CRITIQUE: Linda Jeffers

HALVES
1. MEEEEEEEEE
I hope I included the right number of “E’s” in the title!
This is a cute photo of you, Linda, and it was a good
idea for this assignment. And just as an aside — isn’t it
weird when we examine a photograph of ourselves? If
we stare long enough it’s almost as though the
photograph is of a stranger and you begin wondering
about this other person . . . Nah, probably just me . . .
Anyway, I like this photo. I also like how you post processed
it. The black and white treatment is
appropriate and it’s flattering. You’ve also softened the
image, which again is appropriate. And it looks as
though you may have overexposed the shot somewhat,
which is ALSO appropriate. The little I know about
people photography, I know that the black and white
treatment removes some of the distractions that color
can create. And the softening aspect draws our attention
to the eyes, which are the most important part of a
portrait. And slightly overexposing a black and white photograph often removes a lot of the
deeper lines in our faces.
Please note: I am not saying that you are an overly tan wrinkled old hag and my, what a good
job you did disguising it! No, no! I’m saying that we digital photographers have the skill and
tools to become self-portraitists, and we can do exactly what a professional portrait
photographer might do. We can soften lines or we can emphasize lines. We can max out on
color or we can be more subtle. We can selectively soften an image, making the eyes leap out in
sharp focus.
Your lighting is such that the background really blends, providing just enough shadowing and
texture to be interesting, yet being soft enough so that your face really stands out against it,
especially the strands of your hair and the peach fuzz on your cheeks. (It’s said that Marilyn
Monroe had this same soft fuzz in her face, which gave her a naturally luminous glow.)
Your glasses blend in well, don’t they? We know they’re there, but they don’t interfere with our
connecting with
you via your eye.
Good shot,
Linda. You look
cute.

2. HALF DISTORTION
Beautiful. What makes this shot (to me) is (1) the bit of
yellow in the reflection and the sharpness of the base.
You filled your frame with 2/3 glass and 1/3 background,
which works great and ties in with the overall Rule of
Thirds in composition.
Your background is completely out of focus but has
strong bits of color in it, making your glass stand out well
against it, but without overpowering the image. Your
glass is darker than the background, which makes it stand
out even more.
My eye goes first to the lower left, focusing on the
yellow. Then it sees the yellow in the reflection, and so
my eye works upward. It then begins looking for
something in focus, and it finds the base of the glass/
vase.
This is important:
Did you notice that my eye concentrated just on the
bottom of your photograph? The yellow, up to the yellow,
then down to the base? Maybe THAT’S where your
picture is. Maybe if you turned this photo into a square, it
would be jam-packed with good stuff, without any
extraneous empty dark stuff on top. Let’s take a look. (Carol Leigh posted a square version here on my critique cutting off the upper third of the vase.)
Hmmmm . . . I think I like this version a lot better. I think
we see all of the interesting things at once — yellow/
yellow/base. What do you think? Less is more?

I’m sorry, I just
had to do this.
Here’s how
you’d look as
Yoko Ono! Ha!
This looks
NOTHING like
you! (I couldn’t copy the photo Carol that appeared here to explain this last comment. In the critique she posted a full face photo she’d created of me, by somehow flipping or reversing my face to seamlessly post a full faced photo.)

3. TV SHOT
Very interesting. I’m glad you added descriptive info
— TV and poster edges — that helps me out a lot.
I’m not sure about this photograph, but I’m finding it
intriguing. Let me just sort of ramble on and maybe
something will come of it.
First of all, my initial impression was Obama/
Kennedy. I shan’t go into politics, but my thinking
was, “Oh, give me a break!” The important thing
about this little thought bubble is “teeth.” My eye
went first and foremost to the teeth and to the guy on
the left rather than the guy on the right, who is much
darker. So to me, you’re emphasizing the person on
the left. But what’s tying the two together is the bright
white of Obama’s shirt. So I go from teeth to shirt and
then up to Obama’s eye. All I’m trying to do right now is point out the movement in your photo
and how our eye goes from point to point and why.
I truly like what you did here. It’s fresh and different. And the poster edges filter in Photoshop?
I think it worked great! You took what was (I’m assuming) a relatively grainy photograph of a
television image. So your photo is not only of halves, but of grain. How can you enhance the
concept of grain? Poster edges does it beautifully. Ink outline sometimes is a good filter for this
sort of thing, too. And the black and white treatment? Again, it works for a TV image — a sort
of retro TV feeling.
Photoshop filters can look gimmicky and obvious, but they can also enhance a concept that’s
already in place. When we use filters for a reason, not just because we can, we add our own
artistic touch and vision to an image. As you did here.
I think you did a great job with this picture. It made me stop, look, and think. Congratulations.
Carol Leigh
August 10, 2009

It’s me back………I’m so sad Carol is no longer going to offer these online classes. Here is a link to her blog where I’m sure other learning possibilites will be offered under her web pages section.

Share/Bookmark

These are the photos from the first of six assignments. This assignment is “Blue”.
Carol Leigh is my teacher. Unfortunately she will no longer be offering these online photo classes I’ve been taking since January 2008.

Carol will be offering workshops and teaching where she no longer has to sit long hours at the computer typing. Check out her daily blog where you’ll also find her other web sites.

