As it happens with moi ... spontaneous combustion and ideas happen all the time in my corner of the world.

Came across a commentary/critique posted on a member's image that, for me anyways, was extremely enlightening, well thought out and courteously profferred in the spirit of helping someone improve. So ...

Here is that 'critique' in it's entirety ...

"Since iris' don't grow very high it is difficult to get good depth of field on the flower yet drop the focus on the background when shooting from above like this. It's a nice shot but it is a bit cramped with too tight a crop on the flower and the highly detailed background detracts from the subject matter. I suggest trying two different kinds of shots. 1) If you are going to shoot the flower from above, try adjusting the DOF to mute the background and possibly waiting until early or late in the day when the flower is lit but not the ground. A slight fill flash, enough to light the flower only, would help. You may lose a little detail on the flower but it would stand out much better with the focus only on the iris. 2) While preparing to shoot the flower from the side (rather than from above), try moving around the flower until you get a solid background behind it, something like a wall or even the sky. Barring that, standing a piece of dark or light material (cloth, posterboard, etc.) behind the flower would certainly make it pop. If you aren't looking for a studio-style image then by all means use a natural background.

--Nikoneer"

... on "Put your skirt down, Iris !" by Roland; aka rolonmascara.


And I encourage all of you to post to this thread if you receive a commentary/critique or come across one, that helped you in some way. Novice, or expert, if you will ... makes no difference.

Let's see some great examples of a dying 'art', in and of itself. :o)

Great thread, Les...

I wanted to add the following critique I received on an image I posted in the past...I thought of it immediately because it helped me immensely with the technical aspects of photography; something that I personally need to learn much much more about. You might know that certain settings on your camera produce the best images for certain situations, but you might not know why...if you know why, you're bound to produce better images, more frequently.

Critique by Paul_Gerritsen on "Fallen":

"Hi Stephen,
this one took my breath away!
such a fantastic photograph, congratulations.
You seem to know what you are doing, but when I look at you camera settings there is one point you could improve. When you use f36 you cannot obtain a sharp image anymore. That is due to chromatic aberration. In optics, chromatic aberration is caused by a lens having a different refractive index for different wavelengths of light (the dispersion of the lens).
I don't want to go in details here, but simply said there is a minimum aperature above which a higher f number will not improve you sharpnes anymore. That number is about f11. Maybe you want to experiment with your lens to see were you get the best results.
Anyway, despite my bla bla, this is one magnificant image!
Paul"

/\ Pure ... gold. :o)

Thanks, Stephen, for sharing that one with us. And ... thank you, Paul. :o)

Let's get this thread back to the top...I think it's an important one.

I'll share this one that helped me ( a real amateur). Regmar took the time to explain WHY he liked Clearly Framed and in the process helped me understand several points of good photography I had accomplished by accident. Things I needed to learn to do on purpose.
When someone takes the time to give a real critique it leaves a lasting and meaningful impact.

__________

"I start flower images with a negative feeling usually. There are just too many of them. This flower shot, however brings a creative idea to the table. You accomplished a couple of things here. Your use of a virtual narrow depth of field, which you accomplished by blurring the background, and layering the flowers onto the image focused the eye very well on the subject. Nice job.

Then you went another step by making a splendid diagonal with the bouquet that is centered on the magical 1/3 point in the image.

Finally you used a 3-dimensional mat for your flower layer that sort of puts the whole thing subtly off balance and creates a dynamic that I find pleasing. I can't really come up with anything wrong with this image, and I tried hard to do so. "

Thanks again, Stephen ... and thanks DP ... for redeeming my faith. Was losing my religion a bit on this note. :o)

Here's one from Paul_Gerritsen, my guru. It's about taking portraits. A Portrait

Thank you very much, Cindy. :o)

And but of course, and once again ... Thanks, Paul. :o)


Here ... have a cookie, or two on me ...

(*leaves behind a plate of his private stock for all to enjoy ...*)

Here is Paul's; aka Paul_Gerritsen critique on Cindy's portraiture work that is linked above (/\ two posts /\) .. in it's entirety:

"Hi Cindy,
nice portrait!
The 50mm is a good portrait lens for cameras with 1.6 crop factor. At full frame that would resemble 80mm which is indeed also a good portrait lens.
The reason for being a good portrait lens is that at 80mm you will obtain harmonic facual features (no oversized nose or big hands) and that at big aperature you are able to get a really nice bokeh.
Of course the trouble is that at that big aperature it is very difficult to pinpoint focus on the eyes. If your subject moves or your hand is unsteady you will loose focus.
There I sometime shoot continuous mode at max. fps. It's likely to get one shot that is both sharp and where the subject looks best.
In case of your lens, I have alway been in doubt. You see, if you shoot at f1.4 photos will be soft and NOT sharp....
If you look at the lens specifications you will see that it becomes sharp only when it is stopped down.
But for a portrait that may not be a problem, soft is considered nice for a protrait. But what I never really understood is why f1.4 is considered, for you will really get one point in focus. Everything else will be blurred. And I personally never liked that.
What I used for portrait is my 70-200mm lens at around 100mm.
That lens is F4 and I like that very much.
You know, I used to have two f2.8 lenses, but I sold them. I wanted to make sure I never shoot at f2.8. To soft and too limited. I'd rather boost the ISO and use a noise filter I that is what it takes.
But tell me, this nice portrait, was it shoot at f1.4?
Paul"


Pure ... gold, indeed. :o)

STOP STOP STOP!!! Give the guy a cookie already!

(*thinks to self ... in a 'les's than familiar voice ... *)

(An aside to the reading audience: /\ Hey, it's late here /\ . :oP)


"My plan is working ... forget tit for tat ... me wants cookie crumbs to stem my tide of .. .. er, 'stuff' ..."

Time to pay the baker, Ron ... don't make me post "Is Critique Dead? - Part IV -/V -/VI -/VII" and and and ...

'Cause I will ...

>:oD

/\ This stuff is 'pure gold'.

You know Les, these comments don't seem to back up your encouragement that "everyone is qualified to critique". I certainly couldn't write that kind of technical advice.

Hey Hannah,

This is what happens when you don't subscribe to your own discussion thread. In other words, I just caught your post the other day. Ok, carrying on then ...

Agreed.

The 'gold' panned for here is of a more technical nature and tone. Thus far.

I simply posted a couple examples that were, in my mind, very enlightening ... on the technical side of things.


I will reiterate though, that I do believe anyone with a pair of eyes, a monitor (hopefully, properly calibrated) and a desire to help ... can, indeed, write a 'constructive critique'. :o)

Hannah, what Les is trying to say is....

Just write what your eyes see, if there is something in a picture of what you think that could be improved just say it in a 'friendly' constructive comment, it doesn't always have to be technical!

There is a rule, kind of, sort of...to write these contructive comments..

1) start with writing that you like the picture

2) write what you like or what you don't like or what can be improved.

3) and....always end your comment with some friendly words about the picture of what you already like about it.

Perhaps this will help
Giving an Image Review

Just give it a try and you will see that you will getting better and better in giving good comments. You can also read comments of other people and learn from it.

But remember don't give a comment if you think..that's not my cup of tea.. :oD

Full Disclosure - this is a partial repost with slight editing of what was I think my first post ever on the site (when the Comment Request feature was initiated):

"Samatar gave an excellent definition of how to give positive feedback. Coach things in an "I like", "in my opinion", "i think that" manner. 2 likes for a dislike is an excellent balance. Even if you end up with 1 like and 2 dislikes, be gentle. You want to leave the poster feeling they have positive encouragement to improve their images and keep posting.

For those who feel they don't know how to find what they like, here are a few things you can look at specifically. Are there particular colors you enjoy? The palette of colors used? The contrast? The way an image is cropped or framed? What objects are central/focused in the image? The evocative mood of the image? One of the big things people miss with photography is the way the image is framed and or lit. The same can be said of digital art, but in the main, these are the biggest choices a photographer makes. Moving a shot 2 inches to the left, or moving in closer or widening up create different overall impressions when you look @ a photo, so think about how you would feel if the shot was framed differently. Lighting evokes moods, so do you like the way this was done? or would you like to see more contrast? maybe you'd like to see the lighting coming from a different direction?

Now that I've written a book here, I'll give one last opinion and go away. One of the things that I've loved about this site is that people are encouraged to keep improving. Not everybody who comments will know what they're talking about, but alot of people out there who don't "know the rules" do appreciate art & photography, and can give you feedback on things that you wouldn't have thought of, maybe because it's not where you were going with that image. Read what they have to say, consider it, if you disagree, reject it and keep on going. That being said (this appears to be the postscript to the book here), I totally agree that if you come across an image in your requests that is outside a range of art that you like, or you feel like you cannot honestly offer USEFUL critique, you should shut it down and go away."

-------------------

I think that all still remains true and has some useful tips for how to pick out things to constructively comment on without needing technical expertise or information about how to achieve certain goals.

Garrett; aka garrettparkinson was gracious enough to reply to an inquiry of sorts that was posted on one of his hummingbird photos.

Namely, that of his "Little General"


"The short answer is that it is a cloudy day and the ambient
light is uniform. While this is very beneficial for most of
the colors and details in the image, it doesn't sit well with
the black. The black wants a direct light source to illuminate
its detail.

This is in combination with the structural color of the bird's
feathers. Notice that the feathers in question below the neck
are slightly raised and consequently absorbing light differently than those to the right or left which are more flat. With a Hummingbird and its irridescent structural color it is all about light."


/\ While not a 'critique' per se, the information and explanation ... and considerations when photographing these fascinating birds ... is invaluable to the 'birding' enthusiasts and photographers. :o)

Garrett went that one step further in a recent upload of yet another hummingbird, to explain things some more. With ... some EXIF data thrown in:

"Last week I shared the "Little General" with you. This is not him but another of my incredibly bold hummers. I think that I counted five different territories all being guarded by their own little general.

I selected this image and cropped it as such to give you all a better look at structural color. Again structural color is created by light passing through a thin opague layer on the feather that bends light and creates brilliant iridescent color. The resolution is sharp enough in this photo to actually look at the veins on the feathers. Different thicknesses in the opague layer create different colors. When the light does not strike the opague layer just right the feather appears gray or black.

For the technical buffs, I was approximately 15 feet away from this little guy. I was using a Nikon D2X body with and old Nikon 600mm f4 manual focus lens. I also had a Tamaron 1.4 tele-converter on the lens. Of course as alway the lens was mounted on a Bogan tripod. My ISO setting was 400, f-stop 8, shutter speed 1/100 sec with no compensation. I ran the fine jpeg image through Noise Ninja to remove the grain and improve the resolution."


Here is Garrett's image of "Resolution" where his accompanying narrative, quoted above ... can be found.


Thank you very much, Garrett, for giving of your talents, time and expertise. Greatly appreciated. :o)

Sherree; aka danika ... offered some valuable assistance to Sandi; aka Tigger, Tigs or Scrunch (linked photo to follow below) with these words of hers:

"Sandi ... I know first hand how difficult these type of shots can be & you did a wonderful job of capturing this seagull in flight. The detail is superb & the wings are very distinct.

I also think the sky is a little too blue ... mid morning or mid afternoon works out the best for me when getting shots of birds in flight. I feel the lighting is just right then especially if it's a bright clear day or even a dull cloudy day. I normally use a shutter speed of 1000 ... sometimes higher.

I don't know if you have this capability in your Canon editing software, but I'd try to adjust the exposure up one notch to bring out the bird more. That's if you shoot RAW. Plus it will lighten up the sky also. I know this is possible in Capure NX 2 & works great for most underexposed images. I'm not saying this shot is underexposed, but just a suggestion on the editing front."


Here is that image of Sandi's ... "Free Bird"

Joanie; aka Joanie ... ventured a lil' outside of her comfort zone, I believe ... and offered up these words of 'constructive critique' on an image that had been reworked:

"Well lets see....I like the composition and how the background is blurred a bit. As for the clarity and sharpness....The head and legs are in perfect focus for clarity, but the back feathers aren't as sharply focused. I have no idea why...hehe...I think the colors are perfect in this though! Jim's was far too greenish. Hows that?!....lol"


And in turn, provided some valuable feedback to both artists. Jim; aka jimmyc1955 and ... myself.

You done done ... more than good good, Joanie.

Cookies are on me.

;o)

(* this post is available *)


Anyone?

Alright, I shall..


Ok, not a critique per se.. more along the lines of someone being open (kind, gracious) to reading my drivel and in return, offering up some invaluable insight on the 'how to' stuff.


Here is Russ'; aka ryzst response to a commentary placed on his image, namely; "More Passion":

"Thanks for the in-depth feedback. This was shot at f/14 and many of my other macros go down to f/22, so there is room for increase in DOF. That said, lighting & composition failures might leave me with only a handful I'd care to post. We learn best through failure.

BTW, for those who care, I used a Singh-Ray Color Intensifying filter here, with camera settings on 'Normal'. I think it gave me a cleaner, brighter image than the previous red passionflower shot which is a 50/50 mix of RAW & camera jpeg with the D80 set to 'Vivid'. Lighting is just the onboard flash with a single ply of tissue taped over the flash lens as a simple diffuser. Flash intensity was bumped to +0.7 to compensate."

Out of the following comments posted by garrettparkinson on GomekFlorida's image; "Hawk eye" ... came these invaluable tips for photographing birds:

"A nice capture of an immature bird. Notice the pale eye and speckling on the chest. It is in the resting position with one leg up. It was not going to fly anywhere. One trick to knowing when a bird might fly is how many legs it is standing on. Also notice that its body feathers are fluffed up. A bird that is likely to fly will have its feather tight to the body and will be standing on both legs. Also there will be a lot of head movement. If a bird is preening, probably not going to go for awhile. When it stops preening and starts bobbing its head more, be ready."