Photo Critique

[Aperture]

Hi. Awhile back I posted here about getting into photography, and was given some great tips. Now that its been a few months, I was hoping for some more critique/C&C on my photos. If you could take a minute to post, it would be appreciated!

My photos are posted at KevinSchaefer.net

New site, by the way.

NOTICE: Please choose "Albums" at the photo page, Portals are all private and are for posting original high res pictures. Flash Player required! (I'm working on a non-flash version for those people still using dial up)


Thanks!!

 

[cookie1105]

Nice pictures and a nice site.

Autoviewer is a great little app, but your pictures drop off of the bottom of the page. You have to scroll down to find the play button. It's not immediately obvious.

My favourite: The water lilly

 

[Aperture]

Nice pictures and a nice site.

Autoviewer is a great little app, but your pictures drop off of the bottom of the page. You have to scroll down to find the play button. It's not immediately obvious.

My favourite: The water lilly

Thanks! Not sure how I can fix AutoViewer, I screen shot it and it I don't have to scroll at all. I tested it on Windows (IE) and I DID have to scroll. I wonder how I can fix this?

Here is a screen shot:

 

[srf4real]

That is a nice website.

 

[cookie1105]

It's not really got anything to do with IE. It's more to do with the screen res of the person viewing. /** I think **/ For example I'm viewing at 1024 x 768 on a 12" ibook. I have to scroll.

In index.html you can play with these percentage values (in red) to make it fit on screen.

<script type="text/javascript">
		var fo = new FlashObject("viewer.swf", "viewer", [COLOR="Red"]"100%", "83%", "8", "#181818"[/COLOR]);		
		fo.addParam("scale", "noscale");
		fo.write("flashcontent");	
</script>

You could also do it in your stylesheet using the #flashcontent tag.

EDIT: Whoops, I went back to have a look and you've sorted it out. Looking good!

 

[Abstract]

It really is a fantastic site, but you'll be a better photographer than website designer if you keep taking photos, I'm sure. I probably shouldn't talk, since I'm not very good myself. I know what i like though.

If you really want to know:

Riverview Park: Photo #1 was ok. Photo #5 was my favourite of the bunch, while Photo #8 is the sort of thing I can imagine myself taking, so I like it as well. It would be better without the shadows though, but oh well.

Squaw Run: Definitely Photo #1 with the waterlily. Not a huge fan of the rest.

Miscellaneous 1: Photo #1 is OK, but Photo #4 is the one that really caught my eye in this section. Even it's weird position in the photo doesn't bother me that much.

Miscellaneous 2: Love the colours in Photo #3. Photo #6 is ok.

 

[iGary]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but most of your images look underexposed to me - little in the way of shadow detail. It's just one of my things, I guess.

I love Simple Viewer, though - great app.

You should probably also have an image on the home page. I opened it up and was lost for a minute.

Web sites are amazing things - it's amazing what they have to do for people not to even think about what they are doing, but if they are impressed with the experience you have something special.

I only have a simple iWeb page with my contact info. Your's is much fancier than mine!

But most of my work is through local contacts, so if they don't like my stuff, eff em'.

Good luck.

 

[maxi]

I also noticed that a bunch of your pics look a bit underexposed. If you are shooting digital that is not necessarily a bad thing, since shadow detail is much easier to save in digital than highlights, moreover, if you overexpose in digital, you are screwed.
In fact some DSLRs (Nikons at least) have a tendency to underexpose.

You can save most of the shadow detail with a bit of PP, both photoshop and Aperture offer a nifty Shadow/Highlight tool that will let you bring them up/down without affecting the rest of the image.

 

[ChrisA]

My photos are posted at KevinSchaefer.net

Thanks!!

Completely non-funtional on my browser. he images to not even display. Can't you stay with just plain old HTML and maybe tables and frames.

 

[iGary]

In fact some DSLRs (Nikons at least) have a tendency to underexposed.

My 1D and my 20D do as well.

But you are definitely right - better to under than over.

 

[peas]

Completely non-funtional on my browser. he images to not even display. Can't you stay with just plain old HTML and maybe tables and frames.

ditto. dead link for me

 

[clintob]

Wow... haha. Tables and frames. The two worst, most outdated and hated items in the world of design, and you asked for both of them at once! Eek!

Flash is a wonderful tool for displaying images and galleries when used correctly. It's 100% compatible with every browser under the sun - you just have to know how to code Actionscript correctly. Hire someone who really knows their stuff, and you can have yourself a beautiful gallery that's easier to update than any third-party software.

Just the two cents of someone who makes their living doing this stuff...

 

[Aperture]

Thank you to everyone who posted! I'll take your tips into consideration about the exposure/etc.

Completely non-funtional on my browser. he images to not even display. Can't you stay with just plain old HTML and maybe tables and frames.

Would you mine telling me what browser you're using and what exact OS it is?

Thanks Again. Kevin

PS: If anyone else has anything, please post!!

Edit: And yes, I am shooting digital. I am using a Canon 300d (Rebel) with an 18-55mm lens. I will probably be getting a new lens sometime soon though.
Edit 2: I'm working on getting away from the horrid tables/frames but at least for a month or so this will do.

 

[Spectrum]

My 1D and my 20D do as well.

But you are definitely right - better to under than over.

Well, this article form luminous landscapes neatly tells you why exposing to the right - to the limit of overexposure IS important. There are just not very many shades left to paint the image if you don't.

 

[Spectrum]

Would you mine telling me what browser you're using and what exact OS it is?

It was horribly slow for me on a G4/1.67 PB 10.4.4 until I turned off airport, and plugged in instead. OK now.

Nice pictures, but as others have said, they are all a bit dark.

 

[tonyeck]

Wow... haha. Tables and frames. The two worst, most outdated and hated items in the world of design, and you asked for both of them at once! Eek!

Flash is a wonderful tool for displaying images and galleries when used correctly. It's 100% compatible with every browser under the sun - you just have to know how to code Actionscript correctly. Hire someone who really knows their stuff, and you can have yourself a beautiful gallery that's easier to update than any third-party software.

Just the two cents of someone who makes their living doing this stuff...

Also do 'this stuff' for a living, and agree, tables and frames are a nightmare for some web design.

With saying that, Some flash sites are so un user friendly its incredible.

But in the right hands, flash is a great tool for 'fancy' gallery stuff.

BTW, clinton, love your site. Thats how flash should be used!

 

[Pistol Pete]

Thanks! Not sure how I can fix AutoViewer, I screen shot it and it I don't have to scroll at all. I tested it on Windows (IE) and I DID have to scroll. I wonder how I can fix this?

Here is a screen shot:

i did not have an issue...the issue is because if you have to scroll down you just have a low monitor resolution. maybe posting smaller images...but i wouldnt.

anyways...for a tip for the water if you didnt already know you can put the camera on a tripod and put up the aperture a few notches and get that cool misty water look...