Hurt me. Kick me. Beat me. (critique this photo)

[F.Gordon]

Particulars: Full Frame. No Crop. Focal Length 16mm. ISO-100. f/4.5. Exposure: 1/250 seconds. Polarizer Filter.

I'm offering up this snap for critique only. I really like this shot and since I can't re-shoot it I'm looking for ways to improve it. Or.... is it not worth trying to fix? Be honest. I'm looking to learn a thing or two... and in the process... maybe a few others can as well.

Have at it.......

[Touchdown]

1. Shoot him at an angle next time.

That way the horse fills up more of the frame, and we can see more of him. Right now, it looks as if the posts are framing the shot instead of the horse being the center of focus. head on, he's not filling up the frame enough.

The wide angle is interesting, and of course it's all subjective, but when taking protraits, the background should be out of focus, so not to detract attention from the horse.

You got some parralax with the gate on the left and the post on the right. See how they seem to be pointing in opposite directions? It's a thing with wide angle, but taking pics at a different angle can mask that.

Good color balance!:thumbsup:

[F.Gordon]

2. So it can't be fixed?

Sorry... I'm still laughing from the other post. The thing is.. I'd be the idiot that would totally miss something like that.

Back to biz... I guess what I was going for was the sense of "open space". That lens thing goes from 10-22.... I was trying to give the horsie the appearance of being isolated-lonely (tied up as he/she was) against this large expanse. Full wide was too much and 22mm didn't take in as much of the surrounding background.

I couldn't do a major blur of the background with this lens... although I was trying to soften it by shooting at f/4.5. Guess it didn't work all that well.

Can the bending (parralax) thing be fixed? Why should portraits be shot at an angle? I've read that somewhere else a few times. Although... this really wasn't intended to be a portrait shot.

Thanks for the comments!!!!
:hi:

[Ms. Toad]

12. It can be fixed...

The perspective correction tool will fix the fence angle.

I also removed the pesky building and brightened up the face.

[F.Gordon]

21. Geez......

Did you do all this with Paint Shop Pro? I don't recall a "perspective correction tool", or do I need to read the manual?
:dunce:

Damn.... you're good. I only forced myself to learn cloning because I had to. I'm too chicken to try cleaning my sensor so I've had to clone out those pesky spots that show up at the higher f'stops.

How did you enhance the horsie without sacrificing the background? I can't tell. Not sure. Did you just "grab" the horsies face? Outline it and then brighten it?

I know you're busy.. but if you have some time down the road I'd like to know what you did.

Thanks for taking the time to do this. Really appreciate it.
:hi:

[Ms. Toad]

24. All with paintshop pro.

I just recently figured out how to use the perspective correction tool. On my toolbar (I haven't rearranged it from my original setup, but my daughter may have) it's the second from the top. It's one of four options for the button - the one you want is the trapezoid with dots at each of the corner.

Find some straight lines that should be parallel, but aren't (the fence posts in this picture) and line up the one side of the trapezoid with each post. I extended the sides up a bit (I think I went to the horizon line) and down a bit, and generally try to make the top and bottom lines horizontal (or even with what should be horizontal). Once you have moved the sides of the trapezoid, there should be a checkmark in the horizontal working toolbar above the image. You can click on it and it will realign the picture. Once you do that, you'll need to crop since the image will no longer be rectangular. (That's why the gate is gone on the left - after the correction the image at the top of the picture was blank since the correction squeezed the top of the picture and stretched the bottom.)

I haven't played with the tool much beyond figuring that out (so I don't know how far up or down I need to extend the sides, or whether that makes a difference or not.

As far as the horsie's face, I'm sure there's a better way, but what I've been doing recently is to use the selection tool to grab portions that need to be lightened, darkened, color enhanced, etc. I used about five overlapping ellipses to grab the horsie's face (use the add feature in the drop down mode box) - I believe I used a 10 feather to blend the edges. Sometimes I use the hand selection options with a smaller feather - but generally I'm too lazy. I usually have to play around with a few different contrast/balance selections so that the edge of the selection isn't too obvious.

[intheflow]

3. Angle and flash.

I'd probably have tried shooting him from a lower level. (Easy for me, I'm pretty dang short.) I'd rather see the sky behind his head. Right now the background obscures his ears, makes the shot busy. I like the idea of the great color in the background, but if you're going to keep it in focus, you owe it to your subject to keep the background uncluttered. Even if you had moved about a foot to your right, a more predominantly lighter green hillside would have been behind the horse's head rather than the buildings and the wide dark green tree.

