|
Critiques From
< 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kaufman (K:2748)
1/19/2005 5:31:21 PM
Hiroshi, this image is beautiful. I can't critique it, as I believe it's perfect in every way. It is a huge improvement from the two previous shots of Cosmos that you posted. I've selected it as a "Staff Choice".
|
| Photo By: kokupsy_un morita
(K:2651)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kaufman (K:2748)
1/17/2005 5:00:27 PM
Bob, I think it's either a Cooper's hawk (as Cody said) or an immature red-shouldered hawk. Nice sharp image Bob.
|
| Photo By: Bob Jarman
(K:3145)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kaufman (K:2748)
1/17/2005 4:45:11 PM
To Hugo: the edges are natural. Reflections of trees and sky are in the water. The image was slightly cropped from the original but otherwise it's not been altered. I apply slight unsharp masking to all images I post on the web.
Eagles killed the chicks of the loons the two previous years. This past summer one of the two chicks survived through the season and flew away, the other was eaten by a herring gull when the chick was 6 weeks old. Eagles and herring gulls are common in our area in the summer, as we are close to a river with spawning salmon. During the first part of summer, the loons are protected by very aggressive arctic terns and two smaller gulls (bonaparte's and mew gulls) which nest nearby. They will chase away any predator that comes near the lake. Their chicks fledge by the first week of July, and they leave the area. Then, the loon chicks become easy prey to eagles and the larger herring gulls.
|
| Photo By: Steve Kaufman
(K:2748)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kaufman (K:2748)
12/9/2004 4:08:21 PM
ARMANDO posted a comment with an attached photo of an Inca Tern. I deleted his comment as the attached photo was one he'd acquired from Google. The photo came from a private web page; the image would be owned by the photographer who took it. Please don't load photos to this site that do not belong to you. Just because you find an image on the web, don't think it is free. All photos are owned by the person who creates them unless the rights are assigned to another person or party.
|
| Photo By: . Icerock
(K:4873)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kaufman (K:2748)
12/8/2004 5:04:15 PM
Kim: regarding the northern lights, please see my post in the nature forum. I posted it as a comment to Roy Hooper's question, "Q. Anyone Else Catch The Aurora On Sat-tues?"
Thanks for the kind comments on my photos. I do look for expressions, and shoot when I see what I like through my lenses.
|
| Photo By: Steve Kaufman
(K:2748)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kaufman (K:2748)
11/23/2004 4:09:02 PM
Deb, no ND filter. This is the way it looked; a brilliant sunrise on the clouds, almost no light filtering over to the glaciers on our side of the mountains. As sunrise faded, we were left with a uniform gray day, typical of November days here.
|
| Photo By: Steve Kaufman
(K:2748)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kaufman (K:2748)
11/20/2004 5:38:53 PM
Bob, for this image to work, I had to isolate a small part of the mountain range, and find the part that showed the drama I wanted to convey. So, I started with an 80-200, and eventually I shot some with a 300, and a 500. This particular shot was a tight crop from one of the 80-200 shots. And just to show I'm human, I mistakenly threw out all the images in a folder I had on the desktop, and now I don't have any of them anymore.... oh well, the mountains are just outside my windows, so I'll have to work on it some more!
|
| Photo By: Steve Kaufman
(K:2748)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kaufman (K:2748)
10/31/2004 3:39:23 PM
Gilberto, I hope that you won't mind a bit of constructive critisism on this image. I've looked through your portfolio, and I believe this is one of the weakest images in your group. Many of your images are very nice and show excellent composition. This image is tilted to the right, and though the fence gives fairly nice converging lines with the horizon, the horizon itself needs to be level.
If you use PhotoShop to process your raw images for web use, there is an easy way to straighten your horizon. Under the eydropper tool, there is a measure tool. Draw a line across the horizon (I'd use the bridge). Then select the Image menu>Rotate Canvas>Arbitrary. The program will rotate the image and make the horizon you selected level. Then, with the cropping tool, you crop the photo to take away the white borders and make the image rectangular again. I did this with your image, but it cuts out most of the sky, so it changes it considerably, and you lose the sunset you wanted.
