Following on from my '100 Best' World Trip photos I was asked to select a few sets of 20, based on themes, for a publisher.

We've since met up and I doubt anything will come from these, but he may yet use me on a photo shoot later this year.

Anyway, given the (FPL, etc.) long gameweek I thought I'd share them with you all to alleviate the boredom! Those that have seen the World Trip set will be familiar with many, but not all, of this batch. 'Slideshow' is the best viewing option, I think.

I've made a poll, but please don't vote unless you've seen all 7 sets (140 pics in total!) as I'd be interested to know which you think the best - technically, visually, whatever criteria you choose. I've set the poll to give 2 votes each and these are alterable should you change your mind.

All comments and criticism welcome, but please post here rather than on the Flickr site, thanks.

1) India

2) Lewis and Harris

3) Torres del Paine

4) Landscapes

5) Civic Art

6) Fauna

7) Flora

Hope you enjoy them!

Wow,

will have a proper look through on a big screen later, but the India and Torres Del Paine sets in particular are stunning.

having said that, and despite the exotica of the Indian collection, I think the Lewis and Harris ones are my favourite at the moment.

Wonderful pictures, all of them

This takes me back to art college

Basically, every set is let down badly by the inclusion of a couple of poor pictures. You really need to weed these out first I think.

Equally, most sets have a couple of outstanding ones. I think a selection of 30 from this lot would be a far better proposition than 20 of any single subject area.

I am actually a picture editor in my other (non-fiso) life, so if you want a critical, professional though subjective opinion I'd be happy to give it.

Thanks for taking the time, guys!

Yes, please, Spencer, I'd very much like to read your thoughts on them. I do agree that there are weaknesses in every set, but the remit was '20 shots on a theme' and I just didn't have a perfect score on any subject. Nor could I just nip back to, say, India!

I am only a hobbyist and well aware I have many failings so, please, no holds barred, be as frank as you wish. Ta.

How about just changing the subject title(s)

Happy to, but to what?

What I mean is, Instead of having 7 good scotland pics, 6 good India ones and 7 good S American ones, just make a heading that could embrace all 20.

Ah! I see.
Well, the publisher got in touch with me after seeing the 100 World Trip pics, so I couldn't just pick 20 of them under an 'Around the World' title as he wanted to see something new, too.

I ended up creating 7 sets as I wanted to show an ability to shoot people, landscapes, nature, macro, etc., but, yes, each one got diluted to some degree.

I don't know why he wanted to see themes rather than just my better work, but I guess it's his book-orientated perspective?

I've just had a quite look at your main set, some you've left out...

Squirrels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbarlow/5211885338/

is a better pic than the one you've included (that just doesn't look 100% sharp), though you could do with cropping in about 15% from the left, then a little off top & bottom if you want to maintain the shape.

This is nice:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbarlow/5211233173

even better if you lose the bottom 10% or so.

This I also like:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbarlow/5211806004

These canoe boys have something:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbarlow/5211817624

I like the Lewis and Harris, Torres del Paine, Landscapes and fauna collections.
The India collection didn't appeal and it took a while for me to figure out why it didn't appeal to me.
I think the people photos seem too staged or posed and they lose the natural look. Maybe candid would have been better but I don't know how easy or difficult this would have been. The candid photos could have been taken with their permission but not posed for.

A few comments on the sets when I have the time.



There are just not 20 pictures here that have enough variety to make a set I'm afraid. Mostly, they are okay pix of mountains with not a lot else to recommend them.

However, some of them are very nice, interesting compositions and have other elements that make them look like creations rather than just snap-shots.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbarlow/5375852132/

The birds make it, and also the exposure. In a few you lose the tops of the mountains in the glare. That's not a disaster, but when you have a shot like this one, it stands out.

In this one: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbarlow/5375837918 you are losing the tops and it would be good to have them burned in slightly if you could do so without making it look worked on. the shapes of the bushes etc in the foreground are this picture, and the abstraction they create with their reflection.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbarlow/5375250059/

I think this is my favourite. Simple, 2-dimensional and powerful.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbarlow/5375255215/

The shapes work, the contrast works, the sky would be nice if it was a really penetrating blue.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbarlow/5375243431/

Just about works, it's the best of the rest really which are all basically the same thing. You have shapes, scale, variation of landscape etc.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbarlow/5375234629

At a push I'd include this one because it has elements of interest, panoramic feel, sunset etc. It would have to be pin sharp though to survive being printed large enough to have the impact it deserves.

Nice to find a fellow flickrite on fiso!
check out some of mine, here is a set of some of my more recent stuff:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gerb1/sets ... 59/detail/

(and I agree with most of Spencer4's comments about your work - some really nice stuff in there but needs editing down a bit)

Strangely, I think this is one of the weakest sets, I'm just not sure about the motivation behind taking the portraits. I agree with what Surprised said (first time for everything!) they are neither one thing or the other, perhaps a photo-reportage style would have worked better.

Alternatively, when you have 'interesting' people it would be better to see what they are doing:

This bloke: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbarlow/5375605908/ looks great, but I want to see what's on his shoulders, what's he actually doing? As it is, it's a smiley shot of a Indian man. I feel it could be so much more really.

I actually get the feeling that there was just too much going on, too many visual stimuli, that you've struggled to focus on one thing and have ended up spreading your attentions too thin.

That said, this one nearly works: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbarlow/5375028513/ It's a nice shot, but they are just not interesting enough to justify the setting and all the detritus around them makes it look rather rushed.

This one is great: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbarlow/5375621832 and I bet you could shoot loads around that subject matter and have a selection of similar shots.

Sorry, I don't mean to sound so negative, I think the problem is that here you are showing the best 20 pix from India and they don't really do justice to the potential of the place or your visit there.

Unfortunately, I really don't know too much about this type of photography. What I can say though is I like them a lot.

You're probably competing with studio-based experts in this type of art, and will no doubt suffer by comparison, but to a fairly untrained eye they seem to work.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbarlow/5376175644/

Composition-wise I want to see a space on the right hand side. The focal point will remain the flower but it would add so much I think. Should you have flicked the ant off though!

The first three are all excellent to these eyes, but http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbarlow/5376209730 lets them down badly. Dump that one matey.

To be honest this set is very good, I like to abstraction when you use it, especially in http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbarlow/5375592757 and http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbarlow/5375579457/ but it's also the straightforward flower shots that work well.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbarlow/5376207146/

This is just a simple shot, but it works so well for me because of the background setting. Most of these work because of this simple approach. Great stuff.

Spencer4 wrote:


Don't apologise, Spencer, I'm interested in your honest criticism, and all others.

The India portraits almost always came via a request from the individuals who wanted their picture taken. I think that the water porter (with the bamboo pole) and the happy monk were the only two I asked to photograph. I'm rather camera-shy myself so don't like to inflict the lens on others! Frequently, though, smiling people would ask me to take a snap - then look really serious!

Here are a few more of the porter so that you can see a wider shot. Unfortunately, the first is rather soft. The next is the uncropped original of the one I used:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbarlo ... 601428299/

I'd stopped and talked with him (via my guide) and was immensely impressed by his grace, his humble dignity and the sincerity in his eyes. His job is to carry water up a few hundred steps to a ruined fort, then about a mile more to a monastery, trip after trip, day after day, year after year, in order to send his two girls to school. If you look again (view the Original size here) you'll see that he's not actually smiling, though I appreciate that initially his taut cheekbones might give that impression. It's his eyes that are the essence of the shot for me. They're penetrating, addressing me directly.
I appreciate, though, your point that I've cut it too much in order to focus on his gaze. Perhaps the original says more as you see his garb and one of the water urns?


Well, that's certainly true - these are, essentially, my holiday snaps!


That's the trouble with India - detritus is EVERYWHERE. The cupola to the left is part of the Taj Mahal, the Jewel in India's Crown, yet the surrounds are filthy. Look at the river bank behind them - strewn with rubbish. That is part of the appeal of this shot to me - 5 bright, clean, healthy young ladies feeding the fish (a religious act) below the Taj - surround by shit. Very 'India', I hoped.
I appreciate, though, that if you had to be there to 'get it' then the shots, or more properly, I, fail.