Did you use your flash? You don't mention it in your specs. The horse's eye that's looking at us is so dark. Made darker by your polarizer. I'd like to see more of the horse's expression. Using a flash would soften the shadows and give a more even light balance.

But as you say, you can't do a re-do, you have the photo you have. You can play with your Photoshop/Photoshop-Equivalent lighting filter. Try playing with spotlights, for instance.

I'd also crop that fencing out of the left side of the photo to make the hitching posts have more of a framing effect. That's taking out maybe a 7th off the left side. The fence on the left is distracting, and with a closer frame it will add a sharper perspective (as in the art term) and therefore, I think, more interest to the shot.

You have great color in this shot! And you have a nice balance between earth and sky, a good use of the rule of thirds.

[F.Gordon]

5. No flash

It's been a big mental block for me to use a flash outdoors... in the bright mid-day sun. As you point out.... this is one instance where I would have benefited from using it. Since this snap I've broken that mental block. I used it quite a bit yesterday. When the foreground was in the shadows and would have been lost if I hadn't used it. I'm tryin'.

The angle. That's now F' 0, Angles 2. I should have taken more time and thought about how best to shoot this. I couldn't go lower because I was actually leaning on the top of a fence between me and the horse. I should have taken a step or two to the left or right instead of shooting "dead on center".

I'll make note of the suggestions... and hopefully a couple more will weigh in so I can compile a list and try to "fix" this.

Really appreciate your comments. Very helpful.
:hi:

[intheflow]

10. OK, back home on my computer.

When I posted last night, I was at my dog-sitting gig where the computer has no photo altering software. x(

Here's how I would crop your photo:



Unlike how Cons cropped it, below, I left some space on either side of the posts to retain a bit more of that wide angle effect you were going for.

This is the lighting filter I reference in my first post. I used an omni flashlight. I'm not crazy about it now that I've done it, but I did want to illustrate what I was recommending. :)

[F.Gordon]

18. At first I thought the 2nd version looked "gimmicky"

But on a 2nd glance.. I liked it. I mean.. they make filters that do this effect so its not like it is something out of the ordinary. I think my software thingee has this effect.. I'm going to try it. And I like the crop. You kept the sky in which I wanted to try to keep.

[ConsAreLiars]

4. Next time (and there will be another similar situation), maybe ---

try a different perspective.

One possibility. Lie in your back parallel to the fence so the two posts (lose the third) jut into the sky and frame the horse's head (also against the sky); tie a carrot to the foot nearest the animal and wave it around so that you can get a half profile of the head and a look that says "I like/want that!" instead of a "Hmm, Humans are really strange???" stare. And a flash (set to fill-flash if possible) to get a highlight in the eye .

Another, more in line with your original intent, would be to back away and get on top of a car or something so the horse looks smaller and the land larger, but with enough detail that the ropes are clear.

The polarizer gives a nice blue sky, but you could try tuning it down to get a paler shade that is less less luscious and more arid looking. You can probably experiment with whatever editing software you use to see how such a change impacts the image. Polarizers have their greatest effect at 90 degrees from the sun's position (point at the sun and extend the thumb to locate the arc of greatest efect), and the darkening of the sky in the upper left would also be moderated with a lighter touch.

As is, it looks like the horse's eye is closed against the wind, but to show that more clearly you need more of a side view and fill flash would also help. Maybe even get closer with location and context information just visible around the edges -- the mountains, sky and ranch buildings.

So get closer, or further away; lower, or higher; or just make a print and enjoy it as it is. The suggestions are mostly about other pics that might have been tried. The only real problem I see is the yellow building stuck to the back of the horse's left ear. It distracts the eye away the horse.

Another possibility is a tighter crop like this variation:

[F.Gordon]

6. I couldn't get lower

See post above...but I could have gotten higher. But I would have been farther away and there would have been (if still using the wide) a lot of noise/crap in the shot. An option I considered was to jump the fence but this is a working horse and I had thoughts of shotgun pellets flying over my head if someone saw me.

The building behind the ear is distracting. I'll include that on my list of things to do... to "fix" this. Get rid of building. Check.

