first image ever shared

I thought I would share a photo
this is the first time I've ever posted a image please be kind with your comments. plus just trying to see how to post a image on this forum






Clueless

and from flicker

Very effective framing and subtle colours. It doesn't look critically sharp to me ... Perhaps some additional sharpening on the in-focus areas alone is all that's needed?

I agree with Nigel about the sharpness, if you take an image like this which is almost abstract in nature, it has to have something to anchor it, a strong focal point. Because the focus is not quite 100%, it doesn't have that.

Don't worry about getting feedback on your images, I know it's hard when you first start posting them, but feedback is one of the best ways we learn and we need to be open minded about other people's perceptions of what we produce.

Keep posting the shots, keep developing your own style.

Best wishes
David

Nice colours and a nice idea, but as Neil and David have noted for an image like this the focal point is critical and needs to be pin sharp.

Did you use a tripod and remote release/self timer, as even the slightest movement when pressing the shutter button can move the focal point just out of focus?

Phil

It was hand held and defused/blurred a little bit in Photoshop.
so I did everything wrong o'well you live and learn

The longest journey begins with the first step. You've taken yours, and it wasn't so bad was it

You're taking photos and sticking your head above the parapet. So didn't do anything wrong

One of the good things about PUG is that most people make constructive comments and will offer advice about how to do things differently.

If we don't try new things, we never learn anything.

Phil

I like your image as it is. The colours and composition make for an attractive piece of wall art. You have chosen to defuse the image and it works for me. Painters do not feel the need for sharpness after all. I was in a gallery the other day and much of the photography they had for sale was also defused.

Evidently not to everyone's taste but I find it interesting.

From a technique point of view the main thing is to be in control and be able to make choices, and if the photographer here has created this intentionally then that is great and should be congratulated. But I'm sure I've heard it said that to class as a photograph a photograph needs to look like a photograph .... Now where did I hear that?

The problem I feel here is that while the effect is 'painterly', because it still looks like a photo, then the lack of a critically sharp focus point appears as a technical issue which it wouldn't with an actual painting.

I think the image works as is. Especially if 'Clueless' (you've got to get another name!) deliberately blurred it. It might be a little dark though.
You have to remember that sometimes advice in this situation is often down to personal preference and the most important thing is to capture your vision of the subject.

i like it but i think how and what it gets printed on will determine more whether it ends up looking like a photograph or a painting. i would print on watercolour paper with a dry brush filter overlay or on canvas to use as
smudge says, a piece of art. after all no reason the camera cannot be used as a painter uses a brush. remember the most expensive photo in the world at one time was sky,river and grass but looked like 3 lines of colour with no real definition.

decent first post

I like them