Beginner Shots Clock Tower

[Dclark]

These are some of my First attempts at proper digital photography

Im looking for some criticism no matter how harsh on how to improve my photos.

Thank You in Advance.

http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/2927/clocktowerwm3tf5.jpg
#1

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/6940/clocktower1wmue8.jpg
#2

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/4595/clocktower2wmvt0.jpg
#3

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/7663/clocktower4wmbn5.jpg
#4

Sorry For the Wait.

First post of what i hope to be many!

[tirediron]

Well... I guess I'll come back tomorrow.

[tomorrowstreasures]

Personal preference, not a critique - I would like to see the vertical lines be at right angles to the edge. I really like the b/w one.

[tegan]

Personal preference, not a critique - I would like to see the vertical lines be at right angles to the edge. I really like the b/w one.

Actually that is part of critique. Lens/barrel distortion should be minimal or not present at all in telephoto shots. It can however be improved somewhat in postprocessing.

Tegan

[tirediron]

Hmmmm... to be honest, I'm not sure. Technically they're fine, although the bricks in #3 are somewhat over-exposed, but something isn't working for me in the composition. I can't put my finger on it, and I can't think of a different way that I would have composed these images. I think perhaps it's because there's not enough building. The clock-tower on it's own just isn't enough to hold my interest.

Just my $00.02 worth - your milage may vary.

~John

[tegan]

Hmmmm... to be honest, I'm not sure. Technically they're fine, although the bricks in #3 are somewhat over-exposed, but something isn't working for me in the composition. I can't put my finger on it, and I can't think of a different way that I would have composed these images. I think perhaps it's because there's not enough building. The clock-tower on it's own just isn't enough to hold my interest.

Just my $00.02 worth - your milage may vary.

~John

"Technically they're fine." Surely you noticed the lean inward of the tower in number 3 and the lean in the other direction of the rest of the building.

In number 4, the centre columns lean out from the bottom as you move your eye to the top.

That is considered lens distortion which is a technical defficiency.
:)

Tegan

[Travis]

"Technically they're fine." Surely you noticed the lean inward of the tower in number 3 and the lean in the other direction of the rest of the building.

In number 4, the centre columns lean out from the bottom as you move your eye to the top.

That is considered lens distortion which is a technical defficiency.
:)

Tegan


Tegan you are wrong. People use distortion all the time as a creative tool. You of all people should know this. Photography is not a spelling bee in which there is only one correct result. Photography is artistic, and people use the effects of distortion, grain, highkey, lowkey etc to create the desired result of the artist.

[Marko]

When I shot film I NEVER had a shift lens and never corrected non-straight architectural lines. Nobody else did either. Nobody except architectural photographers.

Now that this is a simple task in photoshop, are we obliged to do it or else it's regarded as a 'fault'? Not sure - maybe. I'll tell you this, I do notice it in my own images and other people's images but I'm not sure it should be regarded as a 'fault'. I really think it's a question of how much attention the lean brings to itself. For me it's not - it's leaning therefore it's bad.

Shot 4 here is the strongest shot for me (though I also think shot 3 is well composed). I like the graphic quality of the clocks. I think the shot would be improved with stronger 'blacks' throughout the image. The lean doesn't bother me in this image but I do notice it in the first 2 images.

Hope that helps,

Marko

[tirediron]

"Technically they're fine." Surely you noticed the lean inward of the tower in number 3 and the lean in the other direction of the rest of the building.

In number 4, the centre columns lean out from the bottom as you move your eye to the top.

That is considered lens distortion which is a technical defficiency.
:)

Tegan

Sorry, I have to disagree with you. Yes it's lens distortion, but is it a technical defficiency? I don't think so. Unless the OP had a tilt/shift lens or a view camera, there's nothing that can be done to correct that in the camera short of getting a different shooting position, and judging from the building in the other images, that's not realistic.

[tegan]

As I am sure you guys are aware, when lenses are reviewed by the magazines, barrel distortion and pin cushion distortion are looked at and measured as technical imperfections in the design of the lens.

The reason all photo editors have ways to correct lens distortion and the reason ds0's lens distortion correction software is so popular and successful despite being expensive is that pros and enthusiasts have been demanding methods to correct distortion in postprocessing. DS0 in fact has become the standard in this area.

Any artist should realize that if you keep your art to yourself, then quality doesn't matter, other viewers don't matter, and you can deceive yourself into thinking anything is great work.

The same is true for photography. Once you start to display, present, sell your work, then the standards of the viewer and the field become more important. What the photographer personally likes really doesn't matter, if he/she wants to be accepted/recognized as a capable, talented artist by others.

A photograph must stand on its own, subject to the standards in the field.
The manner in which technique is judged is simple...

If most viewers do NOT see that distortion CONTRIBUTES to the overall impact of the photo,...then it is a fault and a weakness.