Thanks for the tip on the polarizer. The color isn't too far off from being "real". This was a cheap filter. I've since bought a b&w thin filter especially designed for wide angle but now it's like using a completely new lens. All kinds of new learning curves. I'm learning that exposure is critical with a good polarizer. Even on the brightest days you can get a night time effect. Biggest mistake I made right off the bat is getting an annoying gradient color in various parts of the shot. Adjusting the exposure and not going by what the camera "says" has been helpful.

Should the entire sky be cropped out? I like what you did but I'm not sure if I like any sky at all in your version.

And yes... there will be a next time. Maybe not this exact same shot. I'll start carrying around carrots with me.

Thanks for jumping in on this thread. I'm still making that "list" to work on this and you've added quite a few more items.

Now if I can just figure out how to do all of these changes. But I'll give it a try......

Edit? It's part of my new persona. It's the new me. It's not like I screw up spelling or grammer or anything like that.

This is great. Very helpful.

[ConsAreLiars]

7. Try this, try that, try something else...

It's one of the challenges of photography that there are almost (well I haven't tested this yet) an infinite range of possibilities in any location, only a few of which are really very good. And the "best" are often physically impossible unless you have unlimited resources or super-human powers. The fact you failed to bring a chainsaw to the location suggests that you might be unsuited for papparazzi style commercial photography, but I think anyone posting here could sell their work if they were willing to do the kind of work selling requires.

The distinctions between good and better are hard to evaluate. I usually find myself taking a picture, then trying something else, then trying again, and then when the slides get back wondering why I spent so much effort for such a disappointing set of variations on an uninspiring theme -- other than the fact that I enjoyed the experience of "being there" and trying.

On comparison, I like your version better than my crop. One of the values of critique discussions is the chance to hear different ideas about what can be tried, and then for each of us to approach the next photo with a larger range of options, selecting from the discusssion whatever seems to resonate best.

[F.Gordon]

8. A "rough".... "try this and that"... before I retire for the eve

I'm not at all happy with the color and contrast on this. And the image has been seriously degraded from saving-changing-saving-changing......My main dig here was to change the composition and include some of the suggestions so far. And I still need to get rid of all the crap behind the ears....I left the building in the crop because I wanted the sense of "where" to still be there.



Something I do.... I will go to the same several places over and over and over again. Will look at what I did the prior and consider things I could do differently the next time.

But.... I enjoy exploring and rarely get a chance to always go back to every place I explore. One of my many faults when "being there" is doing the best I can "while I'm there". I try to use the many "outdoor and indoor studios" I repeatedly visit to hone my skills so when I do get that "one chance only" thing.... I do better at it.

Thanks again. I've always enjoyed your take on photography. If my life could be so fortunate I'd cherish a face to face some day.... would enjoy it greatly.

:hi:

[Touchdown]

13. On image degrading.

Always convert image to a non-degrading one such as PSD or RAW. NEVER leave it as a JPEG. Everytime JPEGs are saved, they re-compress.

Make a copy and do your work on the copy. That way, if you fuck it up, you can start over.

[intheflow]

14. I never knew that about jpegs!

Thanks for the information! :hi:

[intheflow]

11. About taking from a higher angle...

You wrote that you still would have had a lot of noise in the shot. While it's true that teh buildings, trees, whatnot would still be in the background, the background that counts, the horse's backdrop, would have been simplified. Instead of green/hills/cloudy sky/buildings you would have had just the sandy corral behind the horse, which would have outlined the mostly black horse beautifully.

[F.Gordon]

19. Hmmmm

Since I couldn't get lower.... standing where I was... holding the camera higher and shooting down.
:thumbsup:

The things you never think of until later. :-(

[smurfygirl]

9. I would have untied the horse and

kneeled down a bit. So you get more of a head shot....

But, the sky is gorgeous...

[F.Gordon]

17. Free Willy!!!

The horse would have bit me. I know from growin up on farms that some horsies don't "play well with others". Off to the right out of the shot... there were several horsies untied...hanging out, chowing down, and discussing the latest outrage committed by the evil * crime family.

I only got two snaps off because I knew that horsie was not too happy with me being in its face. Started snorting and digging in its back legs. I did consider sticking the lens through the fence (you can see it off to the left) but the lens wouldn't fit.... and if I removed the lens and tried to reattach it on the other side.. my luck.. I would have dropped it. Horsie? "hmmm... Apple!!!!"

