My kids are super photogenic.

[kundalini]

Recipe for recovery to the OP:
One generous portion of Humble Pie while you're spending 30 Days in the Hole. Lurk around and see how others have faired with your current attitude. Perhaps you can wake up from this haze and after a strong cup of Black Coffee, you can come out and declare that I Don't Need No Doctor. Otherwise, it could really become Hot 'N' Nasty.

Just my 2¢.

And TBH, you posted snapshots of your kids. Touching, but.......

 

[Granddad]

I should try being uber confident and aggressive; this dude has got more feedback to one post than I got in all my threads. I guess mine don't have the factor.

 

[LaFoto]

Granddad, I was thinking sooo very much the same!!!

 

[pgriz]

I should try being uber confident and aggressive; this dude has got more feedback to one post than I got in all my threads. I guess mine don't have the factor.

Them's called "supernova". Personally, I'd take the slow burn any day. Live longer, enjoy more.

 

[JerseyJules]

Here's an exceptionally good photo by Alfie Goodrich, one of my favourite professional photographers. Yes, it's of a famous person, Yoko Ono-Lennon, but he managed to coax a very expressive and revealing side of her and capture it beautifully. The light in her eyes is wonderful, and she's clearly a little uncomfortable that her defensive props (hat and dark glasses) have become useless before the photographer's lens.

http://japanorama.co.uk/wp-content/gallery/lennon_ono/ag_bbc_beatles_ono_0001.jpg

Here's the story behind the photo: http://japanorama.co.uk/2008/12/10/yoko-ono-in-tokyo-john-lennon-museum-beatles-tribute-band/

I like that photo and the style of it.

 

[JerseyJules]

So can someone show me an example of a good photo with interesting background and good composition? I learn better from example then explanation.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...lla-one-gel-one-reflector-girls-portrait.html

See, this does not impress me nor does it seem interesting to me at all. It looks like a cheap Sears photo with generic pink background to me. Very boring and uninteresting. While you may argue that the photo is "technically perfect" I argue that is just does nothing for me.

 

[JerseyJules]

Jules - Yes, you will run into a lot of egos here. I am new here too and I noticed the same thing right away. But, what you have to ask yourself is "Does the Talent match the Ego?" There are some very talented photographers in this form. Some of which took the time to give you some valuable critique. And when it is coming from someone who knows their way around a good shot you just have to be willing to take your lumps.

I am envious of you out of the sheer number of them you have piling up with feedback!

You have an opportunity to learn and grow from this experience. But, speaking as a fellow amateur, the ego you are caring around just isn't justified by the quality of your work.

I agree with you. However is photography not a form of art? The most technically perfect and textbook photographer can still present boring and unimaginative photos. I was under the impression that photography is first and foremost a form of expression of something beautiful. All the photographer is doing is capturing that moment or image to express to others in his own interpretation. You can learn techniques and textbook, but you can not be taught imagination and creativity imho.

 

[JerseyJules]

So can someone show me an example of a good photo with interesting background and good composition? I learn better from example then explanation.

These three photos show the type of simplicity and singleness of purpose that I strive for when taking family snaps. Not that these are "great" photos, but as family snaps, I think these three shots are pretty decent. Each one has a clear subject that is sharp, and has a very simple background that does not distract from the subject. The subjects are easy to "see", although I will admit that the processing in the last shot, the one of my wife's little nephew on the jungle gym is NOT very good...I shot that back in 2002 with the original Nikon D1, in JPEG mode most likely, and didn't know how to process digital images very well a decade ago. That kid is now thinking of attending Harvard University this fall! zOMG...I STILL think of him as this, a gap-toothed little boy!

"Look! I drew myself!" she said. SOooo cute!