CRITIQUE: Linda Jeffers
BLUE

1 BIG BLUE TRUCK

The first impression I get from your
picture, Linda, is ZOOM! Why? Because
of all the diagonal lines you’ve got going
on. The white line on the highway, the
angle of the truck, and the electric lines
above the truck combine to create a
strong feeling of movement. In addition,
your truck is big, and it begins close to us
there on the right and then diagonates
boldly inward, giving your picture depth
as well as movement.
Just as an aside, for future reference:
Look at how the diagonal line of the truck creates three (three!)
triangles. You’ve got a triangle in the sky, a triangle in the shape
of the truck, and a third triangle in the road lower left. We’ve
got a lesson coming up in triangles and once again you’re ahead
of the pack!
I like your blue colors — the darker blue of the truck and the
blue of the sky. More than two-thirds of your photo consists of
blue. What makes the blue look even better are the little bits of
red along the length of the truck as well as at the back end. Blue and red are primary colors and
work very well together to create impact and boldness.
You chopped off part of the back end of the truck. Usually I point that out as being a
compositional no-no, but in this case it works. Instead of us wondering what’s become of part of
the truck, wondering why it’s been amputated, the gist of your photo is “forward movement,”
and so we get the feeling of the truck entering the frame. We also get a feeling of movement.
Those two concepts make us feel more comfortable with having part of the truck lopped off —
it hasn’t finished entering the frame. We don’t necessarily expect to see all of it.
There’s a certain softness and glow to this picture that I’m not sure works. I sometimes will use
the Orton Effect in Photoshop to tweak a picture. That involves applying a heavy Gaussian Blur
to a duplicate layer in Photoshop and then choosing a
blending mode of Overlay or Soft Light. I tend to use the
effect for photos that have a feeling of nostalgia to them or
on flowers or sometimes on nighttime scenes. I use it to
create a sort of ethereal blur or glow. I wouldn’t think of
using it on a truck. Why? Because trucks are hard, gritty,
tough, dirty, metal, MANLY things! That’s why we see so
many subjects like this done in HDR — high dynamic range
— that emphasizes dirt and texture.
I’m rambling. What’s my point? I’m thinking that if you added a glow or something similar to
this shot, maybe it wasn’t quite appropriate. And if you did NOT do anything to this shot in
post-processing, then what the heck do I know! Disregard everything I just said!
Bottom line? This is a strong, bold image that conveys the color blue and the concept of motion
very well.

You indicated that your husband named this picture. Ahem.
Well. The first thing I’d do is rotate the image 90 degrees to
the left. Look at what you have now! Instead of a mildly
pornographic image, we’ve got a southwestern, Monument
Valley-ish mildly pornographic image!
What I like about your shot is the combination of dusty
terracotta colors and dusty blue and grey colors. There’s a
definite southwestern feel to it. And then when you add the
strong vertical element and the shadows and the mesa-like
shape behind it, to me the composition screams to be a
horizontal rather than a vertical. But why?
I believe our brains are programmed to try to make sense
of what we’re seeing. We look at your strong vertical
segments in the photo and wonder what this is. The picture
is so abstract that we’re confused. And so our (my)
inclination is to wonder if maybe it’s hung on
the wall wrong! Maybe this is a landscape. I
mentally tweak it, then physically tweak it,
and aha! There we are.
Your composition, whether vertical or
horizontal, is strong in that there are welldefined
shapes and colors and look at where
you placed the focal point — perfectly in line

with the Rule of Thirds, which encourages us to
put the center of interest NOT in the center but
rather up or down or right or left as you can see
here.
I like your shot a lot. It might be too spare and
sparse and plain for some people, but I’m drawn to
it — definitely more as a horizontal, however, than
as a vertical. As a horizontal it all makes sense to
me. As a vertical, well, go discuss it with your
husband!

Hmmmmm . . . It’s quite coincidental that you
would take this shot because I’m putting together
a lesson for my photomotivation series called
“Art From Art” and was trying to create a little
piece of art from an overall mural on Thursday. I
wasn’t successful. You did better with this
picture than I did with my mural.
I really like this color combination of blues and
oranges (which are complementary colors) as
well as the texture. What’s not working for me is
that I’m not seeing a focal point, a particular spot
of interest, something to tell me what I’m supposed to be seeing first.
So okay, there’s no focal point. Sometimes we don’t need one. In which case, we need some
strong lines or some strong shapes to lead our eye around. And I’m not seeing them here.
If you were to tell me this is a shot of a galaxy in outer space, I’d be impressed because those
shots are hard to take and who would imagine a galaxy could look like this? You could get
away with not having a focal point nor a strong design. But as a photograph or a painting, I
think a center of interest or some direction is necessary for the image to be interesting, to hold
our attention for an extended amount of time.
Overall? You did a good job. You were out there looking for blue, exercising your vision, using
your camera, practicing, practicing, practicing. That’s what this is all about. Some photos will
work, some won’t. And it will be this way the rest of your photographic life. Will you ever
arrive? Nope. In the words of Gertrude Stein (in reference to Oakland, California), “There’s no
there, there.” It’s just one long destination-less journey.
Carol Leigh
July 11, 2009

Share/Bookmark

This is an email I sent to my teacher Carol and the online photo group after I’d uploaded photos and was in a que for critiques:
Hi Carol Leigh,

I’ve been thinking (which is always a problem). I uploaded two “old” photos and submitted them for this motion assignment. I didn’t have or make the time time to shoot for this motion assignment and the few tries to shoot for motion generated nothing.

Why I’m writing you is to let you know you don’t have to give me a critique on motion. I don’t want to put you in the awkward position like I did on the previous assignment when I just uploaded “something”. When I shot the photos I placed in the motion folder I wasn’t even shooting for motion.

Believe it or not, on the previous spiral assignment, I spent lots of time on this assignment with many different subjects. I just didn’t come up with anything I liked. However, I did learn a lot from the time I spent on the spiral failed shots. Really a lot.

For this motion assignment however, I hadn’t had the time. Hence I learned nothing. I feel really bad and WILL on my own, when I have a bit more time, go out and shoot some motion just so I get the awareness and experience I have gotten from all the shooting I’ve done for the previous assignments.

So, you don’t have to critique the photos in my motion folder.

Phew. I have to tell you, I really checked my motives before writing this email. I’m clear my motive is clean and unselfish. I really don’t want you to struggle with photos that I didn’t even shoot for this assignment.

Thanks to you and everyone. I love you and your classes and I’ll be back when I have more time.

