. If you look at the curves I have pulled it down on the right darkening the brighter areas and pulled it up on the left lightening the darker areas.






Next I lightened up the ground a bit more by selecting only the ground area and changing the exposure.






Finally inverted the selection form the previous adjustment so only the sky is selected and then did a bit more on the curves again to give a bit more of a dramatic sky.






Unfortunately I don't think Elements has layers so each adjustment would have to be done with no opportunity to go back and tweak it. Also I'm not sure Elements has curves or even the exposure adjustment control


----------



## Mouse (Oct 3, 2010)

Complex! Thanks for that!

I think it does have layers, but nothing like this! You can put preset things on top of photos, like clouds and spotlights and sunsets.


----------



## Vertigo (Oct 3, 2010)

The full Photoshop is a pretty awesome peice of software, but unfortunately it don't come cheap . That said the key thing to all I did is the feathered selections which I'm pretty sure are available. Combining those selections and adjusting brightness and contrast could go a long way towards what I have done. Doing it with layers like I have was really only so I could go back and tweak a previous setting and also so I could easily show the steps I went through.


----------



## Mouse (Oct 3, 2010)

I use the new photoshop at work and love it! But I only get to tweak photos of people, so I don't play around with any of the other stuff. 

I'll have a play with the Elements and see what happens! Ta!


----------

