# critique my latest picture



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Simplicity and artistic expression are main parts of the message.


----------



## mimic (Jan 9, 2006)

Simplistic, yes. Nice and sharp. Perfect DOF. Exposure is bang on. Composition is great.

My only critique... it could have been of a more interesting subject. But you've nailed the essentials for a great photograph.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

mimic said:


> Simplistic, yes. Nice and sharp. Perfect DOF. Exposure is bang on. Composition is great.
> 
> My only critique... it could have been of a more interesting subject. But you've nailed the essentials for a great photograph.


:thumbup:
Thanks for the critique. I agree with you. I didn't plan on this. Just grabbed the first thing I saw on the desk.
BTW, my desk has a glass on. The imperfections on the background, which the shallow depth of field somewhat blurred, are my dirty finger prints on the glass. :rofl:
The dark reflection in the background is the lighting from the window, which has a miniblind. I should have raises the miniblind.


----------



## BahnBaum (Feb 25, 2004)

mimic said:


> Simplistic, yes. Nice and sharp. Perfect DOF. Exposure is bang on. Composition is great.
> 
> My only critique... it could have been of a more interesting subject. But you've nailed the essentials for a great photograph.


I'd agree with everything except the composition part. It's dead on center.

Alex


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

BahnBaum said:


> I'd agree with everything except the composition part. It's dead on center.
> 
> Alex


Is that good or bad? :dunno:


----------



## mimic (Jan 9, 2006)

I think he's saying it's bad... some people don't like centered shots. I think it all depends on the subject. It's a personal taste thing.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

mimic said:


> I think he's saying it's bad... some people don't like centered shots. I think it all depends on the subject. It's a personal taste thing.


I see.
Can that be fixed with cropping or needs a new perspective?
I'm thinking in taking this shot again, but with more planning...


----------



## BahnBaum (Feb 25, 2004)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds

The rule of thirds is a good starting point for composition.

And I agree with what Mimic said, that it's a matter of taste and depends upon the subject. But it's a good concept to understand.

Alex


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

BahnBaum said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds
> 
> The rule of thirds is a good starting point for composition.
> 
> ...


I see. 
But there's only so much one can do with a round cap.
Actually, the original picture already had features that fell very close to the four "power points". I cropped the picture slightly to make them fall as close as possible. Notice the main shading now falls on a third line.
Another alternative cropping places the center of the cap in one of the "power points".
What do you think? Which one looks more artistic?


----------



## BahnBaum (Feb 25, 2004)

Boile said:


> I see.
> But there's only so much one can do with a round cap.
> Actually, the original picture already had features that fell very close to the four "power points". I cropped the picture slightly to make them fall as close as possible. Notice the main shading now falls on a third line.
> Another alternative cropping places the center of the cap in one of the "power points".
> What do you think? Which one looks more artistic?


Actually, you and Mimic are probably right; this lends it self to centering.

Alex


----------



## hockeynut (Apr 14, 2002)

Its awesome, love the subject!

Signed,
Nikon Fans


----------



## hockeynut (Apr 14, 2002)

Its a piece of $hit.

Signed,
Canon Fans


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

It's a lens cap,

Signed,
Photo fans


----------



## Lanc3r (Sep 5, 2004)

You need to get out more.

Signed,

Lanc3r


----------



## EdCT (Mar 14, 2002)

I think in this case, the lens cap belongs right in the center of the shot - there's a nice change in background at the top third of the pic.

I do think with a shot of this type, the subject needs to fill almost the entire frame, we don't need much background at all - crop out a good third around it and make certain the subject's dead on in the center if it's the center you choose.

As for the depth of field - I'm sort of torn. I like how the Nikon name is in focus, nice and sharp, but I'm not enamored of the angle of the shot and the fact that the front of the cap gets blurred into the surface of the table (because of the shallow DOF)

Solution? I'd shoot it straight down from overhead - there's really no point to coming at it from a low front perspective - after all, it's just a cap without much surface interest or texture :dunno:

When shooting from above, you can light it from the side - which will give you some texture - or from above.

Anyway, my two cents - but again, the biggest fix you can make on this pic without a reshoot is to make the subject fill more of the frame.

Eddie


----------



## AndrewZ (Feb 1, 2006)

Great shots!!:thumbup:


----------



## Synaps3 (Mar 3, 2008)

Taken from wikipedia:
"In addition, many photographers recommend treating any "rule" of composition as more of a guideline, since pleasing photographs can often be made while ignoring one or more such rules."

Don't change it at all, its a great picture. Just take one of something more interesting next time.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Lanc3r said:


> You need to get out more.
> 
> Signed,
> 
> Lanc3r


I just shot 500 pictures at a soccer field this weekend.
This is my break.

Signed
A photo enthusiast


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

EdCT said:


> I think in this case, the lens cap belongs right in the center of the shot - there's a nice change in background at the top third of the pic.
> 
> I do think with a shot of this type, the subject needs to fill almost the entire frame, we don't need much background at all - crop out a good third around it and make certain the subject's dead on in the center if it's the center you choose.
> 
> ...