Love and gratitude,

Linda Jeffers

And here is the critique Carol sent me:

SALTON SEA 1
Hmmmm . . . What I like about your
photo are the warm sunset-like colors
and the strong layered elements.
You’ve got a slash of orange sky.
Then some dark and darker horizontal
slashes of mountains and shoreline,
and then a large slash of more sunsetlike
colors in the water. The pelican
stands out strongly against the water.
What’s neat is that it’s not a
completely black silhouette — we can
see that this is a white pelican, and
the black and white markings on the
wings are very visible.
All the layers create movement in
your picture as our eye hops down
(and up) from the sky to the pelican
and from the pelican to the sky.
There are a couple of things bugging me, however. The first thing is that the background slants
way over toward the left. I know this is the Salton Sea and I know how the area does slant, but
in a photograph that slantitude becomes a distraction and makes the picture looks like it was
taken carelessly. With a level horizon line your photo would look a lot better.
The second thing is that the overall look — which might be a post-processing watercolor effect
— is really choppy and pixelated. I get the feeling that not only has the photograph been
cropped way down, causing the look to deteriorate, but that the deteriorated look has been
enhanced by whatever filter or effect was applied to the shot. Look, too, in the upper right
section of the frame where there are some darkish elements against the greyer mountains. We’re
not sure what those are and so they become distractions.
We walk a fine line when we crop like crazy and when we choose different painterly or
specialized effects for our pictures. Just as you think to yourself before you click the shutter –
what attracted me to this? — you need to ask yourself why you’re using a certain painterly effect.
Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should, etc.

SALTON SEA 2
I like your concept. You
created a stark and bold and
simple image with a slice of
black at the bottom, grey
sand up top, and a black
slice of a gull in between.
Your picture is very
monochromatic (shades of
black and grey) and there’s
no question what you want
us to see first, where you
want us to look. Well done.
You know what’s
interesting? If you stare at the gull, sometimes he looks like he’s flying away from us and other
times he looks like he’s flying right toward us! How M.C. Escher-esque!
The only thing I’m finding disturbing is how coarse the bird’s silhouette (or shadow) looks
against the grey background. The picture looks like it’s a tiny little slice cropped out of a much
larger photograph, and it’s beginning to fall apart as a result.
Sometimes that can work for us, where we can turn a shot that’s perhaps already soft and grainy
into something that’s REALLY soft and grainy. Architectural detail is especially good for this
type of treatment, where maybe you’ve shot the side of a building that has a gargoyle on it. You
then crop away the entire building, leaving just the gargoyle. When you blow up that gargoyle,
it’s going to look soft, grainy (noisy), and maybe very cool! It can easily be very awful,
however. It all depends on what we’re looking for.
So what about this gull? If it’s a shadow, it seems a bit too dark and too choppy around the
edges. If it’s a silhouette, it looks too choppy around the edges, especially on the left wingtip.
I like that you’re experimenting with a lot of different looks. By playing around with this stuff,
by not being afraid to experiment, you eventually learn what works, what doesn’t, and why. I
recommend you keep experimenting. Lack of fear will help you eventually find your own
unique photographic voice.
Carol Leigh
April 3, 2009

This is the email I sent to the Group and Carol after reading Carol’s critique:

Thanks Carol Leigh for my Motion critique and the encouragement to explore. I don’t really have a clue what my photographic voice is. I do know I love the excitement and drive that leads me to want to learn more and more. Thanks for being so sensitive and making this class such a safe environment to learn.

It’s hard for me to say good things about myself but I do know I am learning and know I will continue learning forever and ever. I like that I no longer let the fear of what others will think stop me from even trying. That is exciting in itself. For years I wanted to take photography classes. For years, I used one excuse after another and never took any classes.

Then I met Carol Davis. Carol Davis sent me note cards while I was away hiking a long hike. Her note cards were made containing pictures of some of her online class photos. I was impressed. Later, I’d see Carol Davis regularly at meetings we both attend and she’d share her excitement over taking more of Carol Leigh’s online photography classes. Hmmmm. I began to think that maybe I too could do an online photo class. That seemed easier and safer than actually being in a classroom with other photography students.

I signed up. Was scared to death until your first critique Carol.

The rest is history. I’ve taken about 3 online classes and two workshops in the last year and a half. I’m hooked and only wish I had more time to continue taking every class you offer Carol Leigh. Thank you for knowing how to be with each and every one of us. You certainly know how to be with me. I feel safe and I learn so much.

Linda Jeffers

Lesson #1 learned – I don’t need to beat someone up when they’ve messed up. They know they messed up and have already beat themselves up worse than I ever could.
Lesson #2 learned – Make sure I have enough time before taking something on I really care about.

Oh, so many old feelings came up from long ago during the last two class assignments when I didn’t have the time and just submitted anything.

Share/Bookmark

CRITIQUE: Linda Jeffers
SPIRALS
STRAW MAT

Hmmmm . . . I’m thinking that
maybe you were a bit rushed
when photographing this, or your
head wasn’t quite into it. This isn’t
up to your usual standards, is it?
I’m not being snotty nor
condescending, but, knowing you
and how you work and what your
skill level is, this just isn’t “you.”
So shall I rip this photograph to
shreds? Yeah, why not!
First of all, let’s look at the
composition. The focal point is
the dark center of the mat. Why? Because it’s big and it’s contrasty. The dark center against the
much lighter-colored coils really stands out and catches our eye. Where does our eye go from
there, however? My eye went up to the light spot at the very top of the frame. There wasn’t
much to see there, so I began looking again at the center of the coil. It’s hard to see inside that
coil because it’s so dark, so I follow the repeating coils around to the lower right corner, where I
can see more of the mat, but not really because it’s also dark there.
My point is that the focal point is weak, there’s a competing focal point, and I’m not sure where
else to go in the scene. You’re not alone, however, in doing this. I create a lot of photos that go
absolutely nowhere. I just don’t show ‘em to anyone. (Ha. Or maybe I DO and I just don’t
realize how bad they are!)
Your concept, Linda, was great. Roll up a straw mat and photograph the end
of it. What did you in was contrasty lighting in the very center, which ruined
your focal point. Toss this one out. (Or, you could do what I used to do when
shooting slides — I’d save the bad ones and call them “teaching slides,” what
NOT to do!)

