Interested in all observations/feedback

Writing as "open for all criticism" and then what...

Your pictures are empty. No photography books will helps. Photography is secondary to the art. Many of those who became great photogs were studying art first.
I hope it sounds more warm and fuzzy.

kf095, this is a critique forum. Critiquing isn't the same as criticizing, let alone throwing rocks. A good critique doesn't label with insulting words the work that someone put up for evaluation. That is, a good critique excludes namecalling of the work as well as the creator. Did you notice that your earlier post was removed? If you want to defend that post, you can write to the mods about it.

Art is subjective, and this is my opinion.

I like the boat and girl shots, I find them attractive. They work for me.
Those industrial type boats and the old buildings are fascinating. You just need to
work on the exposure, maybe pull details out of those shadows.

The little girl exploring the shore on a sunny day is nice. It's a serene image.

I don't care for your first 2 photos. Others have commented, and I have nothing
more to add. Except to say keep learning and shooting.

It's clear you have a lot of ideas about photography as an art form which seem ironically oppressive.

Wrt your first point about you 'giving me what I asked for', I never disputed that fact. Rather, I complained you were too brusque.

Wrt your second point, I never claimed artistic merit. There is something about the first two photos which I find personally compelling, but I wasn't sure whether I was too close to the work to see it properly, hence my posting here. I really don't know why you're mentioning the practice of great photographers as a reason not to read about photography. Perhaps you're aware of books which contain photographs. It's not an unusual practice.

I would rather avoid personal information, but photography is quite important to me. It's something I'm returning to having abandoned it after my Dad's death. I have had some success, I was published a few times as a teenager. Now I'm trying to rediscover my 'eye' for photos which is (again) the reason I posted on this forum. Ordinarily, I wouldn't be upset by criticism like yours, but I hope you understand why I'm particularly sensitive in this case.

I'm not sure how this thread went so far off the rails.

Sorry for all the notifications!

Somebody didn't have their Wheaties this morning, I see.

kf095 wrote in post #19139327
Your pictures are empty. No photography books will helps. Photography is secondary to the art. Many of those who became great photogs were studying art first.
I hope it sounds more warm and fuzzy.

Saying that something is empty is itself an empty statement. Take some time to explain, as others have, why it is empty and how it could be made less empty. That's what a critique forum is all about.

I'm glad that you used the word "many" in your statement about great photographers. I recognizes the reality that at least some of them did not study art in a formal way. They picked up an artistic sense along the way, just as the original poster appears to be doing.

The tone of your remarks is condescending, dismissive, and pretentious -- not attractive traits. I recommend Wheaties.

OP stated "open for all critique". Critiquing critique is totally shallow in this thread, IMO.

If image have no appeal and weak here is not so much to comment. Nothing really.
My advice to improve it was/is simple - look for the work in museums and galleries. I advice what is helping me.
Not books about photography, but photography books.
GW, HCB both have education in art. Their photography is great for learning.
William Klein, I used his word for weak photography, because it is very accurate, self explanatory word, is the artist by all means.

I agree with that assessment. To much white space.... the top is ocean heavy. If has subject... but it seems to get lost. A better crop my bring more focus to the little gal....

One thing I would work on is simplifying your shots. Clearly have a subject or idea you are trying to explore via your photos. The original building over looking the water is just too busy. You when you take the image, you see the whole scene, and trying to capture a slice of that is hard. You have to focus in on smaller elements. Grand vistas or the like are hard to capture...really hard. You are seeing much more than your image can capture. Looks good to you because you remember the bigger seen, but the viewer doesn't have that benefit. So you have to force the focus of your image.

What is it you want the viewer to see... take away from the image. Its really hard to do when there is much to see. Has to be a special subject to work.

Critique doesn't tell you what is wrong, it tells you what you could have done better. Huge difference.

Hey subvention, "La Perouse" has some stunning photographic options, maybe explore away from the crowds.
As others have said, first image lacks a focal point.
2nd image, does have a focal point of the watchtower, but composition could be better.

Walsh bay, for me is about the beauty of the old wharfs. Which could be offset against the NEW building skyline of North Sydney.
The picture of the tug boats, is underexposed but could be cleaned up via pp. Unfortunately its not an image that grabs my attention.

