Sand bars, tidal slants, and fuzzy clouds

[rob91]

Well.. Congratulations, some of those shots was actually focused correctly. But instead you underexposed them. The first bird photo I do like because it has some composition and nice contrasts. Your other shots don't have this.. There is so much basic stuff for you to learn and control. Why do you ignore all the basics and go directly to developing a style? Seems stupid to me. I mean, by looking at your "normal" photos I can easily see that you don't know sh1t about photography. Not trying to be rude but if you don't know what you're doing then why the hell do you try to take it to the next level already?! It's like writing avant-garde music just because you can't write "real" music...

You're jumping to conclusions. I never said I was intent on ignoring basic photography. Above I admitted I still had a lot to learn.

And I don't see any problem with doing avant-garde music because you can't do "real" music. In fact, that seems entirely logical.

 

[Arch]

That's not what I meant. I didn't need for you to define those words for me, as I hope you know that's not what criticism actually is. If you want to be helpful to me, or instead simply criticize this as the poor shot you believe it to be, then I suggest you try thinking about how those ideas relate to the photo.

omg i cant say it any other way!!!... im NOT defining those words that IS the discription of YOUR post!!!11111

if you don't go into the "why's" then the criticism is useless.

AGAIN.....

aesthetic value - the image is dull, colourless, vague and overall holds no aesthetic values. It is certainly not being displayed for how pretty it is.

shape or form - The image has no defined shape or form and is not abstract enough to hold these values in thier own right.......etc etc

only YOU can answer the question why you chose to have flat contrast, colour etc..... i have told you in the above discription WHY i think the image fails.

You are testing my patience, if i have to repeat myself again or you try to force an arguement that doesn't exsist i will presume you are a troll who is just looking for attention.

 

[rob91]

I think you are amiss as to what the concept of art criticism is, and placing "your image" in front of the definition of contrast certainly doesn't not qualify.

But it doesn't matter now. I will let it die out here. I'm sorry this got dragged into such a mess. More than I wanted, just your initial post offended me very much (and I think you know why). Anyways, I will try not to get so caught up in it all next time.

Peace.

 

[Rabieshund]

I never said I was intent on ignoring basic photography.

No you did not, but since most of your photos look like this...

Many people here dig your pictures and that's cool. But you should take what has been written in this thread as tips even if you feel offended. If you want to improve as a photographer then you won't get anywhere by taking photos like this. It's art to you and to many of the people who have commented but... I have no idea how ambitious you are about your photography, but if you really want to become a good photographer then the only way is the same way as everyone else goes. Or if you just think that normal photography sucks ass or you just want to do your thing or whatever, then that's fine. I guess me and Archangel will just not post much in your threads anymore.

Like you said, peace.

 

[unnecessary]

i dont approve. =\

 

[c_armsworthy]

Many people here dig your pictures and that's cool. But you should take what has been written in this thread as tips even if you feel offended. If you want to improve as a photographer then you won't get anywhere by taking photos like this.

He doesn't want to improve. He wants to take his photos, receive praise form those who like it, and dismiss the rest of us as obviously too plebian and unsophisticated to "get it." Becasue when I look at that photo, all I see is a bad snapshot of a beach.