See, I like these photos. They tell a story on their own without an explanation. That is what I was under the impression that photography is, telling a 1000 words with just one picture. I especially like #2. Very creative yet simple.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

So can someone show me an example of a good photo with interesting background and good composition? I learn better from example then explanation.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...lla-one-gel-one-reflector-girls-portrait.html

See, this does not impress me nor does it seem interesting to me at all. It looks like a cheap Sears photo with generic pink background to me. Very boring and uninteresting. While you may argue that the photo is "technically perfect" I argue that is just does nothing for me.

Yeah, it is technically perfect. And other photographers appreciate technically perfect, because we know what effort goes into producing a real shot like this. Sears photo trains "staff" (I'm not going to call them photographers, because they are shutter clickers) in a week, and they wouldn't know shutter speed or aperture if it slapped them across the face. They are shooting preset camera parameters against preset backgrounds on a fixed-distance vertical pole.

Now, when someone can go into somebodies HOME (which Derrel did in the case of this shot) and come out with a photo like that, then props to them. They understand studio flash, composition, light, gels, posing and what makes a technically sound picture. Not only that, they understand how to create a pink background without Photoshop. They aren't faking it like Sears. It's the real deal.

I think your tastes will develop more as you consume more photography. Once you can appreciate, and know how to REPRODUCE what you see in front of you, then (and ONLY then) your own artistic vision and discriminating taste can be applied to create technically sound shots with your own personal twist.

I think right now you still have a lot to learn. You're welcome to your opinion, but in my estimation, the more you are exposed to good photography, the more that opinion will evolve into appreciating shots like this one.

 

[cgipson1]

Jules - Yes, you will run into a lot of egos here. I am new here too and I noticed the same thing right away. But, what you have to ask yourself is "Does the Talent match the Ego?" There are some very talented photographers in this form. Some of which took the time to give you some valuable critique. And when it is coming from someone who knows their way around a good shot you just have to be willing to take your lumps.

I am envious of you out of the sheer number of them you have piling up with feedback!

You have an opportunity to learn and grow from this experience. But, speaking as a fellow amateur, the ego you are caring around just isn't justified by the quality of your work.

I agree with you. However is photography not a form of art? The most technically perfect and textbook photographer can still present boring and unimaginative photos. I was under the impression that photography is first and foremost a form of expression of something beautiful. All the photographer is doing is capturing that moment or image to express to others in his own interpretation. You can learn techniques and textbook, but you can not be taught imagination and creativity imho.

But you have to have the technical skills, and the book learning.. to be able to capture that imagination and creativity in a meaningful way.. otherwise they are just snapshots.

Skill without imagination equals technically proficient photos that MAY be boring...

Imagination without skill equals Bad photos that don't show the imaginations desire....

 

[JerseyJules]

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...lla-one-gel-one-reflector-girls-portrait.html

See, this does not impress me nor does it seem interesting to me at all. It looks like a cheap Sears photo with generic pink background to me. Very boring and uninteresting. While you may argue that the photo is "technically perfect" I argue that is just does nothing for me.

Yeah, it is technically perfect. And other photographers appreciate technically perfect, because we know what effort goes into producing a real shot like this. Sears photo trains "staff" (I'm not going to call them photographers, because they are shutter clickers) in a week, and they wouldn't know shutter speed or aperture if it slapped them across the face. They are shooting preset camera parameters against preset backgrounds on a fixed-distance vertical pole.

Now, when someone can go into somebodies HOME (which Derrel did in the case of this shot) and come out with a photo like that, then props to them. They understand studio flash, composition, light, gels, posing and what makes a technically sound picture. And they aren't faking it like Sears. It's the real deal.

I think your tastes will develop more as you consume more photography. Once you can appreciate, and know how to REPRODUCE what you see in front of you, then (and ONLY then) your own artistic vision and discriminating taste can be applied to create technically sound shots with your own personal twist.

I think right now you still have a lot to learn. You're welcome to your opinion, but in my estimation, the more you are exposed to good photography, the more that opinion will evolve into appreciating shots like this one.

