Some shots of mine.

Progen

Well. kinda new so this is one of my first posts. heres some of my recent photos took over the past month or so.

All taken with a Canon EOS 300D Digital SLR and smallend down to 800x600 with some loss of quality (to save space!)

Sauron

I'm liking the first and third shot.. nicely done

rymus

were you falling over when you took the last one? Needs to have the ol' horizon straightened out

dazftw

Yea im liking the first and third one too !

captain P

I also like the first and third, the others are a little too dark for me.

Fenster

I have to jump onto the bandwagon for this one. The first and third look great, the others just look too dark. I tried my hand at cleaning up the last one. Straighting the horizion and brightening it a little.

Oriel

They are all underexposed and crooked.

Oriel

And what the hell is up with the 4th one? What is the subject of the photo supposed to be?

440Hz

First and third for me too!

Blake

!underexposed!

I dunno why you'd post these.. if you gave your camera to some random passerby and said take a photo you'd get the same result

Progen

Blake wrote:

!underexposed!

I dunno why you'd post these.. if you gave your camera to some random passerby and said take a photo you'd get the same result

What kind of comment is that? are you physically incapable of giving advice rather than insult?

sinecurea wrote:

And what the hell is up with the 4th one? What is the subject of the photo supposed to be?

Each to there own lad but a bit of 'construtive criticism' goesn't go a miss.
Subject is the rustic metal fencing and hotel in the background. Granted the big tree in the way of the river isn't at a prime spot.

Also might add, a tripod wasn't used in any of the photos, all hand took hence why there is some underexposure.. couldn't leave shutter open to long, there'd be feirce shake.

Progen

Just noticing, you have 8 posts Blake, none of which are construtive - None of which have ANY photo work of yours, and more than 50% insulting.

Blake wrote:

I don’t know why you bother posting these
they seem like very boring crappy photos of some crappy car

yeah I definitely don’t see any reason why you’d want to put your name on them, let alone copywrite them

As quoted from http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=50792432#post50792432

Settle down and don't be so eager to insult. It will get you no where.

Blake

Well if you can't take criticism then maybe you shouldn’t post :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Progen

Blake wrote:

Well if you can't take criticism then maybe you shouldn’t post :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

criticism yes, ignorance, no.

andy1249

Like the first one a lot , the fourth one kind of grabbed my attention for a different reason though , if it was me taking the picture I would have hopped over the fence and tried to frame the building between the branches of the small trees !! but thats just me , First photo is class , well done .

Oriel

andy1249 wrote:

First photo is class , well done .

Look, this first photo is just as ****e as the rest. It's underexposed - what's that big black space in the bottom left of the image? That shouldn't be there. There should be grass there, or at least the outline on some grass. It shouldn't be black.

Raiser

sinecurea wrote:

Look, this first photo is just as ****e as the rest. It's underexposed - what's that big black space in the bottom left of the image? That shouldn't be there. There should be grass there, or at least the outline on some grass. It shouldn't be black.

Your opinion means little to me - your words are cheap and disposable.

- Excellent first photo Progen, captures a lot, don't pay too much heed to the little people

Shrimp

the first photos is alright.. metering is a bit off.

NaughtyG

These photos really suck. The exposure is way off, the horizons are crooked, the subject matter is mostly all sh*te. In fact I can’t think of anything good to say about them

To offer some advice I’d say you can learn a lot from some of the photography magazines like practical photography and also I really wouldn’t post images that aren’t up to scratch

Hagar

I like the riversky shot.
On the whole the photos are a bit dark.
But it's not the end of the world. Keep at it.

Have you ever tried "bracketing"?
Take three shots, first shot at the exposure level you think is correct, second shot one "click" over-exposed, third shot one "click" under-exposed.
You will usually get one of the three to give decent shot.
I do it for un-repeatable photos such as a wedding.

Oh BTW asking for constructive critcism around here is like wearing a "KICK ME" sign on your back.

eas

NaughtyG wrote:

These photos really suck. The exposure is way off, the horizons are crooked, the subject matter is mostly all sh*te. In fact I can’t think of anything good to say about them

To offer some advice I’d say you can learn a lot from some of the photography magazines like practical photography and also I really wouldn’t post images that aren’t up to scratch

Nice first post NaughtyG, welcome to the photography thread.

I think your advice that Progen learns photography from a magazine is disgusting. IMO that's the one single reason there are so many awful photographers parading around as know it alls these days.

dalk

First of all i would say don't be put off by the negative comments. Its to be expected.

Constructive criticism (depending on your opinion):

All of this has been mentioned by others.

