File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
hey ive been taking pictures of my girlfriend

what do you think?

about the pic itself

not the girl
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot A560Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaLens Size5.80 - 23.20 mmFirmware VersionFirmware Version 1.00Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2007:11:10 16:40:19Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/5.0Lens Aperturef/5.0Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, AutoFocal Length18.35 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3072Image Height2304RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeISO Speed RatingAutoSharpnessNormalSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeFull AutoImage SizeLargeFocus ModeSingleDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeRed-Eye Reduction (Auto)Compression SettingNormalMacro ModeNormalSubject Distance10.650 mWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed160Image Number100-0427
>> Interesting Anonymous
[I'm no art expert.]

I like the relative sizes of the bushes, the girl and her reflection. he amount of water under the stone rim and water underneath is good, I like to follow a 2/3 rule for focus / background area.

The position of the bush on the right fills a spot that is a bit empty, and the emptyness there calls you to look at the girl, where more items are packed in the photo.

On the downside, it looks a little blurry
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
we told you it was shit last time, stop re-posting.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
Girl's too close to the edge of the frame. And the way her legs are bent, plus the angle, makes her look like her legs are amputated.
>> Anonymous
>>99242
Interesting again. But you have to be close to the fram for the mirror / water touching effect. The leg thing sounds true, but you wanted to see legs anyway ;)
>> Anonymous
>>99243
no, you dont. but it was crappy the last time you posted it, so stop. seriously.
>> Anonymous
I'd suggest you crop it to a (nearly) square frame. Keep the girl, leave out the second bush.
>> Anonymous
I disagree with almost everything said in this this thread.

The composition is almost perfect; I think it would've looked better if you pulled back a bit and cropped to a wider aspect ratio. Otherwise, the only downside is as somebody else said: the file's blurry.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
Since you wont go away:

Its blury, get a tripod or a real camera.
Get down to the same level as the subject or much higher, eye level is BORING.
Get the whole reflection in and some space around it or get none of it.
Use SOME composition instead of just taking a snapshot, centre the subject if you cant make the surroundings lead the eye to the subject or fill the frame with it.
Wider crop would work a lot better so long as you can get a decent composition and not have blank space.
The girl isnt in a very natural position, have her lying fully flat or sitting with her legs OUT.

now fuck off practice a lot more and come back with a NEW photo.
>> c8h10o2n4
the overall composition is really fine! tho i must agree that the girl's legs look kinda odd. her left knee should just be behind her right leg, and that's it -> pleasant picture.

on the other hand you might really want to learn to hold still while taking pictures, i don't see an excuse at that shutter speed!
>> Anonymous
Ignore Butterfly. Shes bitter cause she shoots Sony, and everyone tells her to get a real camera.

Secondly, its a good composition. I don't think its motion blur tho.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>99243
Uh,no. I don't care if the legs are extended or not, just shift them a little so they don't look like they end at the knee. Don't tell me what I meant, and don't post your own views as positive criticism>>99238
Notice that all the actual crits are the same. That's a clue that you might want to pay attention and maybe learn something.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>99285
uhuh sure show me some pictures then dear anon that prove me wrong.
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
She does look like an amputee there. She's too far off to the left in that frame for my tastes. Also the shot height might have been a good idea to experiment with, as suggested already.
>> Anonymous
>>99290

Prove to you that you are bitter? What would a photo of that look like?
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>99296

A photo of her in the bathtub, covered in lime and lemons with lemon juice running over her......I need a lie down.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>99296
No my dear to prove that I am infact wrong and you are the god of photography and we should all bow to your word.
>> Anonymous
>>99312

I'm not the god of photography. Doesn't take a photography god to tell you are bitter. Doesn't mean a photo is shit when you don't like it.

You can argue about technical flaws. You can argue about matters of opinion. What designates you as bitter is the way you do it.

No photos necessary. Your vitriolic attacks on people posting photos shows your true colors.

Have I put to fine a point on it?
>> Anonymous
>>99319

easy said while you hide behind anonymity like the rest of us.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>99319
sure that might have been true if this wasnt a repost of a photo. If someone decides that their work didnt get enough attention the first time so decides to repost it after being told it wasnt very good they are asking for the truth. They get the truth and because it is a repost there is no reason to spare them any niceties.