Hmmm... I'm not too eager to agree with this criticism.
If I had shot it from the top, it'd look like a perfect circle with a Nikon in the center. No artistic interest. More like the type of material used in a marketing brochure.
From the top, it'd be a flat object. From the side, it's got some 3D.
Besides, there'd be the implementation details... the glass top on my desk (where the cap sits on) would reflect me, rather than the light from the window.

I do, however, agree with the shallow DOF observation. I myself thought about that. If I were to redo this shot, I'd use a one stop smaller aperture. :thumbup:
But I do see some artistic value in leaving things intentionally out of focus... suggestive message, rather than a cold hard image (again, like what we'd see in marketing brochures).


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Synaps3 said:


> Taken from wikipedia:
> "In addition, many photographers recommend treating any "rule" of composition as more of a guideline, since pleasing photographs can often be made while ignoring one or more such rules."
> 
> Don't change it at all, its a great picture. Just take one of something more interesting next time.


Thanks. :thumbup:

Here's another comment about that rule of thirds. I guess it's comments like these that make Rockwell so polarizing. The guy is not shy or PC about anything. :rofl:


http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/howto.htm said:


> There is no right and no wrong. The rule of thirds is not a rule and rules are for idiots. Just go make good photos. A good photo is one you or someone else likes. There are no formulas or grades or scores.


----------



## AndrewZ (Feb 1, 2006)

Hey Boile,

How did your daughter take a liking to the CoolPix? 

Any shots of hers to share?


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

LuvThatSam said:


> Hey Boile,
> 
> How did your daughter take a liking to the CoolPix?
> 
> Any shots of hers to share?


She hasn't used it that much... it was a frivolous gift idea from wifey. I wouldn't have given her a camera. She has no particular photo inclinations. :tsk:

I've used it once and wifey used it today at school. It's a fine point and shoot for the price. Easy to carry. But forget any P&S if you need to take any shot other than posed.


----------



## BahnBaum (Feb 25, 2004)

Boile said:


> But forget any P&S if you need to take any shot other than posed.


I can't get my hands on them at the moment, but I've seen some *incredible* galleries of pics taken by p&s cameras. Just shows how much of picture taking lies with the photographer vs the equipment.

Alex


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

BahnBaum said:


> I can't get my hands on them at the moment, but I've seen some *incredible* galleries of pics taken by p&s cameras. *Just shows how much of picture taking lies with the photographer vs the equipment.*
> 
> Alex


I agree with that. Not talking about the quality of the photos.
But in this case, a P&S has a serious handicap: shutter lag.
If your subject is not stationary (including posing), your shots are all based on luck.
If you shoot enough, luck will give you a few good shots. You put those up, together with other people's lucky shots, and you've got a gallery.


----------



## BahnBaum (Feb 25, 2004)

Boile said:


> I agree with that. Not talking about the quality of the photos.
> But in this case, a P&S has a serious handicap: shutter lag.
> If your subject is not stationary (including posing), your shots are all based on luck.
> If you shoot enough, luck will give you a few good shots. You put those up, together with other people's lucky shots, and you've got a gallery.


Well, take a high end, professional body with high quality glass and put it in the hands of an amateur with no creative skills or vision and if they shoot enough, luck will give them a few good shots too. My guess is that they'd get fewer good shots then the creative pro with the p&s.

Alex


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

BahnBaum said:


> Well, take a high end, professional body with high quality glass and put it in the hands of an amateur with no creative skills or vision and if they shoot enough, luck will give them a few good shots too. My guess is that they'd get fewer good shots then the creative pro with the p&s.
> 
> Alex


That's not what I said though.

Given the same creative pro, he will take more good *action *pictures (and consistently) with a good SLR than with a P&S (no matter how good).
That's not to say the pro won't get any good action pics with a P&S. Just a lot less consistently, as the shutter lag would kill any chances of catching things at the right moment (for those shots where the moment counts).


----------



## AndrewZ (Feb 1, 2006)

Boile said:


> She hasn't used it that much... it was a frivolous gift idea from wifey. I wouldn't have given her a camera. She has no particular photo inclinations. :tsk:
> 
> I've used it once and wifey used it today at school. It's a fine point and shoot for the price. Easy to carry. But forget any P&S if you need to take any shot other than posed.


Oh well, hopefully she will pick up the hobby some day.

Glad you had some fun with it at least.:thumbup:


----------



## ktc (Jan 10, 2005)

Hey Boile,

Since you asked for feedback I'll be honest: I think the picture is technically fine, but it doesn't do much for me (neither good or bad). What I mean is that as a naive viewer (no idea of the story behind it), no meaning is really conveyed. If the picture was part of a thematic series it would probably have more meaning, but in isolation I'm not sure what to behold.

I'm sure you know of the website www.fredmiranda.com? It's a great place where there are many semi-pro/pros who shoot learn from each other.

Best of luck, keep it up!
Keith

ps. I just went back and saw your "simplicity and artistic" comment -- I would suggest you strive to take a photo where a caption is not really needed to "help" the viewer appreciate the image. From a simplicity standpoint I would not include the horizontal green area on the top part of the picture (outside a windowsill?)... even though it has nice bokeh, it still distracts from the main subject, which as others pointed out is implied in the centering of the frame.


----------