CANDLELIT CANDLEHOLDER
Your subject has strong, bold lines to it. Your lighting is rather dramatic.
Your background is a rich red. Your
exposure is good and so is your focus. You
did everything right. You shot this well. So
why isn’t it a super wow sort of photo?
I think it’s because once we see and
appreciate the strong form and the color, we
don’t know where else to go. There’s not a
strong focal point where we would begin and
end our visual journey around the picture.
There IS immediate impact when we first see
your shot, no question. We notice all three
highlights on the metal. We appreciate the
spiral form. But there’s nothing else to keep
us hanging around. We take in the photo in
one glance and then we decide to move on.
This is a good depiction of what happens to
all of us sometimes. We see something
interesting, that has a strong shape, has color,
and we create a technically wonderful
photograph of it. But overall it lacks oomph
and substance. Remember your broom
photo? That had substance to it. Your cement
fish? Major movement and swoopiness (and
that was a monochromatic shot).
As an exercise, your photograph of the candlestick is wonderful. As a photo with staying
power, nope, doesn’t work. But that is OKAY. We’re here to try out different things, to exercise
our seeing capabilities, and to just become better photographers. No pressure. No competition.
So thank you for posting both of these. Now go delete them!
Carol Leigh
March 23, 2009

Here is the email I wrote back to Carol and the Class Group members (We all see each other’s critiques.):

Well Carol, my father used to say, “When you are right, you are right.” I do take direction. The photos have been dumped in the trash, permanently.

Next.

Sure glad I didn’t have to critique my photos. That must have been tough? What a job you have. I applaud you.

Linda

Carol was correct. I had not had time to shoot for the class this last month. No excuse, just the facts.

Share/Bookmark

CRITIQUE: Linda Jeffers
Photo assignment: GARAGE ART

1. Aaaaaaaa!
Ha! Why do we think this is funny? Because
we’re so stupid that we need a warning label
that we might fall off a ladder?
I’m quite impressed with your photo. For
starters, our eye immediately goes to the bright
white label on the left. We then follow the
guy’s ladder up to the word “DANGER” and
then (and this is so cool) our eye notices the
three bolts in the upper right. The movement in
your photo goes from the warning label, up to
the bolts, then down, across the aluminum step,
back to the label again. Our “ride” is a big
triangle. Ta da!
The other thing I’m impressed with is your
choice of depth of field. You selected an
aperture that would put the top part of the label
in focus, yet still enable us to read the bottom
of the label. Your depth of field is relatively
shallow, but it is such that the top part of the
label is sharp. The rest of the photo is blurred,
but that’s okay because we know what we’re
looking at.
Most importantly, you created a solid, very obvious focal point — the label.
By throwing everything else out of focus except the top part of the label,
you concentrate all of our attention on the sharp part, just what you wanted.
How have you gotten so clever with photography in such a short time?
You have gone from snapshots to photographs in what, less than a year or
so? Amazing. You’re scary.

2. BENDING BRISTLES
Oh, baby! This is so very cool.
We could almost be looking at a
waterfall here. Once again you’ve
used selective focus/shallow
depth of field to focus our
attention right where you want it
— where the bristles leave the
brush.
The only part of your photo that’s
sharp (at first glance) is that little
triangular bit of space in the
upper left. So naturally, that’s
where our eye goes. Once there,
we follow the gently bending repeating patterns of the bristles. They
take us diagonally through your picture, and then we have a triangular
bit of red bristles in the lower right. And those bristles look relatively
sharp! They therefore echo the triangle you created upper left. Wow.
Okay, so here’s my question. If you’re working with a relatively wideopen
aperture for very little depth of field, very little in focus from front
to back, how did you keep the red bristles sharp? We would expect the
top left part to be sharp. Everything goes soft as we leave that part of the
shot. Until we hit the red triangle lower right. That, too, should be out of
focus. But nope, it’s sharp.
I’m thinking that we could do this by taking two exposures — one where
the top left is sharp, another where the bottom right is sharp. Then we combine them in
Photoshop and blend them so that just the sharp red bristles down below come through.
Enquiring minds want to know, so give it up, Linda! Let us know how you did this!

Carol Leigh http://www.photoexplorations.com/
March 4, 2009

My response to Carol on my critique:

Thank you for my critique Carol, your compliment about moving from taking snapshots to photographs in a year means the world to me. Yeahhhhhh! Ah oh, pressure is on.
The Aaaaaaah photo.
I actually spent lots of time and took about a hundred different shots of each of the two photos I submitted. Nothing looked right, nothing felt right. I didn’t like the ladder and the background. I used late afternoon light, before the sun went down behind the San Jacinto mountains. I was in my front patio. I put on a 100mm macro lens and found I could eliminate the ugly background. I just kept trying to frame the ladder this way and that hoping I could find a way to make the ladder look like some form of art. I knew I wanted only 3 of the 5 bolts in the upper right hand corner and I knew I wanted the white ladder “danger” sign as the main focal point. I selected this photo as it was the best of the many, not knowing whether you would like it or not. What I did know was that I had learned a lot from spending that much time taking and viewing so many photos.
The Bending bristles photo.
Again, I used the 100 mm macro lens. The propped up broom in the front patio looked stupid. So I kept shooting… trying this and that angle and settled on a wide open shutter on a small portion of the broom where the bristles exited. I liked the tight waterfall look and I liked the triangles when I reviewed the photos on the LCD. But trying to get the focus looking ok because the focus was so shallow generated many more clicks of the shutter. You asked if I did anything tricky in Photoshop. Nope. I don’t even know how to take 2 photos and put them together? I still don’t know how to take a good moon shot, cut it and paste it in another photo to replace a blown out moon. I believe the focal plane was the same distance away on the top left and bottom right red bristles and that’s why they are both in focus.
Linda

Share/Bookmark

I haven’t had the time to shoot for my photo. It shows. I also found this subject matter difficult. And, I’m feeling stretched to move beyond the way I’ve always seen and photographed things but don’t really know how to do it different yet. I’m encouraged though, because I continue to learn from trying to shoot for the essential image. I may not see “it” yet, may not be able to create art with my camera, but I feel enthusiastic about not wanting to shoot the way I have my entire life.

Here is my teacher’s critique of the 3 photos I submitted for critique.