The general guidelines are that lenses wider than 28mm are considered to be specialty lenses which means that their accompanying distortion is only effective in a very limited number of situations for example shooting down a round staircase from the top. Otherwise, dx0 and other software is used correct the distortion.

Even distortion from 28mm lenses can be unacceptable, depending on the camera angle and the subject and may need correction as well.

Basic to photography is that if a technique is not seen by the viewer(not the photographer by the way) as contributing to the overall effect of the photo then it is a fault and a weakness.

Agree or disagree, that is just how it is, in the field of photography.

Tegan

[Travis]

Basic to photography is that if a technique is not seen by the viewer(not the photographer by the way) as contributing to the overall effect of the photo then it is a fault and a weakness.

Tegan


But people use distortion to CONTRIBUTE to the overall effect. Distortion techniques can change the mood of the subject.

And trust me.... once technology eliminates barrel distortion in wide zooms there will be plenty of expensive plug ins to apply faux distortion.... just as the are plenty of plug ins to add noise/grain...

[tegan]

But people use distortion to CONTRIBUTE to the overall effect. Distortion techniques can change the mood of the subject...

People may use distortion to contribute to the overall effect BUT if most viewers do NOT see the contribution or the effect, then the photographer has failed in his/her objective.

Tegan

[Kiddo]

I thought distortion could be used as a style, as in Tirediron's shot on his ship, with the curved horizon. Or distortion using "fish eye" lenses.

If the distortion is "accidental" or non intended, then i can understand that could be seen as taking away from the image?

Just my 2 cents :)

[Dclark]

Thank you for all the tips and critiques.

In all honesty, the distortion is an accident and therefore removing from the actual photo itself.

In the future i will attempt to minimize distortion in all my shots unless intended.

Its easier to correct distortion with a tripod.

Thank you for all the feedback!

[pslove]

there's not much for me to say, i think, that hasn't already been said. they're nice photos. i think that the halo around the trees in photo 2 is a little distracting. is it caused by the compressing or is it also there in the original photo? it sort of looks like you attempted to burn out the sky a little but didn't finish the job. i also think that when you're shooting straight vertical lines, especially when they are in the centre of the photo, you really need to make sure they are straight. lens distortion is fairly easy to fix in photoshop. it would be a really good photo, i think ,if i wasn't distracted by the crooked lines. can you possibly fix them and repost them with our suggestions? team efforts are fun:D
Jess

[Dclark]

I might just do that, I personally use gimp, so i dont know about that straight line thing but ill give it a go eh.

[mindforge]

I like the third the most. The others - to me - look like they were hurried and cropped or composed wrong and angled.

[merlyn9]

In the color shots, my personal opinion, the sky seems too unnatual, too blue.
The clock face itself has a blue tint to it.

Looks like you may have used "Shadow/Highlights" in Photoshop, or something similar. Take a look along the treeline, and around the Dome itself... There's some haloing beginning to show through.

I also agree with the vertical lines comment.
You are almost 45/90 degrees flush with that corner. Line this up in the view finder, then work your vertical camera angle (tilt) until you get minimal distortion in the building. Anything left you can adjust more as needed withing Photoshop or your favorite Image Editing tool.

Sweet Clock Tower though!


---michael

[tegan]

I thought distortion could be used as a style, as in Tirediron's shot on his ship, with the curved horizon. Or distortion using "fish eye" lenses.

If the distortion is "accidental" or non intended, then i can understand that could be seen as taking away from the image?

Just my 2 cents :)

No, you need to look at photography in terms of the viewer, not the photographer. The photo has to stand on its own in terms of quality, independent of what the photographer was trying to do or his/her style.

Tegan

[Travis]

No, you need to look at photography in terms of the viewer, not the photographer. The photo has to stand on its own in terms of quality, independent of what the photographer was trying to do or his/her style.

Tegan

you should add IMO to the end of this statement... there are no technical boundries an artist must submit to... an artist simply puts forth their contribution and it is either admired or it is not...

[tegan]

you should add IMO to the end of this statement... there are no technical boundries an artist must submit to... an artist simply puts forth their contribution and it is either admired or it is not...

No, because it is not my opinion. That is how photography is evaluated and chosen or ignored by art directors as well as by other top pros. Of course, anyone can ignore the standard criteria and have their work ignored as well.
If it is ignored by the art directors and other pros in positions of power, then it does NOT get chosen for gallery display, contest prizes, publication, purchase, etc. by the companies/organizations that they represent.

If you are a pro, in that position you could become a starving artist very quickly. Meeting the needs of your clients is the name of the game and when they are an organization, publication, company or newspaper there are standards and criteria that are often much higher than dealing with individuals.

Even as an amateur, when I was an early teen, my photos had to meet the technical and compositional criteria of the National Association of Photographic Art in order to be displayed, win recognition, and prizes.

Tegan