All in all, it was a nice idea, but I don't like the tilted horizon.
|
| Photo By: Gilberto Santa Rosa
(K:11147)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kaufman (K:2748)
10/24/2004 4:30:56 PM
Kim, fireweed leaves turn red in the autumn. Clorophyll pigments break down, and anthrocyanin (the red pigments) take over. The yellow blotch is just a part of the leaf that has broken down further. It would have turned brown very soon. The leaf was too thin to shoot in any way other than having the main vein of the leaf in the center.
|
| Photo By: Steve Kaufman
(K:2748)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kaufman (K:2748)
4/17/2004 5:57:41 PM
Joanna, when you upload to usefilm, it will become an SRGB file format. To see what the image will look like in advance, go to Image>Mode>Assign Profile, and select SRGB. In my experience, this will make the image a bit lighter, and not as saturated as compared to the original image file on my Mac. Make subtle adjustments once the file is SRGB, and I think you'll be happier with the look of your image once you upload it to usefilm. Also, in general, you will get better adjustments if you adjust Levels and Curves rather than the Brightness/Contrast controls. PS is one of those programs that takes a long time to master, but it doesn't take so long to learn how to make a few simple adjustments using curves and levels.
|
| Photo By: Joanna Lamb
(K:3796)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kaufman (K:2748)
3/28/2004 5:13:25 AM
Eric, as long as you are using PS to improve the image, you should clone out the wolf's face in the far right of the image. It is distracting, and adds nothing to the image. We can't always have animals cooperate with our photographic attempts, but we can improve the image after the shot's been taken. One additional note, an aside not a comment on the photo, this wolf is one of the few captive wolves I've seen that isn't seriously overweight!
|
| Photo By: Eric Peterson
(K:4419)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kaufman (K:2748)
3/12/2004 7:59:56 AM
Lorenzo, this is one of the nicest landscapes I've seen on Usefilm in some time! The composition is perfect. Thanks for sharing it with us!
|
| Photo By: Lorenzo Conserva
(K:2415)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kaufman (K:2748)
3/8/2004 10:11:19 AM
Very Nice Ellen! You've created a beautiful photo of one of the things most of us hate to see in a landscape we are trying to photograph! It's great to find a different view of a common subject and it should be an inspiration to all of us to keep looking for new angles on everything we photograph.
|
| Photo By: Ellen Havrilla
(K:8618)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kaufman (K:2748)
2/7/2004 2:53:21 PM
Jim, the exposure on "before sunrise" is better than this one. Once you have the sun in the image, you need to over expose the shot to get the scenery exposed properly. In the "before" picture, I'd like to see a bit more depth of field, to hopefully, have the water in the foreground in focus. These are, afterall, landscape photos, and I'd like to see as much in focus as possible unless there are waves or something else which conveys motion. The wispy birds in the sky in the "before" image do convey some motion, but in my opinion, they really don't add to the image. On this picture, you have a flare in the water, caused by the refraction of the sun on internal elements of the lens. You can reduce flares by having the sun in the center (not always a pleasing composition). As an aside, if you happen to be shooting with the sun just outside the view of the lens, and find that you get a clearer image through the viewfinder if you shade the front of the lens with your hand, you need to provide that shade somehow or you will see a flare on the processed film.
In this image, there appear to be old pilings, which don't have enough detail to add much to the image. At sunset, they might make an interesting addition to a composition at this same location.
|
Photo By: Jim Gamble
(K:12164)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kaufman (K:2748)
2/3/2004 9:05:31 AM
Mark asked how far I was from this pika. I'd guess it was about 16 feet (which was the minimum focusing distance for the lens I used at that time). Pika gather "hay" that they store under rocks for winter browse (they don't hibernate, but remain active through the winter). I've found that if I sit quietly in a pika colony, they will eventually go about their business of collecting grasses. Then you need to position yourself near a place where they seem to habitually visit (a particular rock in their route to the grasses). Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I've found from experience that windy days aren't normally good for photographing pika (perhaps they can't hear as well, so they are more nervous). Regarding the Nature's Best show, that was filmed in 98. I wasn't aware that it was still being aired.