CRITIQUE: Linda Jeffers
FISH Assignment

1. FEEDING FRENZY

Aha! The second koi photograph
that’s come up for critique. As I
mentioned in Carol Zulman’s
critique, these guys are deceptively
tough to shoot. Lighting is usually not
the best (either too harsh or too dim),
focusing is difficult because
sometimes the fish are above the
water, sometimes just under the
water, sometimes both, and they’re
constantly in motion, making
composition extremely frustrating.
So why do we insist on
photographing these guys? Because
they’re gorgeous. Their colors are striking, their shapes are compelling, and because we can get
relatively close to them. (No 600mm lens necessary to shoot these creatures.)
What I like about your photo is how the orange colors stand out against the black/dark grey
background of water. The dark water sets off the colors extraordinarily well. I also like the sort
of plasticky look that the water’s surface has, making it look rather smooth, where the details
are softened somewhat. And that one fish on the far right with its mouth out of the water? That’s
your focal point, that’s the main subject.
Here’s where it all went awry . . . There are two very light-colored fish in the picture, and that’s
where our eye goes first. Why? That’s the most contrasty part of the picture. But those fish
aren’t really in focus, so our eye travels around, looking for something to “land” on. The fish on
the far right is the fish that’s most in focus, the fish that we can see most clearly, the fish that
has the most face visible. So we look there. But even that guy isn’t truly sharp, so now we’re
lost. We don’t know where else to go.
As I mentioned in the previous critique, this is a situation where you either had to make sure
there was a lot in focus OR you needed to throw everything OUT of focus to create a softly
moving colorful pattern throughout. So let’s move on to . . .

2 STACY’S KOI
This one’s a lot better, Linda. Again,
your colors are spectacular. The
lighting is pretty good. And your
focus is much better than in the
previous shot. I also like how the fish
is curving into the frame, creating a
northeast-southwest sort of
movement. The additional orange fish
below the surface add more interest,
more pattern, and even more color to
your photo.
What about the piece of fish food?
What about the two green leaves on either side of the frame? Do they add to the picture?
The answer is that it all depends on what the photo is being used for. If you were illustrating an
article about backyard fish ponds, this would be an excellent photograph to use. If you were
creating a “fine art” shot, then I’d say yes, the fish food and the leaves are terrible distractions,
as is the glare off the water’s surface on the right side.
To me, your photo is all about color and curve. Your colors are orange, black, and golden
yellow. To have green leaves and light beige enter the scene takes away from what I consider
the concept of your picture.
Just a thought: If you were a watercolor artist or an oil painter, would you have put those two
green leaves in there? Would you have included the piece of fish food? Something for ALL of
us photographers to think about.

3 FISHTAIL

What you did here is really
interesting and dramatic. You’ve
created an image that almost looks
like a charcoal sketch, a cement piece
of garden art, or an image that’s been
simplified and then had the edges
tweaked somewhat so that they stand
out.
Your composition is completely
“wrong” in that you chopped off part
of the fish’s face and part of its tail.
But it works despite that. If you’d had
the entire tail and half a face, or if you’d had the entire face and just part of a tail, the picture
would have looked clumsy and amateurish and carelessly made. But by having just part of the
face and just part of the tail, it looks like more of an artistic statement rather than an accident.

There’s a lot of movement in your
photo in that my eye starts with the
eye of the fish. You placed the eye
down toward the lower left, sort of
in accordance with the Rule of
Thirds. From the eye, the gill lines
and the scales lead me back into
your photo where the tail takes
over. I then gleefully ride the lines
of the tail over toward the right side
of your picture. I’m then led back,
along those same tail “lines,” to the
dorsal fin and then I come back to
the fish’s eye. Yahoo! Fun ride.
I really like your photo. And part of why I like it is the surprise
of seeing what’s probably a very colorful fish reduced to
shades of grey. Without seductive color blinding our senses,
the strong lines you put into the shot really stand out and create
visual drama. Well done. (I enjoyed seeing your two fishy
friends, too! Thanks for posting that one.)
Carol Leigh
February 25, 2009

p.s. The two fishy friends I included as a bonus for the teacher, was a photo I took of Sandi and Stacy with their lips puckered like fish trying to help me with my photo assignment.

My fourth photo assignment is Garage Art! I’m not thrilled with this assignment either.

I will be out of town until Sunday night. I’ll try to post something (I’m bringing my camera and computer with me), but can’t guarantee it.

Share/Bookmark

1
CRITIQUE: Linda Jeffers
STRAIGHT LINES
MISSION CREEK PRESERVE BUILDING

The first thing that hits me is a set of three strong
vertical elements. You’ve got (as did Jill
Margeson, I believe it was, in a previous critique)
three strong stripes running vertically in your
photograph. Tying these stripes together are the
bold horizontal lines. What does this give us?
Vertical movement in the three stripes, and
horizontal movement via the black stripes. Lots of
movement, and I think movement is good.
The bold stripes against a relatively unobtrusive
background really stand out, and as a result you’ve
created a strong repeating pattern up and down and
across your photograph. There’s a thick black
vertical stripe toward the left side of your shot, and
I think you placed it well, pretty much in
accordance with the Rule of Thirds (see Rule of
Thirds grid superimposed on your photo below).
That thick vertical element divides your photo into
one-third left and two-thirds right. It’s where we
begin and end our photo journey around your picture.
What about the rough stucco on the far right? Does it create interest because it’s not smooth, or
is it a distraction because it’s so rough and unlike the rest of the scene? I don’t know. There’s a
part of me that likes it and another part of me that doesn’t. What I do
like, however, is that triangle of blue sky in the upper right of your
photo. That vivid patch of color really livens up your otherwise
monochromatic composition.
As with Tom Kidd’s bridge photo, the bright sunlight that you were
shooting in is what makes your photo. Bright sunlight can create
incredibly bold and strong shadows that become integral parts of a
composition, and it all works beautifully for you here. Good shot!
2
FILTER-ENHANCED WIND
TURBINES

