P10_Stephanie



Title: Into the Blue Tags: Stone Mountain, lake, trees, sky, water

Also considered the one below.



Peer Critique of //Into the Blue// by Kim
(45-50 pts.) || 80 – 89% (40 - 44 pts.) || <80% (<40 pts.) || __Critique Comments__: This is a lovely shot, and I like the different textures on the water.
 * ** Category ** || ** Strong ** || ** Adequate ** || ** Weak ** ||
 * ** Concept ** || Does an outstanding job of communicating the concept. || Does an adequate job communicating the concept. || Does a poor job communicating the concept. ||
 * ** Composition ** || Photograph uses composition principles very effectively. || Photograph does a good job using composition principles. || Photograph does a poor job using composition principles. ||
 * ** Focus ** || Focus is a perfect match with the concept of the shot. || Focus is an adequate match with the concept of the shot. || Focus is a poor match with the concept of the shot. ||
 * ** Technical Aspects ** || Shutter speed and aperture were perfectly chosen to match concept. || Shutter speed and aperture were adequately chosen to match concept. || Shutter speed and aperture were poorly chosen and do not match the concept. ||
 * ** Depth of Field ** || Excellent use of depth-of-field. || Adequate use of depth-of-field. || Poor use of depth-of-field. ||
 * ** Title/tags ** || Title and tags were perfectly chosen and written to express the content and concept. Spelling and word choice are excellent with no mistakes. || Title and tags were adequately chosen and written to express the content and concept. Spelling and word choice are good with only minor errors. || Title and tags were poorly chosen and written to express the content and concept. Contains multiple spelling errors or wrong word choices. ||
 * ** Instructor evaluates this section ** ||
 * ** Self Critique ** || Excellent self-assessment. Written comments meet or exceed requirements. || Adequate self-assessment. Written comments meet requirements. || Poor self-assessment. Written comments do not meet requirements. ||
 * ** Peer Critique ** || Excellent peer assessment. Written comments meet or exceed requirements. || Adequate peer assessment. Written comments meet requirements. || Poor peer assessment. Written comments do not meet requirements. ||
 * ** Peer Comments ** || Peer comments exceed expectations. || Peer comments meet expectations. One or two comments might be missing. || Three or more peer comments were missing, incomplete or poorly written. ||
 * ** Total Points ** || >89%
 * ** Total Points ** || >89%

In terms of communicating the idea of scenic, I think everything works, except for the idea that with a scenic shot you want something to focus on. Whether it's s tree stump or a turtle or a over-arching tree, something more is needed in a shot with so much blue (sky and water). So, my compositional preference might be to get more at water-level, if possible, and see if there isn't an interesting scene-related object that could help direct our eye into the scene.

I think that focus is good, and the depth of field is wide enough to allow us to see everything in the shot. The shutter speed and aperture seem to work well. I wonder what a higher shutter would have done to the shot: perhaps more detail on the water and a darkened picture would have had an interesting overall effect.

The title and tags are appropriate to the shot.