Are my photos good enough?

[puchu]

Hi guys,
I am a beginner in the field of photography, but I would like to be a pro. I really find my photo flat, not emotional, but many people like them... Could you tell me what do you think of my photos? Are they good enough to start a professional activity? Thanks in advance

Here some photos:
Das Pako

 

[imagemaker46]

Sure you can be a pro, you own a camera.

 

[Gary A.]

What genre do you expect/desire to pursue? As a former pro, and as such maybe I have higher standards than most, but I saw nothing exceptional or promising ... Just a random collection of snapshots and not much story telling, emotion or display of pro-level execution.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying you don't have the ability to turn pro ... I'm saying I don't see it in your images. Much of photography is craft, the more you shoot the greater your experience and skill ... And ultimately the better your images. Consistency is important in any profession. The ability to consistently and repeatedly capture the exceptional image, day-in and day-out, upon command, it what separates the pro from the hobbyist. Consistency starts with harmonizing with your equipment and understanding How to exploit all the elements of photography to capture your previsualized image. It takes years to perfect one's craft whether it be painting, dance, writing, or photography.

 

[KmH]

Where you are in the world (no location info in profile) has a lot to do with how much opportunity there is for being a pro photographer.

What do you consider is being a pro photographer?
While some consider that selling a photo makes you a 'pro', others consider being pro to means being an expert photographer that can produce whatever type of photograph a customer wants.

Staff photographer jobs working for magazines or other print publications basically no longer exist.
Those that used to be staff photographers went freelance, or into a different profession.

It gets tougher by the day to make a decent living from doing photography.

 

[puchu]

Ok, thank you for your answers. I try to be clearer: when I look some works of pros, I say "wow!", whe I look at mine I say " gosh!", do you believe my photos are ugly? Do you see a particular problem in technic or composition that is ruing my pictures? Thanks in advance

 

[john.margetts]

I see too much work on the computer. Photoshop (or whatever program you use) should be used to slightly adjust brightness and contrast. If you need more than that, delete the photograph and go back to the camera.

Sent from my A1-840 using Tapatalk

 

[KmH]

While it is desirable to get a photograph as close to completely done in the camera, many types of photos simply don't allow that so that editing only entails slight adjustments to brightness and contrast even when the shot is nailed in the camera.

If you want critique and comment (C&C) on a specific image, post just that image.
You put a link to 20 or so varied genre photos and seem to be expecting people to give specific C&C.
A person spends 3 minutes evaluating and writing C&C on each of 20 photos would take 60 minutes to do so.

I can make a broad and general comment that IMO you need to control light quality and direction better in most your photos.

 

[ronlane]

I see too much work on the computer. Photoshop (or whatever program you use) should be used to slightly adjust brightness and contrast. If you need more than that, delete the photograph and go back to the camera.

Sent from my A1-840 using Tapatalk

This is the ideal situation. But I would bet you that most of the images that do well on flickr and 500px are at least mildly processed if not heavily processed in PS and/or LR.

 

[Overread]

I see too much work on the computer. Photoshop (or whatever program you use) should be used to slightly adjust brightness and contrast. If you need more than that, delete the photograph and go back to the camera.

Sent from my A1-840 using Tapatalk

My view is that editing is as much a tool to learn in depth as the camera is and that honestly with digital editing the editing side, even for minor work, is potentially more complicated; often because there are several methods to get to the same end result; each one having a different process and some slight differences in how it will render the final result and in how fine you can adjust it.

So my advice would be even if you only plan to do minor editing you should aim to learn far more than you need to use. This gives you several advantages;
1) It means that you "choose" to use the level of editing you are using; rather than being forced to use that level because you don't know anything else.

2) It lets you do more editing if you need to. This isn't just about "fixing faults" its also about using the full potential of what you captured in the camera. As said above some shots are nearly impossible within the camera alone; some situations won't let you get the shot as you want - editing is there to help (especially if you're a professional and its what the client is paying you to get).

3) It gives you a wider appreciation of different potential methods to the end result. This is important because its put more tools in your bag. More tools means more options which means you can produce your product, your photo, in a wider range of situations.


Also note that good editing can be like good CGI in a film - its so good you don't notice it which often means its quite detailed and skilful. Even something like dealing with noise and sharpening can get very complicated - but if you're indoors in low light and you've got the shot at a high ISO then you're going to need skill in both and different tools and methods to bring the best out of your shot.

 

[john.margetts]

I was looking at over-saturated colours and excessive sharpening which has caused haloing. I am certain that these pictures would be improved by much less processing.

Sent from my A1-840 using Tapatalk

 

[Vtec44]

As long as paying clients think that your photos are good enough, that's the important part. I told one of my apprentices this, there will be clients in every stage of your photography career. Liking a photo is one thing, will people actually pay fr it is another. The hardest part s always finding the right clients.

 

[Dave442]

The Flickr site shows photos that date back to 2006. Are the dates accurate, the photo "Love, Festival dell'Oriente 2015" says it was taken Nov 22, 2012.

The newer shots that do not have any EXIF data all look like snapshots of people or general shots of places with a website name plastered on the photos.

Overall if this set of images was representative of a portfolio I don't think a prospective client would be able to identify if you are who they are looking for.

I do sort of like Agropoli, because the man standing at the bottom of the stairs. The same for Portici with the boy looking down at his shadow (but needed to step to the side so the man in the background was not right behind the kid).

 

[dennybeall]

If your client is happy with the memories you've captured and pays you for them, then the photos are good enough.
If you're looking to please other photographers then good luck with that. I've never seen a photo that couldn't be improved somehow. Just a little or a whole lot but always something that could have been better. One guy stacks 30 photos to get extreme depth and the next guy is going for all the Bokah he can get. I fight for no sun glare ever in anything and another person puts sun glare on purpose in a commercial wedding photo??????
If you did it on purpose it's right???

 

[Shades of Blue]

People get really defensive over this subject, especially if they have put a lot of blood, sweat, and tears into their own photography businesses. I tend to relate photography to the music business...because aspects of it are similar.

First you have the "bar band." These are the guys that have fun, play their music, and get paid enough money to buy a new guitar every now and then. I've been there and I knew I wasn't going to play arenas, but it was fun making money while it lasted. This is also me with photography. I take photos for friends and family and occasionally have a paying customer. I wouldn't mind if my business grew, but I won't have my dreams crushed if it doesn't.

Secondly you have the bands who relocate to a good music town and have a part time job while trying to really get their name out there. The best they usually hope for is opening for a big name band and they pull in some decent money, but not enough to not also have a part time job. I'd say this is the majority of professional photographers who are serious about their craft.

Lastly, you've got the big time bands that make it. Congratulations. I'm also sure there are lots of exceptional photographers out there who excel at what they do and make enough money to live comfortably, if not better than they would at a desk all day.


I know that their are photographers out there who loathe the part timer with the new camera for Christmas. My opinion is that if their pictures are good enough that someone will pay money for them, then it can't be all that bad. The next time you have a night out at the bar with the guys/girls and are digging the music, be sure to remember that those guys aren't "professionals."

 

[astroNikon]

People get really defensive over this subject, especially if they have put a lot of blood, sweat, and tears into their own photography businesses. I tend to relate photography to the music business...because aspects of it are similar.

First you have the "bar band." These are the guys that have fun, play their music, and get paid enough money to buy a new guitar every now and then. I've been there and I knew I wasn't going to play arenas, but it was fun making money while it lasted. This is also me with photography. I take photos for friends and family and occasionally have a paying customer. I wouldn't mind if my business grew, but I won't have my dreams crushed if it doesn't.

Secondly you have the bands who relocate to a good music town and have a part time job while trying to really get their name out there. The best they usually hope for is opening for a big name band and they pull in some decent money, but not enough to not also have a part time job. I'd say this is the majority of professional photographers who are serious about their craft.

Lastly, you've got the big time bands that make it. Congratulations. I'm also sure there are lots of exceptional photographers out there who excel at what they do and make enough money to live comfortably, if not better than they would at a desk all day.


I know that their are photographers out there who loathe the part timer with the new camera for Christmas. My opinion is that if their pictures are good enough that someone will pay money for them, then it can't be all that bad. The next time you have a night out at the bar with the guys/girls and are digging the music, be sure to remember that those guys aren't "professionals."

Yup,
as others have stated before.
If the clients are happy then all is good.
But photographs to photographers can be reviewed in technical details of photographers. Or they are be reviewed by artistic measurements. Or by "current trendy stuff" measurements. Every one is going to review stuff differently based on their background, knowledge and experience and specific techniques.