Reader’s Photos Critiqued

Introduction

I had the idea a couple days ago that it might be interesting to see if some of the readers of this site would like to get their photos critiqued, and I can honestly say I was surprised by the outcome. It wasn’t the amount of people that surprised me, it was the overall quality of the work, so much so that I half jokingly had to ask people to post bad photos too! It’s nice to see the standard of photography out there, and hopefully some of it will be a result of some of my teachings.

IMPORTANT: Before I get started, it’s important to remember that photography is subjective, and just because I like or dislike something, it doesn’t mean I’m right. You’re entitled to your opinion, and I’d love to hear it, so please leave a comment and let me know what you think.

The Photos

The first photo I’ve chosen to start with is from George Player, and it’s a really good example of low key photography. For those of you that don’t know, low key photography is when you take a photo of a subject, and everything (or almost everything) except the subject in black. It’s quite an easy technique to try and you can see how to do it by clicking on the links provided. The problem that often occurs with low key photography, is that there’s a lot of dead space in a photo, but George had managed to counteract this adding some lens flare into the photo. Overall, it’s a very good photo, but I probably would have straightened the photo to the right slightly, and cropped out some of the space above his head. It might also be interesting to see what the photo would have looked like in colour.

This second photo is also in black and white, and it comes from Even Ødegård. This is perhaps a lot harder to look at than the photo above, due to the amount of contrast between the black and the white in the photo. There are so many different patches of white, that it’s almost a strain on the eyes to look at. I think that the contrast, and perhaps a bit of the brightness could be taken down, but there’s still some very good elements to the photo.

The vertical lines of the trees make us perceive growth, uplifting and sometimes a sense of something spiritual, while it provides tension to the photo as they pull away from the horizontal ground. The children running though the photo, plus the added blur of the movement, reinforces the feeling of growth, and compliments the scene nicely. It’s the blur from the children that really sell it to me; never be afraid to have motion blur in your photos, they don’t have to be pin-sharp. I like the way the photo is framed so that the subjects are running out of the scene, towards an area of black (the tree), but I personally don’t like the distracting elements of the leaves in the top right hand corner of the photo. A small but simple readjustment would have made this a better photo, but that’s often easier said then done when shooting photos of children.

This next photo comes from Melinda Napper Miller, and it’s probably the most processed photo that I was sent. My personal feelings toward post production are that it’s usually essential on photos, but only for slight adjustments to brightness, crop, contrast, and white balance. When you start to get into the realms of image manipulation, then you’ve gone too far. I’m not saying that I don’t like this photo, or that I don’t see the potential, I’m just saying that I don’t think it needs this degree of processing.

I like the way the photo was shot into the sun, and how the fence is separating the child and the horse, especially with the girl reaching over. The trouble with shooting into the sun and having the girl in the foreground is that the majority of her face is in a shadow. They say never to work with children or animals, and Melinda has worked with both here, and to her credit, she’s done quite well, as the ideal shot may not actually be possible with the subjects provided. Both of the subjects are also looking out of the frame though, which doesn’t work very well for the photo as we naturally follow the eye-lines and look out of the frame too, which makes us lose interest. A clear line of sight between one subject to the other, while the second subject is looking elsewhere, would have made for a much more interesting photo, and it’s not that hard to achieve.

The forth photo I’m going to be looking at here is by Zach Browning, and overall it’s a pretty good photo, but there are a few elements that I would improve on. This is an example of shallow depth of field, used for creative effect, done right. The whole point of the photo was to capture the bokeh of the dew on the ground, and it’s been done very well, even using the rule of thirds for the focus. The problem that I do have with this photo though is that there’s no clear point of focus, which is often the case when shallow DoF is used for creative effect. The focus is somewhere in a mix of grass, but nothing really jumps out to you, whereas it would have been much better if Zach had focused on the tall grass, slightly off center, with the dew at the top. Or any of the many tall, dew soaked grass, that stood above the rest. This gives our eyes something to be drawn to, and enjoy, rather than having to look for something in particular.

I also would have straightened the photo to the right slightly, so that it was inline with the fence in the background. Finally, I probably would have shot this photo as a portrait, as the most interesting part of the photo is the grass leading up and away from the focus, so by keeping the camera in landscape, he hasn’t maximised this viewpoint.

The final photo I’m going to be looking at today is from Tom Flanagan, and it’s a good example of dynamic tension. When I first saw this photo, I didn’t like it, then I became drawn to it, and became much more interested, but as more time has passed, I became unsure how I felt about it. That’s one of the good things about dynamic tension; it confuses you, as you’re left with multiple elements to view in a scene. Your eyes are naturally drawn down the sidewalk, but fight with the eyes on the wall, of the human, and the snakes, all going off in different directions.

It’s an interesting photo, but I think it would have been better if it had been taken further down the sidewalk, so that the eyes of the human were on the very edge of the frame. I also would have straightened the photo slightly. I like the use of the trees down the left hand side of the photo, as their repetition help to lead the eyes, and the vertical lines help to strengthen the balance of the photo. The pidgeon is a nice touch, but ultimately a little bit weak, I think that it would have been better to have waited for a person to walk by, perhaps even with the camera on a tripod so that he could have captured their movement slightly. Overall, a very good effort.

I’m pleasantly surprised by the quality of the photography that was submitted to me, and if I haven’t included your photo in this post, then I will keep it on file and may use it next time. I’m thinking about making this a monthly thing, so if you’d like to take part next time, make sure you press like below so that you can keep up to date with when I’m doing this next.