Some photo's taken with my new Canon 400

[Mad Murdoch]

Here some photo taken with my new camera.

Canon 400d and i am loving it :o

[Zenarcher]

Great Pics

[Azores Hi]

2nd from bottom is my favorite

[Osbourne One-Nil]

What is it you particularly like about them WM?

Why is the 2nd from the bottom your favourite Azores?

How about something from Kelly about the shots themselves?

I just think that in a photography area we should perhaps be a bit more analytical otherwise we just seem to have thread after thread of platitudes and (although not necessarily in this case) it appears not to matter on the quality of the shots, but more on how many mates you have.

[Azores Hi]

What is it you particularly like about them WM?

Why is the 2nd from the bottom your favourite Azores?

How about something from Kelly about the shots themselves?

I just think that in a photography area we should perhaps be a bit more analytical otherwise we just seem to have thread after thread of platitudes and (although not necessarily in this case) it appears not to matter on the quality of the shots, but more on how many mates you have.

Ok good point.

I like that one in particular as it shows some great cloud formations. There is a lot of sky in the picture and the blue is lovely. I like the way it fades darker towards the top of the picture as if fading into space. The stark contrast between the bare silhouette of the trees and the vastness of the sky creates a sense of space and draws the eye upwards.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Thanks Azores!

[PersianPaladin]

What is it you particularly like about them WM?

Why is the 2nd from the bottom your favourite Azores?

How about something from Kelly about the shots themselves?

I just think that in a photography area we should perhaps be a bit more analytical otherwise we just seem to have thread after thread of platitudes and (although not necessarily in this case) it appears not to matter on the quality of the shots, but more on how many mates you have.

Actually I agree with this.

Nice pics Kel.

:o

Edited March 2, 2008 by PersianPaladin

[Zenarcher]

What is it you particularly like about them WM?

Why is the 2nd from the bottom your favourite Azores?

How about something from Kelly about the shots themselves?

I just think that in a photography area we should perhaps be a bit more analytical otherwise we just seem to have thread after thread of platitudes and (although not necessarily in this case) it appears not to matter on the quality of the shots, but more on how many mates you have.

I like them because there great photos because they are well taken and are great.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Ok, but I think we need a bit of integrity bringing back into this area because it's called the photography area, not the "back-slapping area". I'm afraid comments like yours just reinforce my opinion that this area needs an overhaul.

[Mad Murdoch]

Ok, a bit of info about today photos, All were taking in Cowes on the isle of Wight, i wanted to go somewhere new try out my new camera. (canon 400)

The building of the hotel had a very eerie feel to it, one hotel i dont think i would ever dream of staying, purley cause it looks so spooky. It was fun getting the photos from differenet angles.

The silhouettes of trees is my favourite, The cloud formations was changing all the time and out of many photos I like this one the best.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Thank you Kelly.

[Paul Sherman]

Thanks for the Info Kelly, I also agree with Oz that when Pictures are posted a bit of Backfround Info on the location makes it a whole lot better.

Paul S

[Ross B]

How did you get the effect in the last photo? :o

[Mad Murdoch]

How did you get the effect in the last photo? :o

On the canon software, digital photo professional.

I played around with the RGB image adjustment.

How to do this:- upload photo into the digital photo professional, click on tone curbe adjustments,

make sure RGB is highlighted and then move the highlighted levels to the required postion to get the affect you require

Additional info for last photo.

ISO - 100

Focal Length - 24.mm ( had standard lens on)

Shutter speed 1/1600

[multi cellular thunderstorm]

I agree with OON, we maybe need to be a bit more in depth in here, a bit more honest and try to give constructive criticism where needed. I'll have a go :o

Not sure I like some of the colours, such as the green in the sky on the first pic.

Number 1 and 4 look a little under exposed.

Number 5 and 6 are pretty good, 5 being my favourite, nice deep blue sky.

I think the last one is way over processed.

Are you using a high aperture value for these? That tends to improve photos a little giving better colours and more sharpness.

Mark.

[Steve_De4]

What is it you particularly like about them WM?

Why is the 2nd from the bottom your favourite Azores?

How about something from Kelly about the shots themselves?

I just think that in a photography area we should perhaps be a bit more analytical otherwise we just seem to have thread after thread of platitudes and (although not necessarily in this case) it appears not to matter on the quality of the shots, but more on how many mates you have.

Hi,

While I'm in general agreement with the tenor of your argument, it does make the presumption that people known "why" they like a photograph, or series of photographs beyond some emotional response. It tends to be the more serious photographers who would be able to comment about "why" they like a shot (commenting, say, on proportion, balance, exposure, lighting, what have you), which would disbar those who don't have that understanding of technique from just going with their gut reaction. I'm also sure, although I have little empirical evidence to back this notion up, that the photographs in threads like these are not studied, they are glanced at and then "praised" or not on the basis of that glance. The more serious photographers might spend more time studying the photographs, but then what? I know I study the photographs, certainly in the competition, and would have things to say. But part of the problem would be that I'd be speaking into a vacuum - i.e, I wouldn't know how seriously the photographer would want my comments. Most photographers are snapshooters, and there's nothing wrong with that. But if a photograph was a snapshot, and the photographer was proud of that photo, and not necessarily looking for analysis/criticism, would my criticism be of any use?

In fact, would it not seem as though such an analysis or criticism was curmudgeonly? If the photographer didn't want, nor expect, any comment/criticism/analysis except validation that the photo they had fallen in love with was groovy, wouldn't they, probably, be miffed? Isn't one of the problems with a forum such as this that we encourage photos to be displayed and shared without knowing how the photographer would feel about criticism, or even if s/he wants criticism? And by the same token, doesn't public display encourage in respondents a variety of responses, some of which will be analytical and others purely immediate and emotional? And, in general, aren't the critical ones actually going to avoid comments because it could possibly be grit in the well-greased machine of a smoothly running forum?

The obvious solution would be to have two topics, one for those photographers who don't mind an ear-bashing, and one for those who just want to display a picture. And then you can decide which to read, and where to put pictures. Of course, the "serious photographers" topic could be deemed elitist, but...

Just my 10 shillings and tuppence worth....

[Osbourne One-Nil]

I think you might be getting into it a little too deeply Steve. Over the past couple of months, we've seen more and more threads started where the quality or originality of the photos seems to have little bearing on the responses received. I simply don't see the point in that. If I did a list of who comments on what photographer, I think a fair few trends would become immediately apparent.

I'm not for a moment saying the photos have to be brilliant or incredibly clever, but let's try to get away from the "great shots" type response for something that's out of focus and poorly composed.

[Mad Murdoch]

I think you might be getting into it a little too deeply Steve. Over the past couple of months, we've seen more and more threads started where the quality or originality of the photos seems to have little bearing on the responses received. I simply don't see the point in that. If I did a list of who comments on what photographer, I think a fair few trends would become immediately apparent.

I'm not for a moment saying the photos have to be brilliant or incredibly clever, but let's try to get away from the "great shots" type response for something that's out of focus and poorly composed.

So Onn what do you think of my photo's ?

[Osbourne One-Nil]

I find this batch rather contrived, poorly composed and over edited. They're simply not my cup of tea, but I don't have to like them though and that's not why I commented. I commented because of the banality and deja-vu nature of the initial comments.

[Mad Murdoch]

I find this batch rather contrived, poorly composed and over edited. They're simply not my cup of tea, but I don't have to like them though and that's not why I commented. I commented because of the banality and deja-vu nature of the initial comments.

Ok, and thanks for your opinion.

[Steve_De4]

I think you might be getting into it a little too deeply Steve.

It's in my nature, I'm afraid

Over the past couple of months, we've seen more and more threads started where the quality or originality of the photos seems to have little bearing on the responses received. I simply don't see the point in that. If I did a list of who comments on what photographer, I think a fair few trends would become immediately apparent.

While that might be true, and thus it might follow that responses are to the person rather than the photo, it might be that the nature of the photo and the nature of the person are inextricably bound. All the photo threads I've jumped around in the last half an hour generally say "great photo X" whoever the photographer and whatever the number of responses. This isn't just a NW phenomenon - even the mighty DPReview forums have their favourites around whom responses cluster.

I'm not for a moment saying the photos have to be brilliant or incredibly clever, but let's try to get away from the "great shots" type response for something that's out of focus and poorly composed.

ah, but one man's out of focus is another man's "soft focus" or "creative blur" And "poorly composed" is so photographer-speak it would disbar the non-photographers.

All I'm saying is - be careful what you wish for.

Cheers!

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Steve, out of focus is out of focus and a landscape shot taken with the horizon lazily off horizontal is a poorly composed shot.

I appreciate what you say, but I do think we should avoid trying to kid ourselves too much because that achieves precisely nothing.

[Neilsouth]

Oon i understand what you are saying aswell , but try and cut her some slack she just bought the camera... She has to feel right with it yet , yes those shots are not upto her usual brilliant standards but she just got the camera.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

But my opinion of the shots has nothing to do with my reason for raising the subject Neil, as I've made perfectly clear. She asked for my opinion, so I gave it. I think you might have completely misunderstood me.

[Neilsouth]

you might have completely misunderstood me.

Probably have