There are a lot of folks on these forums that trash the 18-200. I love mine and use it exclusively. It's nice to see that others agree.
Your images are very nice.
Your images are very nice.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
All over Italy with my D90 + 18-200VR (pics inside)
- Thread starter cutsman
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sure, but bear in mind I am nitpicking a bit. You other photos are excellent and sometimes some photos simply don't work out, which is all right. I myself only print and frame about 1 of 100 photos for sale. Part of the art of photography is not just the eye in discerning what to shoot but also the eye in discerning what to keep or work with.
I initially mentioned the second and third shots but actually meant the third and fourth shots.
Your photos generally have strong compositions with good balance and impact. As an aside I am not big on panoramas either and I am not big on the Colliseum shot but it does what it needs to and that is fine. Anyway...
The third shot is nearly monochromatic yet it isn't black and white. It is a color shot and yet there is little color. It is generally low contrast and muted color so it starts off on a subdued footing. Beyond that, the interest for me is clearly in the tree line at the middle of the photo, yet those trees are so small in scale their interest and impact are diminished. In addition, the strong upper ridge further detracts from the middle ridge which has more interest. Were it to be shot over again, I would suggest getting in tighter on that ridge. I am undecided whether a portrait or landscape orientation would express it best.
The fourth shot has two big issues for me. The first is that while I like high contrast black and white, the image is too high contrast for its subject matter. Deep, detail less inky blacks are fine artistically if the emphasis is the contours and/or lighting, and the image supports it. In this case, the silhouette of the ruins is incomprehensible as ruins unless the detail of the ruins remains, which is almost lost. Otherwise they would be perceived as rock formations which aren't as interesting. Equally, I was unaware the large foreground tree is actually on some sort of walled terrace until I upped the levels to regain some detail. I think that wall is necessary and interesting. Lastly, on the contrast issue, you could possibly get away with the emphasis being the tree silhouettes, though I think the wall/ruins detail is valuable and I'd like to see the tree's foliage detail returned and perhaps the bark of the main tree.
The second issue for me is that the large foreground tree has character and emphasis, and the clouds have good shape/volume/character, and so do the ruins. Together I think there is too much going on and they are competing with one another. Also the ruins and clouds seem to be about detail (or should be) and the tree is about scale, so there are mixed visual messages here. Were the shot to be taken again, I would probably shoot a portrait orientation just barely encompassing the width of the foreground tree, omitting the ruins and clouds (and I'd carefully leave the foliage and wall detail when adjusting the contrast). I'd move in for a separate photo of the ruins and clouds.
Just some thoughts.
All the best,
Jesse Widener
Art and Structure
My thoughts are as follows:
#1, (street) a fairly ordinary street, but it looks much too contrasty and saturated for my taste. unconvinced.
#2, (colosseum) a nice picture of the colosseum but again, I don't think it works. The thing about the colosseum is that it's tall when you're in there, your vantage point and use of panorama make it feel like a plate, rather than a bowl. I also don't like the toning, but I think it's probably difficult to get a nice look to this kind of image.
#3, (cloud and hill) this is my favourite. I really like this photograph, because it is somewhat emotive and visually interesting. It's a photograph that I can gaze into. I also appreciate the subtlety of the colour, and believe it benefits from it.
#4, (tree and ruins) Too sharp and contrasty for me. It's all a bit mental, and the bottom of the frame is a bit cluttered and bitty.
#5, (cup) Mostly Harmless.
#6, (canal) as above. I don't like the overcontrasty shadow-highlight look. A fine attempt.
#7, (shore) I like this one. The colours are really very nice, it doesn't matter that it's 'obvious', it's still lovely and in such circumstances it's always easier to take a bad photo than a good one, you took a good one.
#8, (scooter-door) unmoving. Again, I don't think the high-contrast toning helps
#9, Quite decent and a very enjoyable overall pattern. The red is TOO RED for my taste, but you could hardly help that.
#10, (Pantheon), a truly amazing building. But one that is difficult to do justice to in a photograph. The distortion of the ultra-wide has sort of cancelled out the dome a bit, and made it appear flatter. Did you take any straight up, into the dome?
Overall, a very nice set. I particularly enjoyed the cloudy hill and the cliff/seascape. Apologies if I seem hypercritical above, it is simply my inclination, I would be pleased had I taken your photographs.
#1, (street) a fairly ordinary street, but it looks much too contrasty and saturated for my taste. unconvinced.
#2, (colosseum) a nice picture of the colosseum but again, I don't think it works. The thing about the colosseum is that it's tall when you're in there, your vantage point and use of panorama make it feel like a plate, rather than a bowl. I also don't like the toning, but I think it's probably difficult to get a nice look to this kind of image.
#3, (cloud and hill) this is my favourite. I really like this photograph, because it is somewhat emotive and visually interesting. It's a photograph that I can gaze into. I also appreciate the subtlety of the colour, and believe it benefits from it.
#4, (tree and ruins) Too sharp and contrasty for me. It's all a bit mental, and the bottom of the frame is a bit cluttered and bitty.
#5, (cup) Mostly Harmless.
#6, (canal) as above. I don't like the overcontrasty shadow-highlight look. A fine attempt.
#7, (shore) I like this one. The colours are really very nice, it doesn't matter that it's 'obvious', it's still lovely and in such circumstances it's always easier to take a bad photo than a good one, you took a good one.
#8, (scooter-door) unmoving. Again, I don't think the high-contrast toning helps
#9, Quite decent and a very enjoyable overall pattern. The red is TOO RED for my taste, but you could hardly help that.
#10, (Pantheon), a truly amazing building. But one that is difficult to do justice to in a photograph. The distortion of the ultra-wide has sort of cancelled out the dome a bit, and made it appear flatter. Did you take any straight up, into the dome?
Overall, a very nice set. I particularly enjoyed the cloudy hill and the cliff/seascape. Apologies if I seem hypercritical above, it is simply my inclination, I would be pleased had I taken your photographs.
I just want to add fantastic shots.
You skills and creativity show!
Can't wait until my Europe vacation in 2012, when my 3 kids will be 10/8/6.
Your shots motivate me to get comfortable enough with my camera so it's second hand using and not thinking about the technical issues, just creative ones.
You skills and creativity show!
Can't wait until my Europe vacation in 2012, when my 3 kids will be 10/8/6.
Your shots motivate me to get comfortable enough with my camera so it's second hand using and not thinking about the technical issues, just creative ones.
I have a sudden urge to book a flight and pack my bags and... oh well.. I will just enjoy the photos 
Loved the photo of the small canal in Venice (?), just has this really relaxing stillness to it.
Loved the photo of the small canal in Venice (?), just has this really relaxing stillness to it.