[PIC_THREAD] Hardcore Critique (any subject matter)

Rojin

Rojin

Rojin

Soldato
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
6,991
Location
Gloucester UK
Post your pictures here if you wish to have detailed feedback and critique. All critique posted should be of a constructive nature and should be taken in the manner intended.

Details on what you were trying to achieve with the shot should be provided along with any relevant techniques\equipment used.

Other pic threads are also available for general sharing and critique:

Post your wildlife pictures here. There are also the following threads for other subjects:

People: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18443926

Nature: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18443933

Landscapes: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18443931

Sports: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18443930

Macro: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18443927

Weddings: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18443934

Wildlife: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18443932
 
I'll start the ball rolling. This is a shot from a hill climb, it's a side on pan that I don't generally feel are that interesting. So I've tried using a wider frame, angling the camera and dropping the shutter speed to get more interest. The processing is to give an aged feel to the shot.

There's a brighter area where the sun shines through the trees so getting the car in this area focuses more on the car. I wish the tyres to the left foreground weren't there, I'll have to find more vantage points this year. Also the drivers helmet ruins the aged look :D

I'm also going to try ND filters this year so I can keep a wider aperture whilst still having a lower shutter speed. This should help melt the foreground\back ground even more?


Prescott Speed Hill Climb by jj_glos, on Flickr

EXIF:

Camera Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II
Exposure 0.05 sec (1/20)
Aperture f/9.0
Focal Length 182 mm
ISO Speed 50
 
I think you critiqued it pretty well yourself! Grasping at straws, maybe you could play around with where the car is in the frame?

Incidentally you might find this guys stuff interesting -

http://laurentnivalle.fr/_LMC2012.html

His vintage motorsport stuff and post processing are awesome :) Oh and nice thread changes!
 
Not sure how much the BW works here, It means that you don't really get any way to isolate the car. There's a lot of motion blur on this image (duh), but it's too distracting in my opinion.
For this shot, given how much there is, and how indistinguishable anything is apart from the car I also feel you could have PS'd out the (tyres?) in the left foreground. They're too distracting, and you haven't got too hard a texture to remove.
I'm also not sure how much BW works full stop in this picture. But that said, I'm not the world's biggest fan of BW. I feel it can be done very well sometimes, but feel it is potentially sometimes overdone.

I think a lot of the issues could have been resolved with a tighter crop to be fair. The lighter area would make a fantastic light foreground for framing the car in my opinion. It would also remove all the distracting stuff I've already talked about :p

kd
 
I agree with Kind Damager, I am not sure Black and white is really working here?
For me black and white work is best used for emphasizing tonal quality or textures, shapes and structure. The car feels small and insignificant amoungst the motion blur because the BW treatment has actually emphasized the blur and reduced the impact of the car.

Would be interested to see a colour version for comparison.
 
42zx said:
I think you critiqued it pretty well yourself! Grasping at straws, maybe you could play around with where the car is in the frame?

Incidentally you might find this guys stuff interesting -

http://laurentnivalle.fr/_LMC2012.html

His vintage motorsport stuff and post processing are awesome :) Oh and nice thread changes!
Click to expand...

Cheers for the link, what an awesome event that looks to be. It's all about the access! This is as taken so no cropping at all, so I could play around with it.

King Damager said:
Not sure how much the BW works here, It means that you don't really get any way to isolate the car. There's a lot of motion blur on this image (duh), but it's too distracting in my opinion.
For this shot, given how much there is, and how indistinguishable anything is apart from the car I also feel you could have PS'd out the (tyres?) in the left foreground. They're too distracting, and you haven't got too hard a texture to remove.
I'm also not sure how much BW works full stop in this picture. But that said, I'm not the world's biggest fan of BW. I feel it can be done very well sometimes, but feel it is potentially sometimes overdone.

I think a lot of the issues could have been resolved with a tighter crop to be fair. The lighter area would make a fantastic light foreground for framing the car in my opinion. It would also remove all the distracting stuff I've already talked about :p

kd
Click to expand...

I love B&W, so I'm definitely guilty of using it a lot. I just get bored of colour though, especially when processing a whole set. This particular processing isn't something I normally do, I usually go for a much more contrasty look. Yes it's a shame about the tyres :(

D.P. said:
I agree with Kind Damager, I am not sure Black and white is really working here?
For me black and white work is best used for emphasizing tonal quality or textures, shapes and structure. The car feels small and insignificant amoungst the motion blur because the BW treatment has actually emphasized the blur and reduced the impact of the car.

Would be interested to see a colour version for comparison.
Click to expand...

The car being smaller in the frame was on purpose, I took it as low contrast as I thought I could get away with yet still have it stand out in the lighter area. Obviously I went a bit too far!

Thanks for the feedback all, it's all been all taken on board :)

Colour version with slight 16x9 crop ratio. The trees\tyres in the foreground are well beyond my ability to remove in PP!


Prescott Speed Hill Climb by jj_glos, on Flickr
 
Colour version looks much nicer IMO.

When I said the car looks smaller in the frame I wasn't really meaning in physical proportions but in its psychological presence in the photo. Removing the colour information highlighted the texture of the blue, especially to the bottom left and distracted away form the subject - the car. The colour version now has a clear subject that commands the viewers attention, focusing the eye. now the motion blur really does look like motion blur and hence makes the photo more dynamic - it tells a story now, captures the essence of an event (the movement of the car). The BW was very static and the blur was to some extent confusing.



I love black and white and it can be a powerful tool but most photos do better in colour. Before making a BW conversion I really try to think why I am removing colour information and reducing the visual cues of the viewer. BW emphasize texture and tone, structure and simplify complexity. In architecture, landscape, portraiture that can work well- structure and texture of buildings, in landscapes the texture of rocks/mountains, the tones in the sky or vegetation, in portraits the tones of the face/skin and reducing complexity in the background.
 
Last edited:
Now I plain find the colour version boring, I much prefer the atmosphere of the B&W. It's what you're used to I guess. It's also interesting that my sales of prints at this type of event, B&W outnumber colour 2-1. Not that I sell loads mind you. Edit: not with the b&w treatment above though I should add.

Come on then, who is next? :D
 
Last edited:
Might not have much time to respond for a couple of days as preparing for a shoot in Devon tomorrow.

This was taken during a friends BBQ.
12cf-2.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom