Going to dump a bunch of photos I've taken over time, enjoy. Criticism and feedback is welcome since I want to know what anons think or what I could do better.
This was with a shitty plastic film camera, so it looks awful but I still liked it. Half the roll was destroyed because of light leak.
>>4523443this isnt instagram. fuck off
>>4523443best one of the bunch. what camera do you use?
Hey OP, I'm the other Adelaide Anon from the /rpt/. Sorry I didn't come back as soon as I said, 3 kids are a handful. I'll dump, as promised.
I got to Brown Hill later than intended last night and nearly killed myself trying to run/walk up it as fast I could with my camera bag. I forgot how steep that damned hill is, worth it though.
>>4523443I think as a photographer if you want criticism on what you did wrong, you need to write a statement about what you wanted to do. Photo is not like drawing or writing where there is an overwhelming amount of strict rules to learn before being able to produce any enjoyable output. I suppose the fact I'm not what you tried to do is a critique in itself, but I think it's more effective and a good exercice for you to be able to clearly state what you were going for.>>4523443>>4523446In my opinion the best, I like these kinds of minimalist architecture shots, and what make those better than the others is there is decently interesting work on color and contrast. Now they are a bit bland in themselves, and the series doesn't really help them.>>4523448Here I think the foliages ruin it because they are too messy to work solid black. If you want to make something a solid black silhouette you need to make sure it's really distinct. elsw it's probably better to give it a bit of light.>>4523451>>4523450>>4523449>>4523447These I really don't like. There is nothing technically wrong about them but the processing is just so overdone, and the subjects are very weak. It feels extremely impersonal.Overall I think you have potential but you need to find something to say and make a series around it. I see no clear cohesion in those photos apart from the sony 2020 color processing.>>4523478ok also a guy stole your thread for some reason (in his defense it was not very active)
>>4523478No problem friend, life happens. I'll make my own feedback post after this one.>>4523617>I think as a photographer if you want criticism on what you did wrong, you need to write a statement about what you wanted to do.Noted. I suppose with the OP image I really want to feel like I was in a different place and time, so bright strong colors felt good for that. I'm not the best at explaining how I felt or why I take some of the photos I do, for a lot of my photos I want to try and capture a feeling of a time period and look from that period that I have in my mind (some of these don't meet that and we part of the early learning era). The OP image is actually my most recent while the others are up to 6 or 7 years old when I first started.>Now they are a bit bland in themselves, and the series doesn't really help them.What makes them bland exactly? I'm curious what I could've done different with what was there.>There is nothing technically wrong about them but the processing is just so overdone, and the subjects are very weak. It feels extremely impersonal.I agree with the first two, but I think the last two were still good. I feel the framing on >>4523449 is pretty nice though and it has a certain feeling about it.>Overall I think you have potential but you need to find something to say and make a series around it.I struggle with that honestly, I'm not sure what I want to say. All that's in my mind is "this looks like it's from this certain point in time that had these certain things" like how I might take a picture of some business park because it looks like a late 90s business stock image.>I see no clear cohesion in those photos apart from the sony 2020 color processing.Funnily enough these are on a 2010s Nikon DSLR.>ok also a guy stole your thread for some reason The thread was mostly a dump for our mutual city which we discussed in another thread. I also had less photos at hand than I thought. Anyway, I greatly appreciate the feedback.
>>4523480I have a big thing about 80s/90s office buildings. No idea why. Those office lights are a perfect color.>>4523482Really interesting contrast on this one, everything is flat and even in a way I really like. It looks somewhat surreal actually.>>4523490Windy Point is always a good one but I would've had a bit more of the bottom with the road and car though.>>4523492Probably my favorite one, great colors in the sky and really cool subjects.>>4523500Maybe just a little too oversaturated I think.
West Terrace cemetery
>>4523622I always wonder if it's okay to take photos in cemeteries. There are some amazing ones around, but I just wonder if there's anything disrespectful about it or if it would piss people off.