Don't ease up on the criticism, mate. It is much appreciated!

Stanley Smith: Thanks for the link to your Flickr site. That's very interesting work you're doing.
'Rain on the Downs' appeals to me very much, as do 'Rook on Pole' and the two 'Misty Hills', and 'evening swimmers' has almost an Impressionist feel to it - plus a hint of a hundred years of nicotine staining!
Other landscapes put me in mind of Andrew Newell Wyeth, the American realist painter, for their haunting, soft light and palate. I liked 'st lukes', too, very much. Very simple. Almost childlike - suitably enough!
Thanks for the show!

At a push. I'd select 8 from this set of 20.



So in order, probably the weakest of the seven: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbarlow/5375697684 This works for me because of the water in the foreground, otherwise it's just a straight mountain in mist snap.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbarlow/5375126201 is fun, probably due to the cropping as much as anything else. I'd like to see the area on the left a little more saturated in colour then it would be even richer and more powerful.

The Ansel Adams: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbarlow/5375711508 , http://yosemiteblog.com/wp-content/uplo ... valley.jpg gets in obviously

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbarlow/5375090299/ is interesting, again I think a little photoshop work to bring down the brightness of the top area would help. I can't decide whether the bright bush in the foreground helps or not, it certainly changes the composition, but for the better?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbarlow/5375083265 Nice vistas. I'd crop out the 15% of right hand side foreground tree, it adds nothing and it would make the shot better.

I like http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbarlow/5375719404/ it's the square format and angles of rock strata that make it, combined with the abstract trees. The pale rock in the centre would need to be 'brought back' because it looks burned out but that doesn't look beyond what's possible.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbarlow/5375695604 is straightforward and rich with foreground texture and colour. Nothing special, but certainly pleasant enough.

I've seen the fence motif in other pictures of yours, this one is not over-done, the scene is clear and diverse in it's content. Again, not my favourite, but a good addition to this small set, http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbarlow/5375141531

I think you should build a set using these seven and others. I'll come back to that (again) later...

Thanks, spencer4.
I think you're right about the bright bush and too much tree in 4 & 5. I'll look at them again, and at the face in the rock on 7.
I obviously need to learn more Photoshop techniques - I'm very new to the software and can use only a tiny fraction of its capabilities right now.

I've been working on these using my pretty-basic laptop and wonder if the image quality I see is too poor? I've a cracking new pc and monitor waiting for me in Lewis and that should help - all I need is a house to put it in!

Thanks again for your time and consideration.

Nice photos. Looking at the Lanscapes collection, my favourite by far is 9 (Macchu Picchu). Because it's a view I've not seen before and it compares very well to the classic pic that everyone takes and you see in all the postcards, etc - ie, from the Sun Gate. I got a nice pic from the top of the mountain in your other Macchu Picchu photo - spoiled only by the bright orange roof of the visitor's centre amidst all that wonderful greenery!

Sure that's not the best pic you have of Bryce Canyon though? That place is totally awesome. Better than the Grand Canyon for me, although it lacks the massive scale obviously. Zion Canyon is great as well, did you go there?

My mac blew up a few weeks back so I have no Photoshop capabilities at home anymore.

Be very subtle when using PS on photos like this. Never remove things (other than specks of dust), just enhance gently.

For what you need to do, I'd just use saturation, via image > Adjustments > variation > saturation. us the smallest increment and always click back to original before you ok it.

Otherwise, I'd just use the shadow/highlight tool via image > Adjustments. Don't over-do it though, especially the highlight bar as you can easily create a nasty opaque mask all over the picture.

Never sharpen, use unsharp mask if you need to, though again under-do it. 30% should be used as a maximum in most cases. I set Radius at 2 and threshold at 3 but that's just what I'm used to.

I really wouldn't look to do anything else with these types of images.

Just had a very cursory glance, but the Stornoway Harbour one is absolutely fantastic IMHO.