Prehaps when you post original work I might be kinder because I havent seen the same shit before and there has been no improvement.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>99319
Seems like she's gotten a lot more feisty in the past few days. Has anyone else noticed that? Or have I just been ignoring it all this time?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>99323
I belive you meant:

>>99319
Easy to sound cocky when you got no pride.
>> Anonymous
Wait...so Butterfly's not a dude?
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>97933

blurry, lights too harsh on her, lights uneven too, can't see her face, she's too far off to the right, her knee's almost cut off. You sliced off the very top of her head in the reflection.

You want to zoom in a bit more; she's the focus of the photo, work her into some different poses. Have her lay out on the sidewalk, or just have her turn the other way so her legs are facing towards us, instead of away so it looks like her knees are cut off.
>> Anonymous
>>99340
thats the left there
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>99341
stage right
>> Anonymous
I like the strong light on her.

And Butterfly, you fuck off, seriously. The OP posted a photo and did nothing wrong in doing so. You've flailed around rudely through the whole thread with mostly baseless, false criticisms.

>get a tripod

Did you bother to look at the EXIF data? The shutter speed is 1/125th of a second. I'm pretty sure it's some bad NR or the photo being taken at less than "fine" quality or something like that.

>or a real camera.
What is it we always tell people when they ask for a camera with manual controls? Powershot A-series. They are realy cameras; their only limitation is how the files are processed and the small sensors.

The file was clearly processed badly, but I've seen much better results from the A-series. Something got screwed up somewhere along the line.


>Get down to the same level as the subject or much higher, eye level is BORING.

Nonsense. Probably at least 75% of the world's great photographs have been taken from eye level. There's nothing wrong with eye level.

>Get the whole reflection in and some space around it or get none of it.

I disagree. The photograph is very well-composed; very seldom is good composition so obviously done as including all the subject or whatever.

>Use SOME composition instead of just taking a snapshot,

He did.

>centre the subject if you cant make the surroundings lead the eye to the subject or fill the frame with it.

Why? The general guideline in the rule-of-thirds anyway.

>girl isnt in a very natural position, have her lying fully flat or sitting with her legs OUT.

I see people in that position all the time; I really don't understand how you wouldn't think it natural at all. I was actually just in it a couple minutes ago, no joke.

>now fuck off practice a lot more

Good advice for you, too.

>and come back with a NEW photo.

I never saw this one before, but even if he did post it before, who cares? It's a good photograph. A repost is fine, too.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>99341

I meant to say she's leaning too far to the right, and you can't see her face very well. Sorry :D
>> Anonymous
>>99380
this is the second time its been posted, within a week. in fact, i think it might even be the third time. the composition isnt too good. the subject is too close to the edge of the frame which tends to throw the balance of the photo off almost every time. the reflection is almost all there, but not quite. theres a lot of rather dead space to the right. i dont think the bushes fill that in at all.
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
     File :-(, x)
The image quality from that camera isn't going to be as good as a DSLR. You're never going to get pixel-peeping and razor sharp. That doesn't help much for the OP's situation. It's especially notable in less than ideal conditions or above lowest ISO. Something I've seen with all compacts (until Sigma finally release their one!).

Look at this test shot under fairly ideal conditions. That's as good as it gets with that camera. It's not bad but not in the same league as DSLRs. As far as IQ goes, the OP's image would have been fine around a 6x4 sized print, all the other issues about composition and such mentioned here aside. If you want to print posters and pixel peep images that are probably twice the size of your monitor then get a DSLR.

You can get something good with that camera, but you've less options, will have to work harder for it and even then you could have always done better with the fancy gear. Acceptable for the price and size of it though.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot A560Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaLens Size5.80 - 23.20 mmFirmware VersionFirmware Version 1.00Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2007:05:03 13:18:49Exposure Time1/25 secF-Numberf/5.0ISO Speed Rating80Lens Aperturef/5.0Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length18.35 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3072Image Height2304RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeSharpnessNormalSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeSingleDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingSuperfineMacro ModeNormalSubject Distance1.870 mWhite BalanceCustomExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed149Image Number101-0403
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
     File :-(, x)
Second shot.