Here’s where it gets tricky (for
me, not for you). Up until the
previous online class, I
specifically said I didn’t want
radical Photoshop-like effects
applied to photos. My reasoning
was that I didn’t know enough
about Photoshop to fairly critique
them and that those who were
NOT using Photoshop were at a
slight disadvantage. My main
reason, however, was that it’s
really tough for me to critique an
image where I can’t tell if something is or isn’t in focus or how depth of field affects the shot, or
if a polarizing filter was perhaps overused, etc.
All that changed in the previous online class. Why? Because I’m now more familiar with
Photoshop and am using it a lot, and because I know people were using it anyway, albeit in a
subtle manner. Am I qualified to teach Photoshop? Heck no. I don’t even know how to “select”
something using it. Photoshop is here to stay and I am very happy about it. I love it! It’s enabled
me to create photomontages that feed my artistic soul.
The main thing I need to keep in my head is a phrase I’ve used forever: “Just because you can,
doesn’t mean you should.” And my usual stupid example is, “Just because you can make a daisy
look like it’s encased in plastic doesn’t mean you should!”
So what do we have with your photograph? Is it a case of “just because you could?”
What I love about your effect is how the colors are so very soft and subdued, almost like a
Chinese ink painting. What you did was break the wind turbines down into sort of an ink sketch
that outlines all the strong elements and thus creates an interesting pattern across your photo.
The hills in the distance are gorgeous, with a grainy, soft “wash” of color going across. And yet
here and there is a touch of brilliant red or a bit of cyan.
When we use various effects in Photoshop or different plug-ins, I think it helps if we know
WHY we’re using them. What is it we want our photo to convey and does this or that special
effect or filter help get our message across, or does the special effect become the subject? It’s
sort of like putting a really fancy triple mat and ornate frame around a photograph. If people
comment, “Great mat! Love the frame!” you know you’ve lost the message in the photo.
In this case, do we lose the message of “wind turbines marching across hillsides” because we’re
entranced with the pen-and-ink-like special effect? Perhaps.
This effect is sublime. It’s soft and delicate and almost Asian in appearance. Is it appropriate to the subject matter? I’m thinking that maybe it isn’t. It
might be more appropriate (especially given where
you live) for an early morning photo of the
mountains in the distance with a large palm tree or
trees in the immediate foreground. That would give
you a wash of serenity in the background with an
outlined bold form in the foreground.
In the case of these wind turbines, I think the
watercolor wash-like effect, especially in the middle
over toward the left, is blocking things up and
creating smudges rather than outlines, almost negating the fact that there are hundreds of these
things spread out in front of us.
What am I trying to say? I love the effect. (And I would really like you to post something after
this critique regarding what this filter or plug-in is and what it does and how can others in the
class obtain it.) I think it’s an effect that has a definite place in our artistic arsenal, but is this the
appropriate photograph in which to apply it? I don’t think so. But oh, I’m loving what it did to
the mountains!
Let me know what you think, Linda. This is cool stuff. Do you feel I’m off regarding using it on
this particular shot? And if so, let me know. I, too, am in a learning mode when it comes to
using/not using various filters and plug-ins and pieces of software. Thanks.
3
BLACK AND WHITE WIND
TURBINETTES

“Turbinettes.” Love it! What’s
really neat about your photo is
how you (I’m guessing) used a
very long telephoto lens and shot
down the row of wind turbines
and, because of the long lens,
created a shot that makes the
turbines look as though they’re
really packed in tightly together.
This is one super use of a long
telephoto lens, and we see the
same effect sometimes, when
people shoot down a busy street,
such as in Chinatown in Los
Angeles or The Strip in Las Vegas. Long lenses tend to compress distance, making it look like
the subjects in our frame are really jammed in there. Your using a long lens here makes a lot of
sense and I like the look.
The other thing I like is how that one wind turbine’s blades are at right angles to everyone else,
spinning to a rhythm heard only by him. That one “rogue turbine” catches my eye and my heart.

The wires running across the bottom of the frame are, to
me, really distracting, however, and take my attention
completely away from the clean line of turbines. Having
lived in Palm Springs, I know the challenges you faced
when photographing these things. It’s hard to get a really
clear shot from the limited vantage points you have.
The hills in the background are great. I like how the
turbines stand out against them, and I like the two
shades of grey you have there.
Does the black and white effect work or not? The “look”
that the picture has is a sort of flat, old-fashioned look.
It’s kind of grainy and kind of muddy. If you wanted an
old-fashioned look to perhaps set off a more modernday
energy solution (well, it’s not a new idea at all, but
I’m not going to go there), then the processing worked.
But I’m not sure that it’s the most effective way of
presenting the turbines.
So what do I suggest? Well, to minimize the power lines
in the immediate foreground, you COULD turn the shot
into a vertical.
That way instead of having a really wide
swath of power lines, it would be a short set of lines.
Going for a vertical, too, would get rid of the black pole
and the lighter-colored pole immediately to the left. It
looks like there’s part of a fence pole down at the bottom
middle of the picture, which (at least for me) would be
hard to clone out. And, personally, I’d like to see a
photograph with more depth and sparkle, more solid
blacks and bright whites, which would catch my eye and
hold it longer.
So, do I think that this photo works? Not really. But I do think that you’re on the right track and
that if you can find a similar set of tubinettes with a better foreground, then please continue
along this same vein.
You’ve jumped into photography and Photoshop with all four feet, Linda, and I know you’re in
a huge learning curve and are trying out all sorts of things — not only becoming more familiar
with your camera, but with all the post-processing possibilities. You don’t do things in a small
way, and I commend you for your intensity and your ambition. Major kudos to you, madam.

Carol Leigh
February 9, 2009

Original
photo up top.
Second photo
has more
contrast.
Third photo
cropped to
make it a
vertical
format.

How do I feel about my critique? I’m still sorting out my thoughts. I really love the Turbinettes photo the way I shot it. But I will respond to my teacher once I have the time to think about the shot more and why I post processed it as I did.