>>4523622
>>4523624Botanic gardens, north terrace
>>4523625
>>4523619>What makes them bland exactly?I feel you applied a green and aqua toning over the series to ground them in the 2020s, and then you added some drama by pulling down the shadows. I think it's a good start but this color scheme looks quite artificial and is also really overused lately, so unless you show me something pretty spectacular in term of composition your photo instantly looks like any other photo with this color scheme. Since you're working to differenciate yourself fron all the others that used this style, you need to be quite precise about your subject and composition for them not to look impersonal and bland.>>4523449It's probably down to personnal opinion why I don't like it but I would say it looks very dramatic but has nothing to say beyond just being dramatic and geometric. I have no idea what this shape is. I need some narrative for the drama to latch on, else I feel like it's cheap.>this looks like it's from this certain point in time that had these certain things I think it's good enough, you just need to select stronger subjects and scenes. You could study >>4523446 as a blueprint of what you do well. there's a lot of geometry, there's a text that anchors the attention and subject, there's a relatable perspective and position. The absence of people works as a statement because we can imagine ourselves being alone where you are standing with all this empty road. The tree on the left reinforces the absence of people by being the only thing standing on the sidewalk. Compare to >>4523447. We have no idea what this building is, where we are, where you're standing. Composition directs the stare on the right but there's nothing there. The glass building is dwarfed by the empty sky, but I really don't get where you're going with this. That's where the color scheme and contrast makes your photo worse, because I see it's very intentional, but I don't understand why and there's no clue.
>>4523445saved. love the lines here. kinda looks like a sample image art students sketch to practice perspective. neat>>4523449saved. cool shapes.>>4523443i like the colorseverything else you sent is boring old building corner which is funny and sad
>>4523443What makes a photograph actually good and not just derivative or trying to emulate a style?
>>4523693This might be a pleb tier opinion but it literally could just be "I like it, it looks pretty"There's certain basic fundamental technical aspects that would be common across the majority of 'good' photos but anything beyond that is just arts student cope and literary waffling.
>>4523718>it literally could just be "I like it, it looks pretty"as good an opinion as any. not everything needs a story, despite what youtubers and a poster above said. i don't disagree that having a story is a good thing too, but you don't always need to have one, something can just look cool.
>>4523693>What makes a photograph actually good and not just derivative or trying to emulate a style?I think it's about how obvious it's trying to emulate something that is well known, like how some people might do really saturated photos of wet roads at night or something. But that might also be more like a trope or cliche rather than emulating. Finding your own style is a little harder since people learn from tutorials now and there are so many more photographers around now than there were 30 years ago.
>>4523718yes but this is avoiding the real question. We ask what makes a photography good, and you answer "when I like it". Ok, so what makes you like it? But to be honest this question is about as vague as "what is beauty" or "what is value" so its stupid to actually try to give a definitive answer anyway.
>>4523617there are no rules in drawing.in writing too, you can invent your own words and structure.
>>4523787By rules I meant stuff to learn. Like you to draw a human figure that make sense takes an insane amount of practice and the execution can be judged very objectively. It's very different from photo where there is very few objective technical criterion to judge artworks.
>>4523836naaa...
>>4523917that's just another version of the "photo is good because I like it". "There is no skill to drawing because I like this drawing in which I see no skill". Whatever question you encounter in life, you can always answer "it depends, it's a matter of personnal preference". Relativism is not an opinion, is just a basic concept to keep in mind and remember most things are ultimately subjective. By denying the skill ceilings are different when learning photo and drawing, you're just refusing to think.
>>4523917Unironically looks kino, reminds me of some of those weird drawings you'd see in 1920s upper class magazines or something.
>>4523484>>4523499>>4523446I like these ones. Adelaide is boring as fuck too so nice job.
>>4523926never there was any mention of "skill" in this conversation.it takes more skill to break the rules than follow them.
>>4523977>there is no rules>it takes more skill to break the rules than to follow themyes
