Dave, I'm thinking you mean "critical" in the sense of "critiquing" your photos rather than saying how bad they are? I would like a thread where we could do that for each other -- as long as we understand that critiquing is also a matter of personal taste and we don't necessarily have to change our way of taking photos (any more than we need to change ourselves!) just to please others.

But, for example, It has helped me a lot just to see the photographs others take here at ATP. Not even getting to how our camera is set, I know there is a standard where extraneous objects, torn leaves or faded blossom should be cleaned up, and while that isn't something I always personally care for (I tend to like the natural look, dead leaves and torn petals included), when I notice now I do try to "clean up" my photos (or my subjects) more than I used to. So setting the stage for our photos is one area where critique is helpful.

And then there are all the other areas of how we use our cameras to record our subjects: our ways of focusing, lighting, etc.

Yes, . This type of critiquing would be a good thing! MR

If we do this, I think that it might be important to be mindful that our advice should be limited to times when people ask. Photography is art. And art is emotional. And people often have part of their sense of self tied up in their art.
[/armchair psychology]

I, for one, would welcome all the advice that anyone is willing to give. I love being wrong (or sub-standard). That means, that with help and awareness, I can get it right-er next time.

That was my thinking, too.

I like knowing when I'm wrong because it gives me the chance to correct and fix my mistakes and improve. I've seen other sites for programming where developers share code and they give each other criticism, and it's a really positive thing. We should do it here (with the understandings and caveats mentioned above, and only when people specifically request it.)

So having said that, if anyone has any actual critical thoughts about my photos above, PLEASE I'm all

Mañana. It's been a long day and we're on Eastern Time. And I think for your level of photography, Dave, other people will probably have more useful critiques... MR

Crop the bees on the basil, darken up that third one, and put them in the bee thread!!!
The thread "thyme for (more) bees and other bugs on flowers" in Gardening for Butterflies, Birds and Bees forum

little seedling...hmmm...I don't know nothing really wrong with it, really.
this, now, is just a matter of my weird taste--sometimes having relatively 'more' of the thing in the foreground out of focus bugs me--I try (try) to focus on the front of the subject more often than not because if the thing fades away in the background out of focus it doesn't bug me--but that's just me, really. (I tend to take a lot of pictures trying different angles and points of focus because I don't always notice what bugs me later in a picture while I'm taking the picture, although my keeper percentage is improving with practice) So, I guess my suggestion here is if you think that lower leaf looks like a big fuzzy tongue sticking out at you, then try some different angles and points of focus.

The last three are awesome--save for looking a little overexposed on my monitor-- more so the lycoris I suppose
My fave is the one in the middle--what is that?
I might see a neat crop in the third

If you are just looking for a better image of the bee, cropping would work. If you were trying to create something that was a little more artistic then I would use the third photo, crop and reposition the bee using the "rule of thirds". Something like these.



I agree with dirtdorphins about the seedling. If you knew the name of the plant, it would make a great shot for the database. But that out of focus leaf in front is a little distracting.

With the Lycoris there is just no good focal point. I'm guessing this was auto-focus, which can be difficult when you have so much depth. It would have been a better shot if you could have focused on the center of the flower pointing toward the right.

I like the way you used diagonal leading lines in the last two. Two very good photos, but I love the first one with the grass that is leaning to the right. That is my favorite on the page. The great focus, composition and the colors really work well together. That background looks like a watercolor painting.

Dave,

I don't have much of a critique of the photos themselves - nor of the shoot specifically. But I think in pretty broad terms and so here's an idea that I've been thinking some about lately - and it may get long so bear with me... And none of the blather that follows is meant to be spoken from any authority - nor is it necessarily the right answer...nor even necessarily a right answer. Just my take on this particular question. And I'll bet if I read this post five years from now, I'd be embarrassed at how puerile it seems then. So here goes...

If I locked 100 people in a room and told them that they could have dinner only after they wrote a high-ish quality poem...and that they could write either a sonnet or free verse (odd, right?), I contend that the quality of the sonnets would be MUCH higher than the quality of the free verse (and I think that sonnet writers would both eat first and feel better about their products, too). That's an artifact of the constraints of the sonnet itself. And I think people work better when they understand the constraints of the project.

So...assuming that you were following the model here from my first post (don't care if you were...this assumption is for the sake of this post - in that everything was on full auto) and from what you reported about the weather (and what we can see of the lighting), we know a few things:

1) It was breezy (i.e. your subjects were prone to move)
2) You have less control than normal of the depth of focus (and bokeh) because it's the camera making those decisions (aperture), not you
3) The depth of focus is going to be necessarily smaller than usual (because the +4 magnifying lens requires that inherently)
4) Because of the time of day with the sun mostly overhead, the light and shadows are going to be pretty pronounced (and it looks sunny out)
5) You're limited to natural light (no flash in the assumptions)
5) What am I forgetting here?

Or, in other words, that's your:
a b a b
c d c d
e f e f
g g

So in that sense, you're limited in what you can photograph successfully.

But what do you have control of?

