I'd really appreciate a photo critique!

Oh man I know that feeling you mentioned, so far I've only managed to accomplish what i would call "depth" like 5 or 6 times. I'm interested to hear some answers.
 
IMO the first one was way too wide, in a lot of cases the tighter the better, unless you are losing context. In your shot the wide angle doesn't add anything interesting/important/relevant to the photo, so it would have been better to get closer

There's my 2cents
 
This can be taken or not. I shoot 35 mm film from time to time. I have no professional classes but have read a book or two, so my advice may not be in the best aperture.

The first piece I can say is try to rid the frame of other eye catchers. In all the pictures there is someone else standing there which takes away from the subject. Work on framing the photo a little better. For instance in number two there is a branch poking in. As always the rule of thirds and composition that you will get with any photo critique. One thing that comes to mind is also is that there is a lot of sky in the background...why? Are including that for a reason?

IDK man the best thing I can say is just practice practice.
 
for the first picture, the skier is kind of hidden behind the snowfall, and off camera flash could have helped illuminate him more and make him "pop" out of the snow so to speak

for the second one, there is a bit of motion blur, not sure what your settings were, but a bump in ISO and shutter speed would have helped to fix that. I like the composition for the most part, but the people in the background, particularly the one on the left in the colorful jacket, seem to draw my eye's away from the skier, who somewhat blends in due to his darker clothing. Also the focus is a tad forward of the skier, more an issue with sigma's focus system though.

and for the 3rd shot, I would have personally cleaned up the power lines and removed the person in the background, again he draws your eyes away from the main subject with his brighter colors compared to the hill behind him.

Overall, none of them are bad, just minor things to keep in mind next time you shoot and edit. The overcast sky doesn't help with light either, but you can work around it with the use of a flash and gels or some rather simple steps in photoshop. Keep practicing, as with everything you will get better each time you shoot.
 
"Pop" can be a lot of things when looking at a photo, but in your case the biggest thing is looking for more engaging lighting (among other things.)

Preface: I'm not trying to be mean about anything so keep that in mind when reading...I tend to come off as a little douchey.

Photo 1: Think to yourself: What makes this subject interesting? Why should I want to look at a picture of this subject? The subject of this photo could potentially be interesting, but there are a few things keeping that from happening. your perspective ( framing, position, etc.) is not very interesting, but that can be tough with something like this, where there are limited angles that look good. I would have probably taken the photo from a similar perspective, but framed it in a more pleasing way. You don't necessarily have to chain yourself to the rule of thirds, but there's a reason it's considered a "rule"... and that is because it very often improves a photo. Another detractor is the heavy snow. Nothing much you can do about it, except wait for it to stop. Instead, think of ways to use the falling snow to your advantage. Kind of vague, but that will become possible as you develop your sense of style and perspective. Finally, ONCE ALL THESE THINGS ARE IN ORDER, a little more dramatic editing will give it more impact. That part in bold, is in bold because you must remember that post processing should be the final icing on a great photo, not a solution to a bad photo or a crutch. I've gotta go but I'll talk about the other two when I get back...

 
Honestly just work on timing and lighting. The lighting looks really strange, and the colors are all thrown off (probably because of the lighting). First picture you gotta get in closer, and second picture the colors and lighting is fucked, but it's composed really nicely.

Also, the second picture would be AWESOME if you just caught him like a second before. With the second picture, if you just cropped a bit tighter and removed some of the foreground, it would be awesome. I love the guy waiting to drop in in the background, it gives really nice context. Besides the extra foreground, it's composed really really really nicely.

You have the right ideas, and you're really close. I wouldn't call these snapshots at all. The only thing that is going to get your pictures to pop is yourself. There's no magic photoshop button or some fast easy fix, you just gotta get out there and keep shooting. Learn your equipment inside and out so that you don't have technical issues like you have now, and you will be set. Being able to take a picture that is technically sound and color correct I think is a bigger achievement than getting an okay shot and messing with it in post. Get it so you don't necessarily have to worry about technical stuff and then when you go out and shoot, you can focus on composing the perfect shot and then that is when your images will pop.
 
im not any photography buff by any means, but what i agree with most everyone in here, i think the 2nd pic had potential to be the best one with a little faster shutter speed because the composition on that one is nice, same with the third. the third just a second before that and its prime, i know he's probably "tweaking" it but those dont make for the best stills in this case. both the 2nd and 3rd the colors feel off, maybe some level adjustments and even a slight saturation possibly? and the first one i feel could be epic if you were right up in the mix and since there wasn't a flash, you could edit that pic to make just the red be colored and the rest black and white but also make the red a little brighter. thats my 2 cents. good potential tho
 
Make sure your horizon is correct, or intentionally off. Crop that so it's correct.

First one would be ok, but the snow fucks it up.

Second one is the weakest of the three, hands down. Not sure why everyone likes it so much. Using a wide angle is either about getting everything in the image when you need to, or enhancing the perspective to make things look bigger, longer, or simply to give your photo a more interesting perspective. This one splits the difference - there was no need to use a wide angle to get everything in the shot because the rail is so small. There is also no dramatically interesting perspective, there's just enough there to ensure that your brain looks at it and knows something's not right; it's awkward.

Third one is pretty good. The composition is the strongest of the three. It's a good way to display a small rail because you're not trying to make it anything it's not. Like I said with the wide shot - you've got to go one way or the other - a standard angle/focal length or a fisheye a couple inches away from the rail. Anything in between looks like you're trying too hard, or just feels awkward.

Learning a little about post and color correction will help your photos. So will buying creative lighting gear... but you're talking a lot of money when you get into that.

I shoot promo photos for The Canyons, so I know how much it sucks to take shots of small features. Here's an example of making the best of it with a fisheye - trying to enhance perspective by getting low and shifting the perception from a normal angle to one that's not normally seen

5546854919_49da3564fe_b.jpg


granted it's not a great example, it could be a lot better if I was closer to the snow. That would enhance the perspective even more. (Also, sorry about the colors, they got butchered when I uploaded it)

Here's another example, like the second shot wide isn't working great -

5547418686_9d1a8ba966_b.jpg


But using a standard angle and focal length, and simply finding a more interesting way to frame the same shot turned out a lot better:

5546835853_37a963a502_b.jpg


And taking that shot, self-critiquing on the lift, and looking around for another option led to this:

5547414964_0e4e2f9b6e_b.jpg


Maybe better, maybe not. Probably a little more interesting.

another thing that helps is better riders and bigger features. haha.
 
looking at the last one again, pulling back some would make for a better composition.

I read this one piece of advice that I spread whenever I can now - And this is a rule that's made to be broken, but - If your photo isn't already interesting / a good photo before you have a skier in the frame, it's not going to be a good photo once the skier is present. Remember that. Find your angles and compose before you start worrying about putting a skier in your shot.
 
the reason why the second shot is blurry is because he's shooting with a flash. If you are shooting with a flash, your camera has to shoot at slower shutter speeds to sync, and you need to track the motion with your camera. It will leave the rest of the frame a little blurry, but that makes more sense to your brain than the action being blurry. When a part of the frame is blurry, your brain assumes that that's supposed to be in the background, (it's sort of like how we perceive an image as making more sense when bokeh is used to give it depth) and that the blurry part is not the subject of the photo. You don't want that to be the skier.

 
all i can say is rule of thirds. I very rarely make the subject of my photo in the dead center of the shot. Putting the subject in the left or right third of the frame usually shows more of the landscape and basically just makes the entire shot look better imo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top