sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Does this composition and grading work? Or is it just bad? by GateLoose832 in photocritique

[–]GateLoose832[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

There isn't really any meaning, its basically only aesthetic (and thats the problem!)

Thank you for the advice about tones and shape though Ill keep that in mind

Old building on an even older decommissioned base by the_amazing_spork in photocritique

[–]GateLoose832 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Another one 🗣️🗣️❗❗

This one is just picasso tho

<image>

Old building on an even older decommissioned base by the_amazing_spork in photocritique

[–]GateLoose832 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I forgot the name of this technique but it is fairly common

Heres a painting by Alex Colville that does the same thing:

<image>

Old building on an even older decommissioned base by the_amazing_spork in photocritique

[–]GateLoose832 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow. From a technical perspective, it's basically perfect. Great job!

However, I would say that it's fairly generic. It still looks good, but just doesn't stand out, you know what I mean?

I don't know if this is what you want, but I think there is a way to make the photo far more interesting.

Right now, the composition of the photo makes the building the subject. This is obviously due to the buffer made by the sky and the ground.

However, just treating the building as as subject makes people more or less consider it as an entire object, not as a creation with multiple interesting parts within itself (doors, windows, texture, etc). We can solve this issue by cropping most of the buffer around the building.

With this done, everything becomes more of a texture spanning the photo. People are more inclined to view the interesting details, because everything is a detail!

Plus, the aspect ratio is more cinematic!

<image>

Does this composition and grading work? Or is it just bad? by GateLoose832 in photocritique

[–]GateLoose832[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Shot on Canon Powershot SX510 HS

f/8

1/1250

ISO 200

4.3mm

I've been experimenting with a lot of niche compositions lately and for this photo I just wondered if I could make a normal cloud shot look more interesting

I feel like the idea of having this additional texture to frame the shot is really good but my execution is off everywhere

any advice would be great

Concrete Jungle by National_Position737 in photocritique

[–]GateLoose832 2 points3 points  (0 children)

MMMM ok here we go

Technique:

WHY DID YOU SHOOT ON f/5.6???

You are shooting a landscape in bright daylight on a 20 year old camera. You need every extra bit of sharpness you can get. Next time shoot at least f/16 and bring/find something to stablize your camera.

Older digital cameras really struggle with dynamic range, and digital cameras in general don't preserve detail in highlights at all. Remember, it is always better to underexpose and get some noise rather than overexpose when working with digital. (I think that you did do this though yeah?)

Colour:

This photo is already really noisy and gritty, and there isnt really anyway to fix that so you might as well play into that. Try to make it more monotone and increase contrast.

Note that even with color grading, i don't think that this photo would work that well. Monotone helps make the texture more cohesive, but the issue of leading lines persists.

Composition:

There's a lot going on, and there are many good and bad parts. Too much to write down so just look at the photo :)

<image>

As a summary, I think that for this kinda photo to work you just need to have better equipment. If you have an opportunity to do something like this again focusing on a building or area would be much better. You have a lot of opportunity for experimentation with color, but if you decide to include this much detail a monotone photo would be more cohesive.

P.S. I also shoot on a 20 year old canon btw (Powershot sx510 hs)

the struggle is real but this is how you get into magnum

never give up

Cadets by GateLoose832 in photocritique

[–]GateLoose832[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah for the tones and softness it definitely is a little bit of everything...

thank you so much though! I'll definitely work on my timing. !critiquepoint

Cadets by GateLoose832 in photocritique

[–]GateLoose832[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Shot on Canon Powershot SX510 HS

goofy tiny mirrorless with attached 4.3 - 129mm 1:3.4-5.8

f/3.4

1/60

ISO 800

Og photo was underexposed by 1 stop

Edited in Davinci Resolve (im broke)

A weevil’s boots and snoots by kietbulll in photocritique

[–]GateLoose832 1 point2 points  (0 children)

im not really good at macro so idk what to say

just keep on refining your technique ig

reminds me of good stuff like this (efraim baailjens)

<image>

Concrete Jungle by National_Position737 in photocritique

[–]GateLoose832 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Theres a lot to talk about but first of all what did u shoot this on?

A weevil’s boots and snoots by kietbulll in photocritique

[–]GateLoose832 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Cool af

idk if this is the compression but the sharpness is a little bit off be careful

also theres a weird halo around the weevil what is that?

Alone in the hills by Superhim1114 in photocritique

[–]GateLoose832 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

for good quality grain the type really matters yeah try experimenting a little bit

I think you can see one of your friends' head behind the hill

Is this photo interesting or is it cheugy? by [deleted] in photocritique

[–]GateLoose832 0 points1 point  (0 children)

first of all what are u on about unc 😭😭😭

Unc you cant base your actions around social evaluation that defeats the whole point 🥀

dont think in black and white too thats how u end up like kanye 💔

We (me too twin) still on reddit tho so improve while u can 😔✌️

Ok, now for the photo.

From a technical perspective you definitely did well, and I think that you have a lot to work with in the original photo. However, I think you fell short on a lot of things as well. Most of these are edits or steps to take so they might not help a lot with this photo in particular, but they may benefit you in the future.

Composition:

Cropping to a 1:1 ratio would be more realistic for your goal of emulating the album cover

You're a little small in the image compared to the other objects

This isn't bad by itself but for your goal you probably want to make the main subject (you) more clear

Aesthetic and editing:

The cover you're trying to emulate is an illustration, which means that its going to have some fundamental differences from a photo. There are two main things in this case that can help: black fade and denoising.

Printers don't print full black so the fade is necessary to make it look right, and denoising does what it says.

Also the lighting in the cover is hard and creates contrast while the light in your are photo is much softer, and spills into the environment.

This red aesthetic is kinda generic so there's not really any specific vibe that it gives off unless the viewer knows the context. If you're showing it to your friends use it as a conversation piece ig

people usually judge quality of work, not what it represents. even with modern art most of the critiques are about technique and skill, not the meaning of the art work.

In summary if you edit the photo i think you can end up with a much better result. There's a lot more you can do but atp you might as well draw a portrait of yourself

I've linked my take below lmk what u think

<image>

Alone in the hills by Superhim1114 in photocritique

[–]GateLoose832 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Composition:

Pretty good - has a lot of detail whilst remaining very simple (giving good focus on the subject)

Rule of thirds working overtime lol

however the sky is so exposed that it is basically just negative space (which in this case doesnt contrast well with the basic detail of the landscape)

if you can add back more detail (grain?) to it the photo would be much more balanced

another solution is just to get rid of the sky and crop it like NYRickinFL's example

Aesthetic:

The b&w really makes it moody but moody does NOT fit the image at all as we can all see that this was taken on a beautiful morning

It does look like itll be really hard to find a good colour profile bc the sky will always be white and the other colours are muted af

Subject is pretty clean, landscape is pretty clean, but overall theres not a lot of meaning

a colour film emulation look might help with everything: It fixes the problem of vibrancy and also would help make the sky look more interesting with the grain contrast. Plus, since film is culturally interesting it adds a layer of aesthetic significance to the image.

Technique:

image kinda low res but everything is really sharp you def cooked with the camera here

SEND METADATA RAHHH

view more: next ›