[dvdphile]

My friend at work has asked me to post some of his photos. He'd like some constructive criticism please!

Here's some insect shots:

I'll just do 3 for now but there's more on the Flickr page.

Thanks,
Gary

[Mike.P®]

Not bad at all actually but imo they need a bit more tweeking.
Up the saturation and contrast just a touch.

[jomike]

Some nice shots there. The Nikon 4500 was probably one of the best P&S cameras for macro, and of course, the depth of field is good with the small sensor. 4Mp is a sensible size to keep noise down.
One thing he must watch for is over exposure. The back of the spider is a bit blown and in the first one the grass seeds are losing detail in the highlights.

[ryart]

I'll second everything that jomike says.

I particularly like the second one. The white yucky thing on the white flower really makes me want to look into the shot to see what's going on. Very nice shots and worth looking at, although 1 and 2 have put me off my tea .

[stevegreen]

All good shots but critique wise:

#1/ I would clone out the dark corners top and bottom right and make them fit in more with the rest of the background, best not to have any background distractions at all.

#2/ Unfortunately the insect is a very similar colour to the plant it is perched on, this makes it difficult at first to see exactly what you are looking at. I think the best thing to do would be to selectively darken the background a touch just to add that bit of definition. This is a post processing comment only, not a comment on the photograph itself which is excellent.

#3/ Another good study, unfortunately though the rear leg has been cut off by the framing. I'd probably clone out some of the darker areas of rock too.

Hope that helps.

[ryart]

Originally Posted by stevegreen

#2/ Unfortunately the insect is a very similar colour to the plant it is perched on, this makes it difficult at first to see exactly what you are looking at. I think the best thing to do would be to selectively darken the background a touch just to add that bit of definition. This is a post processing comment only, not a comment on the photograph itself which is excellent.

The thing that attracted me to no.2 was how well camouflaged the insect is and how well the photograph showed this. On first glance I wondered what the picture was about; that it hadn't been post-processed as suggested made me look again and realise how good it is. In general, I sometimes wonder if we sometimes post-process the reality out of the photograph?

[stevegreen]

I know what you mean but as an insect study shot the emphasis really needs to be on the insect without your eye becoming confused by backgrounds.

[ryart]

And that's the valuable thing about this forum - the different perspectives people have on the same picture - neither right, neither wrong.

Mind you, Steve, Your views on cats are quite unacceptable . Oops - apologies for going off topic.

[dvdphile]

My friend Andy who took the shots doesn't belive in post-processing at all!

In fact he never uses photoshop as he likes the pics to be as natural as possible. The impression I get is that he considers such things to be cheating? Is he right though??

Also, what do you mean by cloning please??

Gary