1) The light (even from that angle of the sun, you can select backlit, sidelit, and directly lit shots - and you can shoot in the shade, too)
2) The depth of focus to some degree (read: how close you frame the subject)
3) The bokeh (see 2 just above)
4) What you choose to photograph
5) From where you choose to photograph it
6) The shot composition (always)

To illustrate what I'm talking about in 2 and 3 (above), I took two shots with a 50mm lens with a +4 adapter at f/7.1 (identical metrics taken from that neat grass shot). The first was shot at maximum focal range (infinity) whereas the second was at the opposite end of the ring (dialed all the way in). Not only what's in frame is important (the amount of the book), but even moreso is the depth of focus (the number of lines that you can easily read). The first shot was 9 5/8" from end-of-lens to book and the second was 5 1/2". So you have a relative TON to play with (close-upwise, DoFwise, bokehwise) even at that magnification - and that's absolutely governed by how far away from the subject you place your lens, pre-auto focus. And the shots are stunningly different (relatively). Note the 1/3 (foreground) 2/3 (background) focus rule in play. This is a good illustration of that, too.



My approach for the shoot would be to shoot mostly at the minimum focusing distance (further sonnet-izing myself and maximizing the ability of the lens vis a vis the exercise - as well as removing a variable). I'd select targets that were prone to be more static (think plants or parts of plants that were on or near the ground...or near the stalk of the plant) in the wind. I would shoot a decent percentage of the shots using the more oblique light (to account for and even use the shadows/contrast) and also try backlighting a few (even if that meant I was on my back shooting up - you've got 180-360 degrees to work with on most shots). If I shot targets more prone to move, I'd select the harshest light with the hope that the camera would choose to up the shutter speed (all auto, right? gamble there on washouts, but it might be more likely to freeze the subject occasionally). I'd also shoot lots of shots of the same moving target hoping to catch it in focus. Finally, I'd select targets with smallish points of (necessary) focus...or that had elements in a single focal plane (a real limitation of the lens/setup). And if I'd been doing it right, all of this (and more) would have occurred to me before I took the camera out of the bag. I shoot better shots when I am pre-conscious of the rhyme and meter and length and structure of the shoot before I start clicking.

That said, I would also shoot a number of shots that were just out of sonnet-bounds. I'd think about what I thought the shot would look like...take the shot...and see where I was surprised (or usually disappointed). Pushing the edge intelligently and mindfully is a great way to learn (for me, at least).

All pie-in-the-sky, kind of spooky stuff. And pretty idealistic, too. And I really don't mean to complicate things. The point, though, is pretty simple: think about what the constraints of the shoot are (or the needful photo is) for just a bit before reaching for the camera.

This isn't meant to be a criticism of your shoot, Dave. And I'm not saying you did it wrong. This is more a general info dump. Stuff that falls out of the compost pile of my brain. I'm also sure that I've left out/forgotten TONS of stuff and will be wanting to edit/add to this post.

BTW, all that stuff on cropping was right on, imo. That's an art itself.

Wow, amazingly great feedback, way more than I was expecting. I'll re-read the responses above again, contemplate them and commit the concepts to mind. Thank you three for this.

The seedling is Tah Tsai (Brassica rapa subsp. narinosa 'Tatsoi') growing in my aquaponics bed.

The middle photo with the pink grass is Ruby Grass (Melinis nerviglumis 'Savannah')

The last photo is Love-Lies-Bleeding (Amaranthus 'Opopeo') (which actually has no photos in the database. I need to correct that.)

Thanks again all. Next time I shoot some for critique I'll start a new thread.

ah-ha! I thought that last one was some kind of amaranth! Glad to see you put it in the DB

great thread!!

I did point and shoot for years and sometimes when I am lazy I still resort to it.

I went out a did a few this afternoon as it was overcast, my favorite lighting. even had some light sprinkling, love drops on petals! Everything on auto. Did a bit of cropping and most were a bit too dark for my personal liking so I just did a bit of brightening in Picasa edit program, easy peasy. I do have a DSLR, Canon XTI and I had my 18-270mm lens on it.

must enlarge to see my surprise when I cropped.

Very nice, Sue

Best Buy has the Canon Rebel T3i DSLR with 18-55 and 75-300 lens for $650. I've got the fever so bad to get this!

Oh, fun shots, Sue!

In addition to the buggies, I'm especially fond of the Iris in the fall. Something about that really gets at my soul.

Reblooming iris are a special bonus!

@Calif-Sue,
...18-270mm lens on it...
that's a heavy lense! how do you stabilize it?

Hold arms in snug to body, widen stance, lock legs!

I did end up buying the Canon T3i and have been playing around with the 75-300mm lens, but am getting nothing as nice as your pictures yet, Sue. I do believe I will have to use the tripod. I'm just not steady enough

I have what is called in the UK a Canon EOS 550D or the Rebel T2i in the USA. I love the thing and indeed have made many mistakes, which I fully admit! I recently bought an Opteka High Definition 10X macro lens 58mm. This screws on my spare 18-55mm Canon lens, that you get with the camera. At first I could not get the camera to do anything as it would not focus at all on Automatic focus, and not very well on manual. As I bought this so called platinum lens cheap from Amazon, I was thinking, oh well it does not work. So I E-mailed Opteka and they were most helpful; probably after laughing their heads off.
They explained that although the Rebel T2i is basically entry level, it can do a lot. So they advised me to take the camera setting off "Close Up" and put it on Auto or Automatic exposure. This I did and keep the setting above 35 mm when you focus. Now it works, perfectly.
What an idiot I am, i should have read the instructions. However in my defence they were in Japanese.
However I have many photos on ATP, and many were done with the standard 18-55mm on close up, and were successful. I have other Canon lenses of course.
Don't laugh too much.
Regards.
Neil.

Done with the standard 18-55mm on close up!

Done with a wet lens, standard though!

The lens that came in the box.

Thanks, Neil. This is encouraging to me since I just bought the T3i. I love macro photos!