Feedback?
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
Never posted here, stuck to other forums for critique mostly. This was taken while walking around downtown and looking for stuff to shoot.
Anyways, I'm looking for feedback, I'm pretty new to photography and I'd like to learn.
[Sony a6000, Minolta 50mm f/2, ISO 400, f/2] 1/1600,
It seems that picture is massive, here's a smaller size
Are you a moron? Why exactly do you need 1/1600sec on a well-lit afternoon if you are going to boost the ISO and use such a large aperture (which is why the fence is blurring)?
Go to the same spot, use ISO 200, aperture f/5.6 and a shutter speed 1/100th
As above, no idea why you have ISO 400, f2 and high shutter speed. Completely nonsensical for this shot.
>>2850626
Adding on, using f/2 for a photo with no main focal point (like a person or a particular object) that you want to separate from the background, or one not taken in a dimly lit setting (like this scene at late dusk), Otherwise, fuck large aperture. You're using the lens' least sharp aperture for no reason other than "muh high shutter speed" which doesn't make sense for a static scene unless you've got Parkinsons' and you can't hand-hold a camera at 1/100th
>>2847358
assuming this is bait, but if not get a different lens. immediately. I've never seen so much chromatic aberration in my life.
>>2852757
It tickles me too. But I don't think those are chromatic aberration, anon.
>>2852788
I'm probably not using the right term but afaiu chromatic aberration is typically purple and green fringing on areas of contrast, is that not what's happening here? especially in the tree
>>2852818
It looks like he increased the color saturation, and it made what abberation was there a lot more noticeable/vivid.
Can anyone give any good feedback instead of bashing? Here's tits in exchange
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D750 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 85 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:12:28 12:55:38 Exposure Time 1/100 sec F-Number f/2.2 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/2.2 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 85.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2000 Image Height 1335 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Soft Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2856918
You got heaps of good feedback. People told you why your settings are shit to start with. Your subject is boring as fuck and terribly lit. What are you wanting to know exactly?
>>2856918
Your image is shitty on all levels except exposure, and you fucked even that up because of the aperture. Here's a list of criticism for you:
>smaller aperture
>that means bigger f-number, if you didn't know
>that will get more in focus
>get the center in focus, or something visually interesting in the photo, around the center
>not the fucking lowest 30 pixels
>this pic gives me a headache because the stairs lead the eye upwards but there is nothing there to see except dissapointment
>this could be used as an artistic decision but if it doesn't look inviting it means it's offputting and it ruins the whole composition
>learn compositon
>there is nothing of interest in this image
>you just got a camera and are hyped and wanna photograph anything that does or preferably doesn't move and especially at that golden hour sunset
>that is a GOOD thing and you shouldn't be discouraged but it still makes your images shit for the time being
>iso is fine
>you could do 200 or even 100 with a tripod but really this is irrelevant, 800 could still be used if necessary (it's not) but 1600 would be unacceptable and should be punished
>you can take a shot like this handheld with 1/100
>that is literally 4 stops more light
>that means you can drop aperture all the way to f/8 and still take this exactly same pi with exactly same exposure and get far superior results
>but now you used f/2 cause your lens CAN DO IT
>admit it and stop doing it asap
>f2.8 or lower is for indoors or night hours. this is just ridiculous
>don't touch the saturation knob
>don't
>then when you have photographed for 2 more years, you can thank me and return to it, and use 1/10 of what you used on this picture
>sell your sony and get nikon
>evf is horrible to look at, laggy and you'll miss action because your viewfinder is a tenht of a second late
cont
>>2857562
more on the evf
>it doesn't make you a better photographer to see how your picture will literally turn out in the end result. It makes you a worse photographer because it encourages being lazy and not understanding exposure, basic camera settings and learning exposure conditions
>learn composition
>your picture needs to have a visually interesting sight somewhere to make it interesting
>in your pic: none
>when you find what is interesting about the scene, everything that doesn't add and complement that thing should be excluded without a moments hesitation
"But if I take all that out from my picture, it turns shitty!!"
>that means your image is shitty
>just because your dslr can capture vivid colors doesn't mean anyone else is interested to see it
enough constructive criticism?
