Looking For MORE Constructive Critizism.

[Xymphora]

I Haven't Posted Anything For A Long Time.
But Posting Here Is Much More Pleasant Than
Getting My Butt Kissed On Deviant Art =D
#1: http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p227/Fatally_Yours_2713/12983RESIZE2.jpg

#2http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p227/Fatally_Yours_2713/12983RESIZE.jpg

[ukanfoff]

Everyone has potential, its all on how deep u wanna go into the rabbit hole...
number 1 try to get some contrast into it, its lookin a lil washed out.
both have some negative space thats being unused, cropping could help.

[bloop?]

yes, there is hope for a photography career; provided you have the drive to get it, someone with no talent but has drive always beats a lazy natural talent into the ground ... no use asking us. Depends whether you believe in yourself or not; and more to the point, whether you want it enough.

Your pictures have no contrast to them, in the first I can only see mebbe 3 different tones and the second mebbe 4 at most ... seeing as these are "art" photo's you should have a read up on Adam's zone system. (you may see mentioned around the site the fact that a black and white photo needs 11 tones of grey, this is where this comes from)

And also, for daily work, action shots et. al in which you have less time to set up; you should read up on the Dynamic Range - a simpler system which uses only 5 tones.

What with these being "art" photo's (correct me if I'm wrong) and not conveying any specific message beyond the beauty found in the everyday. You should focus on your composition and framing certain objects.
I'm assuming in the first photo the apple is supposed to be the main subject in the photo. It looks washed out and melts into the fence at the back. It needs to be surounded in something darker or lighter to seperate it from the rest of the photo. (usually darker as our eyes are attracted to lighter areas - unless of course you were using the object as an "entry" into the photo before moving onto other more interesting areas, in which case lighter WOULD do.)

Talking of entry, when we read paintings, and images, it has been proven that our eyes begin to look through the image at a point 2/3rds up the page (another reason why it is often natural for horizons to be at this point). In your first image when we first begin to "read" it we first of all come to the stick holding the apple. We follow the line of this, and it promptly leads us OFF the page, leading to an uninteresting image which doesn't hold our attention.

Add to this, Black and white nature photo's are cliched.
Your composition is skew-wiff: it is leaning to the right. Try reading up on the rule of thirds (a simple version of the golden mean).

Keep shooting. for nature, have a look at some Alphonse Mucha's artwork to see how he uses the surroundings to frame what he paints and draws. It's not photography, sure. But it's all images, and it all helps.

p.s I would critique the second shot. But I need to leave. I may come back and critique it later. But I hope what I have said abuot the first shot is useful.

I should also tidy up my typing as it isn't the most succinct thing I've read.

[Grumbledook]

good post bloop

[Xymphora]

yes, there is hope for a photography career; provided you have the drive to get it, someone with no talent but has drive always beats a lazy natural talent into the ground ... no use asking us. Depends whether you believe in yourself or not; and more to the point, whether you want it enough.

Your pictures have no contrast to them, in the first I can only see mebbe 3 different tones and the second mebbe 4 at most ... seeing as these are "art" photo's you should have a read up on Adam's zone system. (you may see mentioned around the site the fact that a black and white photo needs 11 tones of grey, this is where this comes from)

And also, for daily work, action shots et. al in which you have less time to set up; you should read up on the Dynamic Range - a simpler system which uses only 5 tones.

What with these being "art" photo's (correct me if I'm wrong) and not conveying any specific message beyond the beauty found in the everyday. You should focus on your composition and framing certain objects.
I'm assuming in the first photo the apple is supposed to be the main subject in the photo. It looks washed out and melts into the fence at the back. It needs to be surounded in something darker or lighter to seperate it from the rest of the photo. (usually darker as our eyes are attracted to lighter areas - unless of course you were using the object as an "entry" into the photo before moving onto other more interesting areas, in which case lighter WOULD do.)

Talking of entry, when we read paintings, and images, it has been proven that our eyes begin to look through the image at a point 2/3rds up the page (another reason why it is often natural for horizons to be at this point). In your first image when we first begin to "read" it we first of all come to the stick holding the apple. We follow the line of this, and it promptly leads us OFF the page, leading to an uninteresting image which doesn't hold our attention.

Add to this, Black and white nature photo's are cliched.
Your composition is skew-wiff: it is leaning to the right. Try reading up on the rule of thirds (a simple version of the golden mean).

Keep shooting. for nature, have a look at some Alphonse Mucha's artwork to see how he uses the surroundings to frame what he paints and draws. It's not photography, sure. But it's all images, and it all helps.

p.s I would critique the second shot. But I need to leave. I may come back and critique it later. But I hope what I have said abuot the first shot is useful.

I should also tidy up my typing as it isn't the most succinct thing I've read.

Thank You Very Much For Your Honesty.
I Know Of A Lot Of The Terms You Mentioned
But I'm Never Sure On How To Go About Perfecting Their Uses
(Any Tips On That?)
Also I Realize That I've Always Had Exposure
Problems (Especially In The Winter)
Any Tips On How To Correct Exposure Errors?

[Mr. Mu]

Xymphora - you go and buy

- "The Negative" by Ansel Adams.

It is focused on film photography, and you would have to adapt many of its contents to digital (are you shooting digital?). But as far as exposure planning is involved it's the best thing out there. You can learn a lot through it for both digital/analogue.

For all of the basics about photography starting from the influence of lenses/point-of-view on the image perspective over contrast range and design to the decisive elements of composition, read:

Andreas Feininger, this one should do the job (http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Photographer-Andreas-Feininger/dp/0131622145/ref=pd_bbs_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203716943&sr=8-3)


For getting a quick, but thorough grip on lighting go to
- strobist.blogspot.com

and read the lighting 101 section (dropdown menu on the right)

To find out if you got what it takes ask the mirror each morning.

Or rather... you don't ask us! You tell us!