The little girl on the cliff top rock formation, certainly has merit, but the subject is too distant to provide detail if she was infact the focus as previously mentioned.

I'm based in Sydney, hit me up anytime if your interested in exploring out and about. I prefer sunset/night time around the city.

And as some old wise guy said to me, "Keep taking pictures, its like anything, the more you do, the more you get better at it!"

subvention wrote in post #19138554

Hosted photo: posted by subvention in
./showthread.php?p=191​38554&i=i103018688
forum: Critique Corner

I read your subsequent post on what your intent was. Here is why it doesn't work for me....
1. As a normal image it lacks a recognisable subject.
2. As an art piece there is just too much random stuff for the art to stand out. The people you are trying to photograph are surrounded by people/things that add nothing to the image and as such make it less interesting/understand​able.
3. Other key problems... you have a bright burned out sea and a bright sunlit table and a coloured tent that all attract the eye but aren't your subject/detract from the image.

This type of shot really needs a much cleaner/simpler background. It might work better if you cropped in tighter - get rid of everything to the left of the building so the entire image is framed by the building. Even then I think the image is over exposed for what you want to achieve. The silhouettes aren't dark enough and the sea is too bright/distracting.

Hosted photo: posted by subvention in
./showthread.php?p=191​38554&i=i71483434
forum: Critique Corner

Again, what is the subject. Is it the tower or the people or the tower+people or the tower+sign.... there are multiple shots here and it is as if you weren't able to pick one and instead captured an image that contained a bit of each, which resulted in an incoherent image.

The blur along the bottom makes the image feel a little voyeuristic (this was used effectively in the TV show Jessica Jones) but doesn't seem to contribute here. Also the sign at the bottom and the flag at the top are both cut off, making them seem like mistakes rather than deliberate inclusions. lastly the people in the background are overlapping the turret/distracting/unn​ecessary.

I think this is a scene that would have benefited from a bit more exploration before you pressed the shutter.

jetcode wrote in post #19142272
The first rule about submitting an image for critique is you need to be able to handle the feedback you get. . . . Never let the blue meanies take you down. They are your teachers.

If I may add an opinion, the learning without the meanness is a better deal. Sure, one or another blue meanie may occasionally say something useful, but critiques that boil down to "I don't like it" aren't helpful, nor is namecalling of the artist or the work. To do its job, a critique must say specifically what's "right" about an image and what's "wrong" about it in the critiquer's eyes.

subvention wrote in post #19139485
It's clear you have a lot of ideas about photography as an art form which seem ironically oppressive.

Wrt your first point about you 'giving me what I asked for', I never disputed that fact. Rather, I complained you were too brusque.

Wrt your second point, I never claimed artistic merit. There is something about the first two photos which I find personally compelling, but I wasn't sure whether I was too close to the work to see it properly, hence my posting here. I really don't know why you're mentioning the practice of great photographers as a reason not to read about photography. Perhaps you're aware of books which contain photographs. It's not an unusual practice.

I would rather avoid personal information, but photography is quite important to me. It's something I'm returning to having abandoned it after my Dad's death. I have had some success, I was published a few times as a teenager. Now I'm trying to rediscover my 'eye' for photos which is (again) the reason I posted on this forum. Ordinarily, I wouldn't be upset by criticism like yours, but I hope you understand why I'm particularly sensitive in this case.

Don't give up. Composition of images is not a simple task. Practice is the first key, the second is developing your eye as you know. Both can be done all day long with digital gear, main thing is to keep looking, evaluating, making plans for how to get better results next time, test and practice. Decide what your subject is, plan how to bring it attention of the viewer, how to use light and dark to make image look more 3D. All that takes time, but in time you'll get better for sure. You do not need great gear or tons of lenses. Much can be done just by moving to the right position and distance (foot zoom), and being mentally present and aware of the situation.

jetcode wrote in post #19142340
@OhLook - You are expecting 100% compliance where none is guaranteed. If you want to surf with the big boys you need to know about dealing with sharks.

When one comes upon the absence of civility, one may feel obligated to call it out. That's emblematic of another kind of shark, don't you think?

Or to extend your metaphor, maybe a pod of dolphins, which, after all, are the natural enemies of sharks.