If the OP learns to use the camera and get the most out of it, he'll be able to get some pretty nice shots and some good prints for around the home if he wants to show off any. No excuses now! You can see what the camera can do without touch ups Listen to some of the advice and criticism mentioned here and get practising.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot A560Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaLens Size5.80 - 23.20 mmFirmware VersionFirmware Version 1.00Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2007:05:03 12:54:53Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/3.5ISO Speed Rating80Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias1 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length11.76 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3072Image Height2304RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualScene Capture TypeStandardFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeSharpnessNormalSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeSingleDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingSuperfineMacro ModeNormalSubject Distance1.230 mWhite BalanceCustomExposure Compensation6Sensor ISO Speed149Image Number101-0388
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>99380
this wasn't "bad processed"
it WASN'T processed at all

dude you have to PP your photos, I mean, at least levels and sharpening.
aiming for a 3:2 crop is nice too, I personally don't like 4:3 very much

image related obviously

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot A560Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/5.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2007:12:09 03:29:29Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/5.0ISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/5.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, AutoFocal Length18.35 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height533RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
That framing needs some work bro

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot A560Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/5.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2007:11:10 16:40:19Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution57 dpiVertical Resolution57 dpiImage Created2007:12:08 23:30:47Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/5.0ISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/5.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, AutoFocal Length18.35 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1728Image Height2304RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>99397
the resizing alone saved the shitty quality. shoulda cropped off the top so the reflection didnt lose her head.
>> Anonymous
>>99400

You've really got to resize with that camera, especially for close viewing. The PP can squeeze a little more out of it or improve the images quite a bit depending on the skill of the user.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
hey ive been taking pictures of my girlfriend

what do you think?

about the pic itself

not the girl

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiFirmware VersionFirmware 1.0.5Owner NameunknownSerial Number0420104373Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:12:08 20:01:04Exposure Time1/100 secF-Numberf/2.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/2.0Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length35.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3888Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeManualFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeCenter-WeightedSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed224Camera Actuations-256442320Color Matrix129
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>99380
Pointlessly arguing with me is amazingly stupid, I know I'm right and so do most other people, if you really think that giving bad advice is funny you are pretty rude and selfish besides which everyone else will ignore you.

Dont be bitter that you cant take a good photograph, it doesnt matter but what you need to learn is that you can LEARN from these photographs if you listen to the critisim instead of bluntly refusing it. I'm not doing this (much) to put you down its so you can TAKE A BETTER PHOTOGRAPH NEXT TIME.
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
>>99380

Good photo is a good photo (excluding photojournalism etc.) when I wouldn't mind hanging it on my wall. OP's photo I wouldn't.
I think that's a good guideline for everyone to jugde photos.
>> Anonymous
>>99498
>I know I'm right and so do most other people

lol
>> Anonymous
>>99498
How is anything I wrote bad advice? I honestly consider that a pretty good photograph. Not great, but good. Good for a general here-is-a-model-posing shot.

The other criticisms are aesthetic, but you didn't even bother to look at the EXIF data before telling him he needed a tripod.

What specific statements of mine do you consider bad advice? Taking photographs at eye level?

http://jamesnachtwey.com/jn/images/06-JN_WTC_6-31a.jpg
http://masters-of-photography.com/images/full/friedlander/friedlander_revolving_door.jpg
http://masters-of-photography.com/images/full/winogrand/winogrand_american_legion.jpg
http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=Mod_ViewBoxInsertion.ViewBoxInsertion_VPage&R=2TYR
YDW0ALJM&RP=Mod_ViewBox.ViewBoxZoom_VPage&CT=Image&SP=Image&IT=ImageZoom01&DTTM=
Image&SAKL=T
http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=Mod_ViewBoxInsertion.ViewBoxInsertion_VPage&R=2S5R
YDY2C2C2&RP=Mod_ViewBox.ViewBoxZoom_VPage&CT=Image&SP=Image&IT=ImageZoom01&DTTM=
Image&SAKL=T
http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=Mod_ViewBoxInsertion.ViewBoxInsertion_VPage&R=2S5R
YDIZRJO6&RP=Mod_ViewBox.ViewBoxZoom_VPage&CT=Image&SP=Image&IT=ImageZoom01&DTTM=
Image&SAKL=T
http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=Mod_ViewBox.ViewBoxZoom_VPage&VBID=2K1HZOLRXEFUD&a
mp;IT=ImageZoom01&PN=13&STM=T&DTTM=Image&SP=Album&IID=2S5RYDICHUQE&SAKL=T&am
p;SGBT=T&DT=Image

Really, I don't get your statement at all that eye level is "boring." Why not show us some of your amazing non-eye-level compositions? All I've seen from you were some buildings and some decent photographs of surfboarders. Where are all these club photographs you're always talking about taking?

>Dont be bitter... NEXT TIME.
And what, do you think I'm the OP?
>> OPFOR !8vKpfCqy8A
>>99481
You are a master craftsman and it shows in this latest work. I love the Stop difference from each side of the face and you captured a true emotion from your talent. Great work sir. Also, your girlfriend is so cute that I would tap her with a vengeance.
>> Anonymous
>>99535
>>99535
>>99535
>>99535
>>99535
>>99535
>>99535
>>99535
>>99535
>>99535
>>99535
>>99535
>>99535


For me, someone who does not know shit about composition, the op picture feels empty.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>99535
If i can hold a 0.4" shot steady enough to not get any blur then 1/125 really shouldnt get any so if its not blur its a shitty camera either way its ruining the shot.

I said the rest of the stuff because I belive that following those guides will help produce a BETTER SHOT not because I have some personal thing to proove.

SURE there are decent shots taken at eye level but its so common to see something from that perspective so experimenting with different ones is good.

My club ones are infact quite boring because I do it for a different reason its simply taking shots of people out and is very, very normal. We have guidelines on shooting so its not the place for me to experiment.

When you see some photos i put here asking for critisim then feel free to tell me ways in which to improve. other than that SHUT UP.
>> Anonymous
>>99722

I don't think what you do is even close to constructive criticism, and frankly I'm surprised you'd even try to use that to excuse your behavior. If you are fooling anyone, its only yourself.

Do you really think telling someone their photo is shit, and to go away is really constructive?

I'm sure you have alot to offer, but you keep it to yourself as far as I can tell... and your downright venomous.

Think all these posts of late about how terrible you are aren't warranted?

Here is some constructive criticism... if you want to make this board a better place, you not being so damned nasty would be a great place to start.
>> Anonymous
>>99722
>If i can hold a 0.4" shot steady enough to not get any blur then 1/125 really shouldnt get any

The point was you were telling him to get a tripod for something it wouldn't have helped with and that a simple look at the EXIF data (or the nature of the blur) would've told you that. The point was that you were offering criticism in a very inattentive manner.

>so if its not blur its a shitty camera either way its ruining the shot.

Once more, it had to be some glitch; the A-series normally produces much better results than that. That's why everyone (including you) tells people looking for a really cheap manual camera to get one.

And the blur went away easily when someone resized it and post-processed it properly. You probably couldn't get a great physical print out of that file, but for display on a computer monitor it's fine once dealt with.

>I said the rest of the stuff because I belive that following those guides will help produce a BETTER SHOT

I don't think you have a personal thing to prove, no, and I do believe you think those things will make a better shot. I strongly disagree, and I'll touch on why in a minute.

>SURE there are decent shots taken at eye level but its so common to see something from that perspective so experimenting with different ones is good.

Experimentation for its own sake is useful for the artist, but usually doesn't end up with good art. Strange angles might be aesthetically interesting, but unless they're really used right (Nachtwey's gallery shows some amazingly perfect examples of them being used right, too) the style overwhelms the substance and the content and takes all the impact out of the photograph. It's the same reason most of the great photographers use/used primarily normal lenses, or lenses only a little bit wider/longer: they don't draw attention away from the content of the work to the "oh, hey, look how wide and distorted that is!" or "oh, hey, look how compressed that is!"
>> Anonymous
>>99722If i can hold a 0.4" shot steady enough to not get any blur

good luck trying that without your IS crutch or any kind of long lens. say goodbye to sharpness.
>> Anonymous
I remember that years ago it was "belly button shots" that were being railed against as the cancer of photography. Eye level shots were a revolution and are still welcome.