I personally dont like staged photos. I personally would rather spend the time learning how to catch a spontaneous moment in more of a technically sound fashion in an uncontrolled environment. Im not doubting the level of skill that went into this photo, Im just saying that is not interesting to me and not my goal.

 

[jake337]

So can someone show me an example of a good photo with interesting background and good composition? I learn better from example then explanation.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...lla-one-gel-one-reflector-girls-portrait.html

See, this does not impress me nor does it seem interesting to me at all. It looks like a cheap Sears photo with generic pink background to me. Very boring and uninteresting. While you may argue that the photo is "technically perfect" I argue that is just does nothing for me.

So if you were to give someone money for their work you would rather it look like what you posted??

 

[LizardKing]

Man, you've got to have some serious issues to grom from here:

How would you like us to respond?

...to here:

How would you like us to respond?

Wow...I can say I have been on several internet forums from guns to cars and this one has by far the most cocky,arrogant and ignorant responses...I guess its just the "type" or privileged little college kids or arrogant artistic type people that get into photography that just have a natural "Im better than you" attitude. How about you just dont respond hows that? Since obviously mommy didnt teach someone any manners.. .
I apologize to all for sharing pictures i took on a photography forum..God
forbid..

I haven't ever said something like this in a forum, but man... Go back to wherever you came from. This forum can be harsh sometimes, but you took it to a whole new level. Definitely not a worthy addition to the fauna we already have here.

Your kids are cute but you're not doing all that great job to show that. Pics are nice, but they're nothing but that: 'pics' or 'snapshots'.

To the rest, I don't undertand why you keep losing your time with all the long posts and detailed explanations... when you have hundreds of other members uploading work and welcoming criticism.
I mean, this right here:

I should try being uber confident and aggressive; this dude has got more feedback to one post than I got in all my threads. I guess mine don't have the factor.

+1

 

[jake337]

See, this does not impress me nor does it seem interesting to me at all. It looks like a cheap Sears photo with generic pink background to me. Very boring and uninteresting. While you may argue that the photo is "technically perfect" I argue that is just does nothing for me.

Yeah, it is technically perfect. And other photographers appreciate technically perfect, because we know what effort goes into producing a real shot like this. Sears photo trains "staff" (I'm not going to call them photographers, because they are shutter clickers) in a week, and they wouldn't know shutter speed or aperture if it slapped them across the face. They are shooting preset camera parameters against preset backgrounds on a fixed-distance vertical pole.

Now, when someone can go into somebodies HOME (which Derrel did in the case of this shot) and come out with a photo like that, then props to them. They understand studio flash, composition, light, gels, posing and what makes a technically sound picture. And they aren't faking it like Sears. It's the real deal.

I think your tastes will develop more as you consume more photography. Once you can appreciate, and know how to REPRODUCE what you see in front of you, then (and ONLY then) your own artistic vision and discriminating taste can be applied to create technically sound shots with your own personal twist.

I think right now you still have a lot to learn. You're welcome to your opinion, but in my estimation, the more you are exposed to good photography, the more that opinion will evolve into appreciating shots like this one.

I personally dont like staged photos. I personally would rather spend the time learning how to catch a spontaneous moment in more of a technically sound fashion in an uncontrolled environment. Im not doubting the level of skill that went into this photo, Im just saying that is not interesting to me and not my goal.

And there is nothing wrong with wanting to do that either

but

You need to learn how to crawl before you can run....

 

[cgipson1]

So can someone show me an example of a good photo with interesting background and good composition? I learn better from example then explanation.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...lla-one-gel-one-reflector-girls-portrait.html

See, this does not impress me nor does it seem interesting to me at all. It looks like a cheap Sears photo with generic pink background to me. Very boring and uninteresting. While you may argue that the photo is "technically perfect" I argue that is just does nothing for me.

Damn.... I think you are PRO material.. you should hang out a shingle! You obviously know a lot more than the rest of us.....