|
| Photo By: Steve Kaufman
(K:2748)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kaufman (K:2748)
12/14/2003 9:49:12 AM
Arun, rather than commenting much on your photo, I would like to address the issue of how you might be able to improve your macro shots. You have a good camera and lens combination, but in your comment you said, "the camera is constantly fooled". I'm assuming you mean that the AF is fooled? Focus manually. You listed in the camera data for the picture that you used automatic shutter speed and aperture. I would suggest you try manually setting at least your aperture. For a macro shot, you want maximum depth of field. You have to have a fast enough shutter speed to stop your subject's movement, and that's a trade off. You complicate matters significantly when you use a flash, and proper flash technique takes some time to learn. I'd suggest trying to keep things simple, use a tripod, manually focus, and set the aperture to f16 or so, and I think you will be pleased with the results.
|
| Photo By: Arun Madisetti
(K:1145)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kaufman (K:2748)
12/12/2003 8:33:27 AM
Bjorn, if this is a zoo situation where the birds are fairly tame, and you can easily go there again, I'd suggest trying to positon your camera lower, so that you are more on the stork's level rather than looking down on it. The whites appear a bit too light as Harry said, and I don't like the white object under the stork's feet.
|
| Photo By: Bjorn Beheydt
(K:12096)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kaufman (K:2748)
12/8/2003 10:11:55 AM
Daniel, the bird has dark legs, which would make it a Great Egret. A white morph Great Blue has yellow legs.
|
| Photo By: K
(K:221)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kaufman (K:2748)
12/1/2003 7:28:37 AM
To Sarah and Bjorn, and others interested: Moose can be difficult to photograph. First, they have very dark bodies, and their antlers can be almost white. In bright sunlight, with slide film, there can be too much latitude (bright and dark) to get a good photo. I have countless photos of moose that are overexposed on the antlers; or if you expose for the antlers, the body is too dark. Secondly, moose are very large animals, and typically they are in tall brush or in trees. If you get close enough to see the entire animal, you may be too close for safety. So, the solution is to go to a location where moose are more visible. Denali National Park is such an area, and in the autumn, when rutting activity (mating season) begins, bulls gather in an area around mile 6-8 of the park road. At dawn they are usually most active, and photos like this are taken from the roadside (The NPS restricts walking off the road during the "moose season" so all photography must be made from the roadside). The keys to good wildlife photography are 1) location (find the best location for your subject) 2) good equipment and the knowledge to use it quickly and efficiently 3) patience (sometimes I'll spend weeks in one location making sure I get the best photos)
Over the years I've been given assignments to photograph wildlife in specific locations. I had one assignment to do a chapter of a book on wildilfe refuges. They wanted photos of Dall Sheep in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. I called the editor and asked if I might stretch the boundary of the refuge to photograph sheep in a location just a few miles off the refuge in an area protected from hunting. The answer was NO. Instead, I flew into a remote lake, and spent 10 days shooting just 3 rolls of film. Where I was, hunting was legal, and the sheep were exceedingly shy. I did finally succeed in getting a few nice photos, but it wasn't easy. I could have easily shot 10 rolls of film in one day on the sheep in that area protected from hunting; and if I shoot on my own (not on a specific assignment) that's the place I'd photograph, not the remote lake.
|
| Photo By: Steve Kaufman
(K:2748)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kaufman (K:2748)
11/25/2003 12:09:54 PM
The north slope of Alaska is an area of vastness, and I used a low camera angle to try to accentuate this. The snow drifts are small, only 4-6 inches high. During the summer months this area would have abundant wildlife, with lots of nesting birds, caribou, wolves, foxes, brown bears, and millions upon millions of mosquitoes.
|
| Photo By: Steve Kaufman
(K:2748)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kaufman (K:2748)
11/24/2003 8:27:22 AM
To Mark, regarding a flash extender: I do occasionally use a flash extender, but mostly for shots in dark areas like rain forests. This was shot entirely with natural light, as are most of the shots I've posted here. If I use any special equipment on a shot, I generally do post the information about it when I post images here on usefilm.
|
| Photo By: Steve Kaufman
(K:2748)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kaufman (K:2748)
11/3/2003 3:58:30 PM
John, a polarizer will work the most when you are photographing at 90? angle from the sun. In this case, it wouldn't do much for you other than cutting out some of the light. The sky is probably washed out because of the time of the day. If you can try again on an early or evening ferry trip when the light is lower, I think you will be happier with the results.