Share/Bookmark

CRITIQUE: Linda Jeffers
SYMMETRY

DIFFICULT RED

Not sure why you named this
“difficult,” Linda. If it was difficult,
you certainly did a good job with it.
Let me tell you everything you did
right . . .
Your primary challenge was depth of
field. I’m not sure how “deep” this
flower goes. It looks like a melaleuca
blossom, and sometimes they’re long
like a bottlebrush or they’re more
rounded but shallower. So your
decision was, how much do you want
in focus? Do you want just the tops of
the buds as they’re opening in focus?
Do you want buds and red flower?
Do you want buds, red flower AND
background in focus?
Photography was much easier when we didn’t know so much. When
I first began, I would have thought, “Oh, pretty flower. Click.” But
no more. Now I (we) agonize over lighting, depth of field, angle of
view — it’s not so simple any more. So in your case, when you were
working this flower (and now that I’ve seen you photograph in
person, both in Santa Fe and in Half Moon Bay), I kind of know
your thought process. So I’m guessing that yeah, you had a
challenging session with this flower.
You selected a lens aperture (f/stop) that would put the buds in
focus as well as the top “tier” of the red flower behind them. Focus
begins falling away as we move down through the flower and to the
leaves. By the time we see the very background, everything’s soft.
What you’ve done is you’ve presented a flower that’s extremely
sharp, where we can see how the new “tendrils”
emerge from the buds; we see the details in the
red tendrils and then all goes soft in the
background, but not so soft that we can’t see a bit
of the leaves. The background is soft enough,
however, not to be distracting, and so it sets off
your flower most dramatically.
What I also like is the terrific complementary
color combination of red and green. Extra drama
as a result.
Your lighting is very soft, very subdued. And as
a result the red really pops, really seems to glow.
We’re also able to see a lot of detail; nothing is
lost or obscured in dark shadows. If you’d had bright, harsh sunlight on this blossom, the look
would have been completely different.
Terrific focus. Very good lighting. Wonderful use of depth of field. Great colors. Beautifully
done.
I’m wondering, however, about the background on the left side. You’ve got lots of leaves on the
right, leaves that are pretty much the same color green as the green buds on top. But then on the
left side, almost splitting the photo in half, we’re seeing purplish non-leafy stuff. If your photo
is all about red/green/texture/symmetry, then “purple lines” doesn’t fit in with your concept and
becomes a distraction. Had you been able to put those same leaves in the left background, I
think your picture would have even more drama than it already has.
So for this “difficult red,” you handled the situation beautifully. You have no idea how
impressed I am with how you’ve jumped into photography with all four feet, and how much
you’ve learned about shooting,
your camera, and (I’m assuming)
Photoshop in just 12 months.
Major kudos to you, madam.

SIERRA LAKE

Holy crap! What a terrific shot! If
this is Convict Lake in the eastern
Sierra, I’m thinking it’s one of the
better photos I’ve seen of fall
color there. If it’s not, then what
do I know? It’s still a good
photo.
It’s often tough in scenes such as
this to expose properly for
everything. Most of the scene is
relatively dark — the
background valley coming down,
the trees, the reflection, etc. And
then there are much lighter areas
such as the hillside slanting
down from the upper right
corner, the patch of whiteness on
the hillside on the left (which is
reflected in the water), and little
bits of light grey granite rock
sticking out here and there.
When we have mostly dark
surroundings such as this, we
naturally meter for them, and as
a result, anything that’s much brighter can easily be overexposed and blown out. And since
those lighter areas are what our eye is drawn to first, they become major distractions. Not good.
In the case of your photograph, you handled the lighter areas well. They’re not so bright that
they’re annoying. The only spot I DO find distracting is the white patch on the left hillside and
its reflection in the water. I think that if this were my photo, I’d clone out both the white spot
and the white reflection.
My only other suggestion would be to straighten the photo a little bit since it looks as though it’s
leaning toward the left. This might be an optical illusion, however. When I line up your horizon
line with a straight line on my monitor, your horizon line seems to be straight. But if it LOOKS
wonky in the picture, even though it’s straight, I’d still rotate the picture a hair to the right to
visually dewonkify it.
Two excellent photos from you. You should be very pleased. Thank you for posting them.
Carol Leigh
January 26, 2009

(I wrote the following back to Carol Leigh.)
Carol,
Thanks for your critique. You know me well. Your critique was so right on I wondered if you were hiding behind a bush watching me attempt this shot. I did have a challenging session with “Difficult Red”. I spent a very frustrating hour and a half on this one photo, racing the setting sun and hoping to get the shot I wanted before I had to leave for an evening engagement.
All camera tries were on a tripod, except the last try with my little fanny pack camera. The sun was just about to set behind Mt. San Jacinto. The sideways light on the flower was perfect. The background sucked. I moved this way and that way for a better background flower angle. When I first used the 100mm macro lens, the background was blurred and not a distraction. The background looked ok. But….the flower had too much depth for the macro lens; I couldn’t, as you mentioned, get all parts of the flower in focus enough as there were too many varying planes. The flower was about 2/3 inch deep.
I noticed I wasn’t getting what I wanted because I kept shooting some shots and then taking my card inside to view the shots on the computer. After the macro lens, I changed to a 50mm lens. Too much in focus – ugly background. I even tried a 70-300 lens and of course I had to back away too far from “Difficult Red” and that lens didn’t work. Then I thought, try my little Sony A640 fanny pack camera. This little camera is the camera I used for this shot. It gave me more depth of field, more of the flower in focus from front to back. Remember I have that rotating LCD on this little camera that I hold out away from me as I focus close up to my subjects when I shoot. So when I got back to the computer I noticed I was holding the camera out and shooting slightly down on “Difficult Red”; I wasn’t on the same shooting plane as the flower. This shooting slightly down on the subject angle changed the distance from the top of the flower to the bottom enough that the bottom of the flower was slightly out of focus.
Once I realized I had another stumbling block to getting everything in good focus, I was mad, the sun was gone and I was late for my evening plans. I sat at my computer with my head in my hands feeling very defeated, UNTIL………..this thought came to me…….Look at all you learned trying to capture this shot Linda. It even dawned on you while your head was in your hands that you weren’t shooting on the same plane as the flower. And then this thought came…..My god, you learned more about what different lens do, you learned more about depth of field, you learned more about level/angle of shooting, you learned to pay more attention to ugly backgrounds so you don’t have to spend so much time trying to make an ugly background not so ugly and you learned more about your camera and your tripod. So…..Linda be happy because whether I you got the shot you wanted or not, you got the point……You LEARNED.
I thank you Carol for these classes that make me pick up the camera when I don’t think I have time, and do what I love, learn to see through the lens of the camera. By Jove, I think I may be learning a little something.
Regarding the Sierra Lake, I had this photo labeled Convict Lake in my photo folder, but I think it was a lake north of June Lakes, named Parker Lake off 395. I noticed the white fleck in the water and started to clone it out when I realized it was a reflection of the remaining snow on the mountain. I decided to leave the snow in. But I did see it! I agree the photo would look better without it. And, I too thought the photo of the Sierra Lake looked like it was listing.
Thank you for your critique.
A happy,
Linda

Share/Bookmark

Our online class is over. What’s going to keep me honest in my pursuit of learning photography?

Hopefully this blog.