Thanks!!
:hi:

[bvar22]

15. Love this thread.

I've picked up useful information that has been easy for a novice to assimilate. Thanks to all.
This type of critic, analysis, and suggestions should be a continuing focus in this forum. There is some real talent, experience, and wisdom here.

I am always open to any and all suggestions that will help me become a better photographer.

[F.Gordon]

20. And check it out...........

Not a scratch on me. I'm not bleeding and my ego hasn't been damaged. And I agree...

"There is some real talent, experience, and wisdom here."

[DS1]

16. wow, that sky is incredible, it's so perfect that part of my doubts its

authenticity - like it was added after the fact.

Anyway, I'd go with the suggestion to crouch just a little bit, get eye-level with the subject. doing so will also get more of that sky in, instead of the ground.

[F.Gordon]

22. The sky looks fake?

The wide angle amplifies the expanse and the polarizer kicks it up a notch or two... but that's Colorado. Go look at the photos RadFemFL took up in Boulder, or some of the photos intheflow took (a page or two back) I've never been outside the 48 but I've never seen a "blue" as nice as the sky in Colorado. I know from my days back in Iowa... even on the best day the sky still had a gray or green cast to it.

I couldn't crouch down. Read up thread. Damn fence was in my way. But appreciate the suggestion.

Thanks for checkin' it out and commenting.

[F.Gordon]

23. Who's next?

I can't thank everyone enough for taking the time to comment and help out this old hack. I learned a shitload. "Shitload", if you didn't know, is a photographic technical phrase. :)

So.... who's next?

[CC]

25. Ah hell I'll jump in.

I like the basic shot, but then I am not a horse person and you do need one of them to comment. They are brutal though and what a photographer would consider good they seem to hate. They look at the horse and what it "should" be doing instead of what it is doing. (Can you tell I have been lectured by a horse person?) "I even like the angle, its different," says the non-horse person. I do know how to ride western, though not the english common here. The yellow building is a distraction. And listen to use fill flash. I have the same block though. Anyway here he is with about 15 minutes of basic photoshop.

I brought out the horse with shadow/highlight, put a very slight lens blur on the background, corrected the distortion and left the beautiful CO sky. (BTW Wyoming gets the blue blue sky too) I also cloned out the yellow building but went with light parts of the trees around the ears. Also cropped it in to the post so that they become a natural frame for the horse. I have to be different, I wish you had gotten all of his feet in. Paintshop most likely has whatever photoshop has though I haven't used paint shop since version 5.

Edited to add, alot of what I did does not show up well small. Specially to the horse. Hmmm how much more detail is in the horse in a full size photo?

[F.Gordon]

26. You're the first person to mention the feet

I think? I was waiting for that comment. From all the comments mentioned here it is obvious that I should have focused more on the horsie.... and at the very least... pointed the camera down slightly. But.... as you can tell I was pointing center at the horsies face. That was the wrong thing to do.

A horse person would know that this is not a riding horse. It is a working horse.

And yet another excellent "fix".
:thumbsup:

It's interesting to see how everyone has taken this on and addressed all the problems with my snap. I'm fairly certain that paintshop can do everything you did. When I have more time to play with it.

The original shows a lot of detail in the face. The eyeballs are very clear. The next time I offer up one of my snaps for a "slap me" thread I will include the original. It'd kill a dialuper but I can add the DU jpg thing that allows you to link a photo instead of actually posting it.

I'm hoping that someone else will walk the hoat coals instead of me. I don't want to be the only one that does this.

[Xithras]

27. Everything I'd have said has already been said by others.

It's a landscape shot that happens to have a horse in the foreground. This has already been addressed by others, and the cropping fixes it beautifully!

As for everything else, the colors are vivid, the focus is good, and the horse is visually interesting (if questionably positioned).

[F.Gordon]

28. Thanks Xithras. Appreciate ya' chiming in

I've taken note of all the technical mistakes I made on this...but I think my biggest mistake was not conveying "the story" in this shot. Which to me was the lonely isolation of the horse.

Think the huge lesson I learned here is that it is one thing to "see a story" and snap a photo....but quite another thing all together to be able to capture "the story" in such a way so others can see it as well.

Again. Thanks.
:hi: