Forest photos

I took a few photos out near Pescadero, CA yesterday with my new D200. I
know they have some problems (#6 needed a lower depth of field and maybe
a better differentiated background, and #7 has lousy framing around
the water - I couldn't find a good angle to take the running water
photos). Are any of these worth saving? I have problems judging my own
stuff.

http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/1275033/

"Cynicor" wrote in message
...
I took a few photos out near Pescadero, CA yesterday with my new D200. I
know they have some problems (#6 needed a lower depth of field and maybe a
better differentiated background, and #7 has lousy framing around the
water - I couldn't find a good angle to take the running water photos). Are
any of these worth saving? I have problems judging my own stuff.

http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/1275033/

Personally I would only keep number 4 if I was going to get rid of any.....
but as it's digital, why not just keep them all? None of them are 'bad'

Why not adopt the attitude that you are the best judge of which ones
are worthy of saving in your collection? Photography is very
subjective. If you like the pictures, then they are worth saving.

Cynicor wrote:
I took a few photos out near Pescadero, CA yesterday with my new
D200. I know they have some problems (#6 needed a lower depth of
field and maybe a better differentiated background, and #7 has
lousy
framing around the water - I couldn't find a good angle to take the
running water
photos). Are any of these worth saving? I have problems judging my
own
stuff.

http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/1275033/

Seems to me I heard somewhere that if a major element of a subject is
truncated, it should leave the frame in a corner. Did I dream that?

--
Frank ess
"I can't sing,
but I know how to,
which is quite different."
-- Noel Coward

Cynicor wrote in news:A-
:

I took a few photos out near Pescadero, CA yesterday with my new D200. I
know they have some problems (#6 needed a lower depth of field and maybe
a better differentiated background, and #7 has lousy framing around
the water - I couldn't find a good angle to take the running water
photos). Are any of these worth saving? I have problems judging my own
stuff.

http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/1275033/

Forest? All I can see are trees...

RobG

pixel_a_ted wrote:
Why not adopt the attitude that you are the best judge of which ones
are worthy of saving in your collection? Photography is very
subjective. If you like the pictures, then they are worth saving.

I could adopt that attitude, but my taste is crap.

Seriously, any technical advice people have is appreciated, because I'm
trying to improve on a few basics.

Frank ess wrote:
Cynicor wrote:

I took a few photos out near Pescadero, CA yesterday with my new
D200. I know they have some problems (#6 needed a lower depth of
field and maybe a better differentiated background, and #7 has lousy
framing around the water - I couldn't find a good angle to take the
running water
photos). Are any of these worth saving? I have problems judging my own
stuff.

http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/1275033/

Seems to me I heard somewhere that if a major element of a subject is
truncated, it should leave the frame in a corner. Did I dream that?

My photography is about breaking all those "rules", man.

Cynicor wrote:
Frank ess wrote:
Cynicor wrote:

I took a few photos out near Pescadero, CA yesterday with my new
D200. I know they have some problems (#6 needed a lower depth of
field and maybe a better differentiated background, and #7 has
lousy framing around the water - I couldn't find a good angle to
take the running water
photos). Are any of these worth saving? I have problems judging my
own stuff.

http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/1275033/

Seems to me I heard somewhere that if a major element of a subject
is
truncated, it should leave the frame in a corner. Did I dream that?

My photography is about breaking all those "rules", man.

Good. Of course, the more bad decisions made, the more evidence piles
up that the rules evolved from SOMEthing, for SOME reasons. Very Big
Grin.

--
Frank ess
Mistakes: It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve
as a warning to others.
© Despair, Inc.
http://despair.com/lithographs.html

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:57:17 -0800, Cynicor
wrote:

I took a few photos out near Pescadero, CA yesterday with my new D200. I
know they have some problems (#6 needed a lower depth of field and maybe
a better differentiated background, and #7 has lousy framing around
the water - I couldn't find a good angle to take the running water
photos). Are any of these worth saving? I have problems judging my own
stuff.

http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/1275033/

Not terrible, but most lack a centre of attention.

Cynicor wrote:
I took a few photos out near Pescadero, CA yesterday with my new D200. I
know they have some problems (#6 needed a lower depth of field and maybe
a better differentiated background, and #7 has lousy framing around
the water - I couldn't find a good angle to take the running water
photos). Are any of these worth saving? I have problems judging my own
stuff.

I know the feeling.

Forests are difficult anyway. There is little technically wrong with
your pictures, but none of them have anything that makes them stand out
in any memorable way.

Maybe the first question you should ask yourself is, "Why am I taking
this picture?"

Among other things, I can almost tell how tall you are just by looking
at your photos.