P9_Kim

=Kim Huett=

// River Twilight //


__Tags__: river, fishing, wade fishing, Arkansas, trout, trees, evening, sunset, crepuscule

Self Evaluation
(45-50 pts.) || 80 – 89% (40 - 44 pts.) || <80% (<40 pts.) || __Critique Comments__: In terms of communicating the concept of "scenic," this photograph works well. I sought to frame the shot using the vegetation in the foreground, and also was lucky to have two wade-fisherpeople in the river to give the viewer something to focus on.
 * ** 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%

Compositionally, I like how this turned out, and I ended up cropping out a bit of darkened foreground vegetation. I like the shape of the result (looking at the lighted areas, do you see the profile of a fish?). I was a little disappointed in the placement of the cloud in the upper middle region, because I think it steals some of the branch's impact. However, the natural world does not pose for us, and despite my compositional preferences, I like this arrangement a lot.

Focally, I believe this shot could have been improved with the use of my tripod, which I felt I couldn't spare the 5 minutes to go and get (twilight is so fleeting). I shot this on a shutter-priority setting with a shutter speed of 1/25, aperture of f/14, and ISO setting of 800. I was playing around with the settings (going up and down on the shutter and ISO), and I feel like this was the best result out of this series.

The depth of field works all right. There's enough focus on the foreground framing vegetation as well as on the fisherpeople (who are a little blurrier) to know what this is a picture of. I think that the shot could have been improved with a wider depth of field.

I like the title and tags.

Peer Critique By Stephanie Jackson
(45-50 pts.) || 80 – 89% (40 - 44 pts.) || <80% (<40 pts.) || __Critique Comments__: This is a great shot. The tree on the left and leaves on the right in the forefront of the picture is at a distance from what's down the river giving it great depth of field. There are also clouds up close and way off in the distance which carries your eyes out in the same direction the river runs. I might suggest doing a black and white for this.
 * ** 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%