THIS IS a topic I have discussed in the past. The original nature of the blog was to try to "help" new and less experienced photographers improve their approach. I still see these issues commonly, and there will always be new shooters, so I thought it was still a "fit." In the past I have blogged about some things to do to make your photos better ("better" of course, being subjective), especially for posting on social media. I have also blogged about some common things I see that make posted images just not work. I suppose I am mostly addressing more "serious" photographers here, often those who are participants in one of the many photography-oriented pages that seem to proliferate Facebook these days. I have downloaded several random images that have come up on my Facebook feed. I don't know any of the photographers, and it really doesn't matter. I will simply make some subjective observations about what I think makes a photo work, and what makes it not work. Maybe somebody will get something out of it. This is not in any way an attempt to assert a superior grasp, ability or vision on my part. None of the examples here are what I would characterize as "bad" photos. I do think, however, there are some thoughts and principles that could apply to improve them. More importantly, maybe some thoughts and principles that will help improve our future images.
 |
| Example 1 |
THE FIRST image here is something we see frequently on social media - surprisingly often on photo-dedicated pages. More often than not, these images are made with modern "smart phones." This is a nicely composed image, with pleasing, natural, contrasting colors and textures. That being said, there is nothing in the image in sharp focus. It has long been a truism that an out-of-focus image cannot be fixed after the fact (though I am less confident of that statement as each day goes by, given the advancement of digital processing). This is probably a better example than any I used in my prior blog, illustrating this weakness. At least I think it is a weakness. My eye needs to see something in the image in sharp focus. I constantly say that photography is art, and in that spirit, I will certainly allow for the possibility (though I doubt it) that the maker here may have purposely left the entire image out of focus. That may work for her/him. To me though, it just doesn't work. I could envision this photo with just parts of it in sharp focus (traditionally, probably the flowers in the foreground, leaving the barn out of focus - but the opposite might be an approach too. Or - maybe just the two tulips. A small aperture and wide-angle lens could also possibly allow for a fully sharp image from front to back, bringing the textures in the barn into the mix. Probably not my personal vision, but there are a lot of potential approaches to this image. But something has to be the focal point, and to do that, it must be in sharp focus.
Something has to be in focus
HOW DO we fix this? In my opinion, it can only be "fixed" in the camera with the original image. It is not something that any amount of post processing can remedy. Part of it is the photographer's "vision." When you make an image like this, I think it is important to think about what you are trying to show. In other words, "visualize" the final result. Then, this is an instance where photographic technique comes into play. My own visualization of this shot (at first blush, at least) would be to render the foreground flowers in as sharp focus as I possibly could. That means a couple things. Sharp focus, especially on close objects will be mostly a function of aperture and focal length. Knowing how those factors interact will be important to the outcome. A wide-angle lens will (generally) focus closer than a longer lens will. It will also produce a much deeper depth of field (how much of the image is sharp front to back, when correctly focused). A smaller aperture will produce similar results (greater depth of field). Either way, it is very important to understand your point of focus and how the camera and lens assists you with that. Before smart phone photographs became so ubiquitous, most of our cameras had some kind of focus point indicator (today, it is usually a square or rectangular bracket showing up on the viewing screen - and often turning a color - usually green or red - when focus has been achieved. It is possible on most modern smart phones to have this same indicator. That is critical, because all it is telling you is that the point in the image where you have the indicator is in focus. It doesn't guarantee other parts will be in focus. Cameras (and their operators) can be fooled about this. Sometimes the sensor will record the image, even though nothing is in focus.
THERE IS another factor, though, that often results in an out of focus image: movement. In a still image, any movement of either the camera or the subject will result in a blurry result. I think an image like this urges the use of a tripod. A solid base of support (usually a tripod) will take one of the most common factors yielding blurry results out of the equation. In my view, it is nearly impossible to record an image like this hand-held and have it be sharp. This is especially true with smart phones, because they are making some "average" calculations about exposure here. Subject movement (the other potential culprit) can generally only be dealt with by using very fast shutter speeds. Because exposure is a function of aperture and shutter speed, this isn't always possible. But usually, it can be accomplished with a good tripod and some patience.