|
| Photo By: John Kinsey
(K:15)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kaufman (K:2748)
11/1/2003 12:06:39 PM
To me, the photo is missing life. I'd like to see someone peaking out from one of those tents, or even a simple cup of coffee steaming next to one, or a person sitting besides a tent contemplating the sunrise with that cup of coffee in their hand.
|
| Photo By: Roderik Koenders
(K:2740)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kaufman (K:2748)
10/29/2003 7:41:45 AM
OK, looking at this photo, I try to visualize the different angles from where you might have shot it to improve the image. First, the light is fairly harsh. If there is nice light at dawn or dusk at this location (it might be blocked by the trees) that may help. If there is any element in the foreground that could lead the eye into the image (a fence, a cow, etc) that would help. The solid darkness of the trees brings the barn out from the background, but adds little interest overall. The character of the barn and the way it leans in several directions is interesting, but by itself, the image doesn't quite make it, as you realized. You may also consider shooting some details of various parts of the barn. The roof line, if you shot just the top of the roof could make a fun photo. Experiment with different focal lengths to get different perspectives. And one further suggestion, use a tripod and get that aperture much smaller. F5.6 isn't enough to get maximum depth of field for a landscape photo.
|
| Photo By: Bjorn Beheydt
(K:12096)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kaufman (K:2748)
10/19/2003 1:06:36 PM
In reply to Charlie: I cheated a bit. Both the fern and the snake are in my left hand. I pre-focused the lens (it was manual focus), and moved the snake and fern back and forth until they were in focus, and I had the composition I wanted.
|
| Photo By: Steve Kaufman
(K:2748)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kaufman (K:2748)
10/5/2003 8:25:09 AM
Carol, this particular sky isn't very attractive. The obvious focus of your image is the field of flowers. Next time, shoot just the field of flowers, and don't include the sky. If possible, try to find a slightly higher vantage point to get a better angle on the field of flowers.
|
| Photo By: Carol Watson
(K:5185)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kaufman (K:2748)
10/4/2003 9:09:56 AM
Antonio, one of the joys of photography is creating an image that says something about your particular view of a subject. Photographing parts of animals rather than the entire animal can provide more intimate shots of the animal, showing one area close up. Until you look closely at an elephant's skin, ear, eye, or whatever, you don't really have a full appreciation for the entire animal. If I were to shoot this particular image, I would have attempted to crop it even more, to eliminate any background, and just have elephant parts in the image.
|
| Photo By: Antonio Trincone
(K:23167)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kaufman (K:2748)
8/22/2003 4:42:06 PM
OK, now I'll tell you guys a bit of the story behind the photo. Last year, I attempted to photograph sundews in the bog. I took a large plastic sheet, and lay down in the water (it's a floating bog, so the water comes up a couple inches deep when you get on it). Try as I might, I just couldn't get a low enough perspective to obtain the image I wanted. So, this summer, I tried again. I collected a number of plants and the mosses they live in, and put them in a plastic pot. We have plenty of mosquitoes in Alaska during mid summer, so I'd catch them, as well as other insects and feed my pet sundews. They thrived and flowered. With them in a plastic pot, I could easily get the lower angle I wanted. So, I admit it, this was entirely a set up shot. A few weeks ago, I returned them back to the bog, happy and healthy and ready to go into dormancy until next summer.
|
| Photo By: Steve Kaufman
(K:2748)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kaufman (K:2748)
4/16/2003 9:08:21 AM
I don't want to be negative, but the eye and beak need to be sharper for this to be really good. It appears that your focus point is farther back, more on the tail feathers than on the head. Otherwise, color, and composition are good. It just lacks critical sharpness where it counts most.
|
| Photo By: Frank Sollecito
(K:-73)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kaufman (K:2748)
1/23/2003 10:13:46 AM
Molly, I can see the fence in the background, so I figure these are captive birds. So, my advice, is to spend a bit more time, try to isolate one bird (or get both if possible), and try to shoot so that you can't see any sign of the fence in the background. Zoos often offer great opportunities to do close portraits or simple, pure head shots. Keep shooting, and try to make your zoo shots be real enough looking so that people won't be able to tell it is a captive animal.
|
| Photo By: Molly Walters
(K:1284)
|
|
< 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
|
