Horseman

care to know why you are not getting comments?
there are no people in this photo

nemo man wrote in post #8891247
May I be honest? You started in Jan 2008 with a 400D, then moved to a 40D, and now seem to be on a 5D MkII. Which is fine, no problems there, but I feel you need to improve your composition skills, and think more carefully about what you are shooting, and why. You said in one of your earlier threads that you were new to digital photography. Perhaps you could attend some formal courses in your area to get your creative skills improved? I know it isn't easy, it took me several years to get good, but you have to go about it in a structured manner. Getting a good camera may help, but it isn't the complete answer by any means.

I'm only trying to help here, no negative criticism intended. We all have to start somewhere. Good luck.

I think you playing the man here and not the ball tbh. My equipment has got nothing to do with this picture. I'm sure someone shooting pro for many years can do a better job with a disposable camera than what i can. But that's not the point. I don't post pictures to say 'look what my cool and expensive camera can do'. I do it cos i love the pic but i'm open to crit as i'm still learning. My comment regarding being new to digital was made 2 years ago. I don't know why i'm not allowed to own good equipment to learn with. We all learning hence why this forum exists in the first instance. As for composition pls tell me what's wrong with it then. Most respected guys on this forum have composition errors i see it all the time with crops done it limbs etc. So YOU tell me where i've gone horribly wrong to the point where i should even go on a course.

Well referencing my equipment did make it seem like you were insinuating that I am unable to exploit my resources and upgrading due to lack of skill rather upgrading due to the limitations of the equipment. I am just fortunate to be owning a 40D and a 5D. Both has its pros and cons.

I guess images are open to interpretation. Maybe if I had called the thread 'gateway to heaven' or something else it would've found favour with you. The idea was always to have the sky the most interesting part in the image. If you look carefully you'll notice that the horseman has his hand in front of face to shield him from the light (that I created). I wanted a picture that is different from the ones everyone else would take in this location. Like you said, statues are less interesting as they are "static and flat". So I tried to make the scene more interesting and took advantage of the light coming through the clouds at the moment. It's a pity that its not likeable, but hey, nobody here liked Annie's pic of the Obamas. I'm ok with it. If nobody here likes my images, so what, I'm going to continue to post and strive for perfection through constructive criticisms. I'm not going to toss my camera, because in my friendship circles everyone loves my pics.

My Kelly pics of course were going to get slated, as I put in the title it was candid pics. I posted to get comments on how to improve (mostly on the poses) and I am grateful for that, so the next shoot with her will be awesome.

My skill level is progressing contrary to your belief.
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=737096
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=737101
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=737084

So I totally disagree with you and I don't appreciate you trying to put me down. I don't get to spend much time taking photographs but when I do, I try to put some effort into it, I live a stressful lifestyle (running my own business - not photography related, studying part-time - arrive home 9pm every night, pregnant wife, dogs, etc). My 4 year studies are coming to an end soon then I can join photography social groups and I can turn my hobby into something more serious.

So your initial post did seem harsh and your underlying feelings on my photography skills abrasive I do understand why you said so. Hopefully I will please you in the future. Over and out.

Wow... all of that for a picture. Gotta love the interwebs!

Anywho... Yes, it is posted in the wrong section and statues are boring. But, I think if you cropped the pic it would make it a tad more interesting.

I donno I was going to dismiss this pretty quick to because the burned out sky on the left side of the frame but after looking at it for a few minutes I find it interesting becasue the burned out sky looks really bright and it looks like the statue is covering his eyes shielding against the bright light. And the motion from the tree and the horse are leaning into the frame. I don't dislike the composition either because given what I've already said it works for this image.

r-06264 wrote in post #8896570
I think you playing the man here and not the ball tbh. My equipment has got nothing to do with this picture. I'm sure someone shooting pro for many years can do a better job with a disposable camera than what i can. But that's not the point. I don't post pictures to say 'look what my cool and expensive camera can do'. I do it cos i love the pic but i'm open to crit as i'm still learning. My comment regarding being new to digital was made 2 years ago. I don't know why i'm not allowed to own good equipment to learn with. We all learning hence why this forum exists in the first instance. As for composition pls tell me what's wrong with it then. Most respected guys on this forum have composition errors i see it all the time with crops done it limbs etc. So YOU tell me where i've gone horribly wrong to the point where i should even go on a course.

Well, I like this photograph. I think it's pretty neat and a little artistic.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #8899790
I donno I was going to dismiss this pretty quick to because the burned out sky on the left side of the frame but after looking at it for a few minutes I find it interesting becasue the burned out sky looks really bright and it looks like the statue is covering his eyes shielding against the bright light. And the motion from the tree and the horse are leaning into the frame. I don't dislike the composition either because given what I've already said it works for this image.

Thanks. That's exactly what I was trying to achieve with the sun that came through the cloud at that precise moment.

lake_tuna wrote in post #8900212
Well, I like this photograph. I think it's pretty neat and a little artistic.

Thanks.

@nemo man: The photo of the oil painting juxtaposed with a vacant wall might in fact be artistic if, for example, the photo suggested or facilitated interpretation of a relationship between the two. The photographer here has successfully suggested such a relationship; and so I think there is some artistic merit albeit derivative.

I also do not think the photo is underexposed nor lacks contrast nor is out of focus. It's a nice list of ostensible reasons you do not like the photo, though. C'mon--what's really going on here !

Great capture.

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #8902329
@nemo man: The photo of the oil painting juxtaposed with a vacant wall might in fact be artistic if, for example, the photo suggested or facilitated interpretation of a relationship between the two. The photographer here has successfully suggested such a relationship; and so I think there is some artistic merit albeit derivative.

I also do not think the photo is underexposed nor lacks contrast nor is out of focus. It's a nice list of ostensible reasons you do not like the photo, though. C'mon--what's really going on here !

Totally agree.

I'm confused, where's the person in this picture?

Statues count?

alphonsis wrote in post #8904569
I'm confused, where's the person in this picture?

Statues count?

Its clearly been posted in the wrong section.

nemo man wrote in post #8901895
The artistry was created by George Frederic Watts who created the sculpture ("Physical Energy"). If I posted a shot of someone's oil painting with a lot of space to one side would you also think that artistic? Or does it have to be a statue? What does 'pretty neat' mean?

So, are you saying that all portrait shots are bad? Clearly, the face of the portrait subject that you're capturing in a photo is not your creation regardless of what composition or lighting you use. "Pretty neat" could mean a few (positive) things, but you should be able to make a general inference from that statement that I like the photo and, perhaps, that I didn't find anything extraordinarily fascinating.

+1 for this being in the wrong section BUT....

So if I understand Nemo Man right, for a photographer to call a photograph his own, ALL objects in the photo must be their own or made by them??? Every photograph I have ever seen has things within them that are not made by the photographer.

This post looks to me like a fairly good shot without much of a description. The poster shouldn't get shot down in flames for not posting a description.

Just my 2 cents.