Technically, the shots are underexposed. The 300D, from the little i used one, had pretty bullet proof exposure, so much so that i would be inclined to leave it on all auto for most shots. Maybe you monitor isn't well calibrated? Maybe you changed the settings because the shutter speed was going to be too long and there would be shake? Did you try changing the ISO? Or propping yourself against a wall to steady yourself? Balance the camera on a wall?

Consider that sometimes a shot just isn't possible to take well because of lack of light, lack of a tripod, whatever.

Composition isn't very interesting. Sorry, but there wasn't really anything there to make me look twice. Some research on the subject of composition may be useful. Look at famous photographers pics etc. Try and identify why they were consistently rated. There is lots of info on photographic (and artistic) 'rules' on the web in relation to composition. They will at least give you something to think about.

A straight horizon isn't always necessary, but for landscapes i think it is. When looking through the viewfinder, have a good look at what you see. Is there something that doesn't need to be there? Could i eliminate it by framing slightly differently? What if i move a little further in some direction? How does that affect the framing?

BTW A well composed interesting shot can suffer technically and still be a good pic, imo.

NaughtyG

eas wrote:

Nice first post NaughtyG, welcome to the photography thread.

I think your advice that Progen learns photography from a magazine is disgusting. IMO that's the one single reason there are so many awful photographers parading around as know it alls these days.

Well some of the photo mags aren't the best others of them are good for everybody from beginners to more experienced photographers

I have definitely learnt heaps from mags - by following tutorials in the mags, by getting ideas from looking at others peoples stuff and also by getting a reality check from seeing what actually gets published compared to the photos I'm taking

so whether you are a know it all or not you are still going to become a better photographer

I think your comment that my advice is disgusting is just plain dumb

eas

NaughtyG wrote:

I think your comment that my advice is disgusting is just plain dumb

you have a point there - my comment is pretty dumb, it just plain sucks.

dalk

I always thought those amateur photography mags, were just a way to see some boobies, eh, i mean 'artistic nudes', pre-playboy being unbanned...

Or maybe that was just the ones i was looking at.

Progen

Yeah, I do do bracketing, taking multiple shots of same subject - and I mainly choose the underexposed rather than the lighter ones.. mainly because the foreground (grass for example) can be turned silhouett'ish..

From what people are saying, im underexposing them for /to/ long..

Think I'll carry my tripod next time and not use to much underexposure

Oriel

Progen wrote:

From what people are saying, im underexposing them for /to/ long..

And there is your problem. Your basic misunderstanding of photography. What do you mean you're underexposing them "for too long"?

Shrimp

he's thinking of exposure, as in shutter speed.

Yeah, learn more about the tech. side of it first..

Steffano2002

Some of you guys are harsh... I don't think I'll be posting my pictures here!

Progen

Just re-read what I put, my bad, badly written..

What I ment to say I'm underexposing them.. full stop. havnt a clue where i got the 'for to long' bit.. D'oh!

Anyware, here's one I took an hour ago... It's nice in black & white, but I like the soft lightning so kept with color. viewing it

AF, ISO400, f4.0, 0/60, 28mm.

Buttermilk

There are beautiful!

Dr. Loon

What a bunch of fúckin arséholes you people are!?! Give the guy a break... dalk - I commend you on your post. Proper constructive criticism. The rest of ye, cop on to yourselves and quit thinkin you're so superior.

As a person with an interest in photography and a fair bit of exposure to photography, I think the first shot is fantastic, I also quite like the fourth one due to its lack of subject. Why all the rules people?

Steffano2002

Dr. Loon wrote:

What a bunch of fúckin arséholes you people are!?! Give the guy a break...

+1

JackKelly

Dr. Loon wrote:

What a bunch of fúckin arséholes you people are!?!

Have to agree

Suprisingly comments like these...

I dunno why you'd post these.. if you gave your camera to some random passerby and said take a photo you'd get the same result

Look, this first photo is just as ****e as the rest.

These photos really suck. The exposure is way off, the horizons are crooked, the subject matter is mostly all sh*te. In fact I can’t think of anything good to say about them

..are in absolutely no way constructive. And of no benefit at all to the photographer. But you don't have to worry about that, as your photo's have been perfect since the day you picked up your camera.

Steffano2002

Close to making me regret shedding close to €900 EUR for a D50 I say! I better not get comments like these when I start posting my pictures!

Sarsfield

I have to agree. Nothing but arrogant and rude comment which will do nothing but put people off taking and sharing photographs.

There's a difference between offering constructive criticism and being a dick. :mad:

rabbitinlights

I also agree about the comments being said. Stop insulting peoples attempts, if a photo is not very good, let the person know by telling them what they are doing wrong and what they can do to improve it. From what I see there are quite a few people here replying without ever having shown their amazing skills.

S.