Here is a portion of an email I just received from our photo teacher:

It’s been a wonderful ride, being with you the past two months. I’ve

created an online gallery of your work which you can see here:

<http://www.photoexplorations.com/Gallery052008/HTML/index.htm>

Your work looks good. And I think you’re going to be amazed at how

professional your photos look in the gallery.

If you visit this gallery, and you click on a photo the student’s name appears in the URL.

Share/Bookmark

1 CRITIQUE: Linda Jeffers

Walk Around the Block

COURSE LAKE VIEW



For a photo in which it appears

you did a lot of things “wrong,”

this looks pretty good!

The lighting is bright and sunny,

which is not surprising for the

desert, but it appears early/late

enough in the day that it’s not

overwhelmingly bright. There are

long shadows that make things

interesting rather than having the

sun straight up, creating a

shadow-free zone.

The horizon line is centered, dividing your picture in half. Normally this isn’t the best choice for

us, since putting the horizon line dead center tends to create a static composition, where our

eyes go right to the center of the frame and aren’t encouraged to go elsewhere. What you did to

create a composition with movement to it (versus a static composition) was put the willow tree

off to the far right, have it close, and have it create a sort of frame through which we look at the

scene. So yes, our eye goes to the middle of the photo (where the light-colored building can be

seen off in the distance), but then the tree moves our eye over toward the right; the overhanging

branches then encourage our eye upward and over toward the left, as does the water in the pond.

What also creates interest and movement in your photo are the reflections of the tall palm trees

in the water. Without those trees, we’d have just a blank expanse of water. The shadows create

up-down movement as well as texture. The only thing that’s definitely not working for you is

that green wooden stick coming up from the bottom of the frame. If you were to make a print of

this photo, I’d definitely clone it (and its reflection) out of the shot.

You created a very good shot despite challenging lighting. Well done.

2. LADY BACKLIT



You come close to greatness with this picture. First of all, let me commend you for spotting it to

begin with. And then let me commend you for exposing it as beautifully as you did. What’s killing it is the land/rock in the lower

right corner. Heavy sigh. The rest of

your photo is fantastic. Here’s why.

Moody, dramatic lighting. The dark

sculpture, the dark trees reflected in the

water, the deep blue of the water, the

golden glow in the upper right corner,

and the way the sculpture is sidelighted

— absolutely wonderful.

The earring. The way you seem to have

metered off the brightly colored earring

is great. As a result, it’s properly

exposed while everything else goes

dark. And that’s the perfect effect for

this picture. The way the earring echoes

the golden tones upper right is superb.

Without the earring, your photo would

still be good. But WITH the earring, it’s

cranked up a notch and becomes quite

mysterious and artistic.

The complementary colors of blue and

orange create a lot of drama.

And finally the angles of the sculpture as it swings into the photo create lots of movement and

encourage our eye to move along with those angles, running on a diagonal from lower left to

upper right. Wonderful.

If only there had been more blue water where that bit of land is on the right. Not only would

your sculpture stand out even more than it does, but it would simplify your photo considerably,

thereby creating more drama and tying everything together. The land blocks up the picture and

interrupts the feeling of movement. Alas.

Still, you handled the shooting challenges incredibly well and composed the photo perhaps as

well as you could given what you had to work with. It’s easy for me to say “lose the land” when

I wasn’t there to see what you had to deal with. In a perfect world there’d be nothing but

glorious water and reflections behind this sculpture. Ah well. You should still be pleased.

3 SPRINKLER RAINBOW (I lost this photo when my computer crashed. It wasn’t great anyway. Imagine a shot from the condo looking at the sprinklers watering the grass of the 15th fairway creating a rainbow in the water from the early morning sun hitting the water. Beyond the fairway is the lake, then far away condos that Carol refers to in her critique, then palm trees and San Jacinto.)

It’s these little miracles of light that, to me, make photography so

rewarding at times. Your rainbow is very pretty and I like the overall

scene. Your greens are good, the water’s a good color blue, and I like

the strong shadows you’ve got in among the trees as well as stretching

across the green in front of us.

What’s not working for you are

the brightly lighted houses and

mountains across the way. When

the picture first comes up, my eye

goes immediately to the lightcolored

houses and then up to the

background mountains. Only then

do I return to the rainbow. But

you took the photo BECAUSE of

the rainbow, and to have it

become the third-strongest

element in the photo means it

doesn’t quite work.

What could you have done

differently? Probably nothing! It

would have been great to maybe have nothing but trees across the way, or an expanse of

something really dark so that the rainbow would stand out very colorfully and strongly. So is

there a way in Photoshop that you could achieve this same look? Is there a way that you could

create a second layer and, on that second layer, darken down the mountains and darken down

the houses? I’m sure there is, but would it really be worth your time? Nah, I don’t think so.

Luckily, there will always be more rainbows in your life.

Thanks, Linda, for posting these shots. Your sculpture photo is by far the best of the bunch. It

might even be worth a re-do sometime to see if you can change your shooting angle somewhat

to get rid of that little piece of land on the right. The lighted earring? Brilliant.

Carol Leigh

November 7, 2008

In an email I wrote back to Carol:

Thanks for being so kind Carol. I was really afraid you were going to rip me a “new one”. I didn’t spend much time on taking these photos and regret that.

I love your around the block photos. Thanks for sharing them. Wish I’d seen them before though. I need help on ideas. I’m not very creative…..YET!

Great online class. You are the best teacher!

Linda

Then Carol wrote back to me:

You know what? I don’t really care if your photos are bad (well, I

sort of do, but bear with me). What I really care about is that YOU

know your photos are bad! Knowing when your pictures are less than

wonderful is a HUGE step in our photographic process. Sure, our

friends, our parents, etc. are going to tell us we’re wonderful, but

WE really need to know, down deep in ourselves, when our stuff’s good

and when it ain’t. And that comes with practice and with comparing our

work with excellent photography.

I could tell that you were rushed with the golf course shots . . .

Maybe you should take up butterfly photography — you seemed to do

really well with that!

Carol Leigh

In order to understand Carol’s reference to my taking up butterfly photography, there was a mixup. Carol thought she was critiquing my Around the Block photos when in fact they were another student’s Around the Block assignment containing a butterfly photo!

Share/Bookmark