Amateur Photographer...need some critiquing!

Critique? Amature is spelled AMATEUR

Some nice pix. Do you have more? Love to see young folks going into the biz.
I was a professional photographer in the 80s (Hasselblad guy - weddings and portraits,
plus an Architectural guy 4x5 view camera - but them days was FILM!!)

Just post pics - why use the watermark thing? They get resized here, so no worry
of 'theft'.

Jedi

 

Nice shots! What camera do you have?

 

Man, you've got to lose the www and copyright banner, it detracts from your shots and they scream amateur. Let the shot be the star.
Nice start so let's see some subject matter introduced into some of the compositions as well.

 

Photography has NEVER been about the camera. It's about SEEING. YOU, son (I assume you're
young ) can see. Better camera for features you now lack, fine. But you have a good eye
and are the sort that can take intriguing photos on ANY camera.

I used to teach a photography class and we 'leveled the playing field' by handing out a 'disposable'
point-and-shoot to each student. THAT'S how you can tell if someone can 'see' photographs.

And another old slogan comes to mind - "It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools" - in your case
it's the other way around.

Jedi

ps - but DO drop the www.blahblahblah crap - NO ONE HERE is going to steal your shots, never mind
that they are reduced in resolution when you upload them so they aren't worth anything outside this forum
in this format.

 

here is my unprofessional critique. Lose the hdr. i like the ferrari shot. i might have composed it differently. rule of thirds and all.

 

But it WORKS. Has a symmetry that draws the eye in - like a kaleidoscope.
But everyone sees things differently. We would ALL take a different shot.
All that matters is "does it work?". I think that shot works. I assume we're
talking about the car in the trailer... #39? If not, then disregard. I now see
the 2 red F-cars - maybe that's what you meant. If so, I agree. Not as strong
a shot.

Jedi

 

Ummm, how come nobody seems to understand that the banner/watermark/whatever is produced by the fact that he's using a demo copy of software which he mentioned in his very first post? There's another HDR program that puts $ signs all over the picture when it is not licensed.

 

We all realize that - good grief!. It's just an annoying distraction to otherwise decent photos. That's All.
The point being - just POST THE PHOTOS. No watermark, no copyright - let us SEE THE PICTURE.
Not a complicated thing to understand

Jedi

 

+1
The only HDR photos I have ever liked are those where a professional used it so subtly and effectively that you can't even tell it's HDR.

 

No reason for you to be so jerky about it - but when ~6 people post complaining about something he had no control over maybe it wasn't as easy to understand as you seem to think. ;-)

 

HDR is just a gimmick. Granted it can be used (as a tool) but should never be used as the primary reason for the image.

I have been a pro shooter for over 20 years and I have gone to the opposite end I use minimal tweaking. basically if it ain't there it ain't there. Stick to learning the image tk's mentioned above like the rule of thirds etc... and look at images that speak to you. Ansel Adams exposures were (for the most part) direct prints with no manipulation other that a slight dodge and a touch of burn here and there the image and exposure was the BIG trick.

Othewise study how light works against surfaces.

You have a good eye don't clutter it with gimmickry

 

My apologies for tone. Sorry But as I read more, it seems that this HDR thing is an image manipulation site - I thought
it was some image HOSTING thing. So in agreement with the post above me - kid you have a good eye - learn about light
and reflection and form and shadow. Leave gimicky web sites for folks who don't have 'seeing ability' as Ansel Adams called it.

Maybe even ditch the digital and buy an old medium format camera and use film - Tri-Ex is still made, as is T-MAX - and any
of the C41 stuff. Find a local lab (or for B&W just build your own - not hard, and fabulously rewarding - this from a guy who
had darkrooms for over 25 years).

If you can do it with FILM, you can truly call yourself a photographer. And leave HDR behind - now go out and SEE

Jedi

 

Ding ding ding

Yup that is the ticket

 

Wholeheartedly agree about film and SEEING. I'm encouraged by the fact that photography schools (some anyway) still start students out with film and in the darkroom. Having said that one of the beauties of digital is the instant feedback and the consequent ability to adjust on the fly. That's why studio photogs used to use polaroid backs - for the ability to review setups before burning film.

 

didn't work for me or i wouldn't have critiqued it. i would chop a chunk of the bottom off. Important in my opinion to get the newbs to move their subject out of the middle. where they all put it. not to say that it can't work, but you gotta start thinking about the basics in the beginning. I think the metal boxes take away from the lights above the car. to each his own. that is why it's great to get many opinions.

 

Very nice photos!

Keep up the good work.

 

+1...the right stuff.

You have a good eye for composition as is demonstrated in your panoramas. As these other guys are saying...HDR is a gimmick technique anyone can produce with cheap software -- the photographic equivalent of Comic Sans. If you understand the concepts behind HDR you can take those panoramas and turn them into really compelling frames that aren't weighed down by the cheap effects. You should try making some light studies at the locations you select for panoramas (morning or evening, at least 6 hours), it will yield a great understanding about the way light interacts with the environment you are working in.

They phased film out of intro and intermediate at the school I went to before I even graduated. And that was a couple years ago!