 |
| Example 2 |
IN MY second example I see a couple things that could - in my view - improve this already nice image. The elements of a nice landscape composition are present. Nice colors and contrasts. As noted in my above comments, I might pay a bit more attention to the sharpness of the foreground. I have made images in the past where I have purposely blurred a foreground like this. It rarely works for me. In this case, it looks to me like the shooter was trying for a sharp image from front to back. In that case, I think the foreground lacks the critical sharpness I would like to see. In my view, the way to "fix" that is to shoot it at a smaller aperture in this case. And that likely means that we will need a tripod in order to get that result. Again, I find this type of scene (even with the rather bright light we see here) difficult to impossible to accomplish handheld. Unfortunately (yes, I am a tripod evangelist 😁) too many photographers today, too often take what I see as the lazy photographer's approach and shoot primarily handheld. I think the hype from certain quarters about stabilization built into cameras and lenses contributes to this failing. While that technology has certainly come lightyears forward, it is still not a substitute for a tripod when such use is possible. It appears to me a tripod would be possible here. I don't have camera info on any of these images - it is possible that they are made with smart phones, but based on the pages I see them on, I doubt it.
I am a tripod evangelist
ANOTHER THING that jumps out at me right away is that this image could benefit from some perspective correction. This as an issue with many (maybe most) images I see that are shot from a wider perspective (even from some very accomplished photographers). Looking very carefully at this image, it appears to me that the building is leaning slightly back off the hill. Some of this can be addressed in the initial shot. In this case, the higher the camera position, the less the perspective issue will show up. Easier said than done, especially given that it looks to me like the camera position was slightly downhill. To the extent possible, however, I would raise the camera up and try to tilt it down some. I shoot a lot of wider stuff in my travels and I find that most of the time, I still need to do some perspective correction in post-processing. Again, I have blogged about this specific issue in the past. My own experience tells me that the best tools for this process are found in the full version of Photoshop. Lightroom, ACR, and some of the other processing programs have tools that will work, but for real critical work, they seem too rudimentary to me. Nonetheless, if that is what you have, you should be able to make it work. In the case of this image, perspective correction was the first thing I worked on. It was mostly a combination of leveling and rotating the image. This can virtually all be done with the Light Room/ACR type tools. You can see the (albeit subtle) result here.
 |
| Example 2 - perspective corrected |
A SECOND thought I have about this image is the abundance of "dead space" in the top half of the image. Any substiantial expanse of plain sky or water is potentially a composition-killer. In this case the empty blue sky in the image takes up nearly 50% of the image. And it is essentially nothingness (If it were full of puffy white textured clouds, it might be an entirely different thing). I might have tried to "crop" this image in the field, but altogether too often we are working with the given aspect ratio of the sensor, and the characteristics of the lens being used. That is one of the reasons I like to have more megapixels when I can. It gives me more digital "headroom" to crop without losing image quality. These days, I often shoot keeping in mind that I am likely to crop (and perspective correct) in post-processing. Both mean leaving "space" in the image for such adjustments (and being aware of what the adjustments will do with the image in question). Sometimes I mess up. I recently made an image of an ancient Japanese Castle gate and didn't leave enough room in the image at the corners of the roof. Today's tool set is amazing. Though not the preferred way, I used the new AI-generate in Photoshop to create some space and the corner of the roof. It worked (mostly). Another "AI" thing you can do (and this one has really been around for years, but more recently, the software processing improvements have made it much easier) replace the plain blue sky with a more pleasing sky. I do that sometimes. More often, though, I crop. My suggested crop is shown below. There is no "right or wrong" crop here.
 |
| Example 2 - cropped sky |
 |
| Example 2 - digitally "sharpened" |
AS I said above, You cannot really make an unsharp image sharp. Sometimes you can employ digital techniques to increase the appearance of sharpness. In the final example 2 image below, I did that using a combination of contrast, brightness and a third-party (NIK Viveza2) adjustment called "structure" (a bit like "texture" in ACR). It cannot begin to replace what a smaller aperture, tripod supported shot would have done with the foreground. But maybe it suggests how that might look and why it is appealing.
 |
| Example 3 |
THE CHURCH (or meeting hall) is interesting. It has many elements of a nice image. One of the great things about our art is that we can have different approaches to all the various aspects of it. In this image, I will suggest a couple things I would personally do differently. That doesn't make them right. Nor does it imply that the photographer's original image is in any way "wrong." It is just a matter of how we approach things. Before we do that, however, there is one glaring issue that I think very much detracts from the photo. Anyone else see it? The tree-blocked steeple means for me that this otherwise nice image just doesn't work. We have this huge, bare tree in front of the church (or meeting house). Maybe if it was in full foliage, the dynamics would change (especially colorful fall foliage). But here my mind just keeps going to the fact that the steeple is essentially completely blocked out by that big, dead tree. In the field, I would have looked for a viewpoint where I could get the complete building in the photo. It may be a wide-angle lens (realizing that there would be significant perspective issues there). Maybe it would be a different angle to shoot the building. Along that same line of thought, the subject comes awfully close to being a dead-center composition. While still subjective, one of my early lessons in critiques of my work was to avoid what I now call the "bullseye" composition. It is pretty natural if you think about it. Most lens focusing points and composition aids start centered in the frame and kind of subconsciously lead us to positioning our subject right in that center. In many instances that creates a much less dynamic composition. For simplicity's sake, I usually suggest looking at all landscape shots with the "rule of thirds" in mind, placing objects of interest in a point in the image that makes a more dynamic (and therefore interesting) composition. I don't know for sure, buy maybe trying to find an angle that frees the steeple from the tree might give us that result.
the tree-blocked steeple means for me that this otherwise nice image just doesn't work
ASSUMING WE are able to find a better angle, there are a few subjective items I would address. There is really a lot going on here in the scene. Maybe trying to highlight some of them would actually detract from the building and the nice light falling on it. I don't know. I just know I would try some different thoughts here. I think there is a lot of potential to bring out details in this image that might make it more interesting. It is important, I think, to reiterate that this is my own subjective viewpoint. As you do bring out details surrounding the main subject, you run the risk of detracting from that main subject (and its importance). Shadow and darkness can make an awfully good cloak for undesired details. On the other hand, I like the flowers surrounding the church. I don't think they will detract. I also think that bringing up the shadows in the trees will add a touch of depth and realism to the image. In the old days of film, trying to cover contrast between the shadows and the relatively bright sky was very much a compromise. Today, the substantially increased latitude digital recording and the ability to work with areas within the photograph gives us is a really nice luxury, allowing much more "playing" with exposures. The sharp observer will notice one other change I made. I didn't like the strip of asphalt at the bottom of the image. While it migh have been left there to suggest the road in front of the scene, I don't think it worked. I think it is distracting. My "take" has it cropped completely out of the frame.
 |
| Example 3 - my adjustments |
THIS LAST one is an example of an already really spectacular image. Everything comes together here: right time, right place. So why do I feature it? It is an example of "I like it, but I would do it differently."
 |
| Example 4 |
WHEN I saw this image, I immediately hit the "like" button. One of the comments was: "all the right parameters." I don't know why, but the comment struck me. I disagreed. As much as I like the image - and I really do - I wanted to dig into those shadow areas and see just a little bit of detail in there. My adjustment is ever-so-slight, but to my eye (and I once again emphasize, it is my subjective eye) it small improvement. Unlike some of the other highlighted images, this one is purely subjective on my part.
 |
| Example 4 - my adjustments |
HOPEFULLY, THIS post will be read and accepted in the spirit offered. I still (always will) remember my very first photography mentor. He is still shooting today and we have not only reconnected, but have remained friends over the many years since I was first inspired to pick up the camera. Extremely proud of one of my early "successes," I took it to him for his commentary (probably seeking approval more than anything). What he said to me has resonated to this day: "do you want me to say nice things about it, or do you want an honest critique?" It doesn't take a genius of inductive reasoning to realize that he didn't say: "wow, perfect photo!" 😁 He complimented me on getting certain things right, like focus and exposure. He even liked the overall composition. But the photograph lacked a certain "something" (in this case, a well-defined and interesting subject) that would differentiate it from a good photo to just a nice picture. The point here, really, is that good photographs need to be thought about, in many cases planned (though the planning is often done in seconds and over time becomes reflexive) and requires a thorough knowledge of optics, exposure and your gear. That takes homework. And practice. My takeaway from that day and from this post is that there is always something we can improve upon.
