Aspiring Photographer

[Alkey]

Hi,

I am 16 years old and love photography. My goal is to eventually become a National Geographic photographer. My website is alexkleinphoto.com. Does anyone has suggestions for the site or suggestions and critiques for the photos on the site? Or ways I can improve my photography now?

Thanks so much!!

 

[Razvan_Gavrila]

Very nice pictures... bravo. What gear do u have?

 

[Designer]

Hey, welcome, there, Alkey.

You're going to make me click offsite? I would rather you post up one of your shots for which you have questions or for which you would like to receive criticism.

I'm certainly not going to go through your entire portfolio and critique each one in turn.

 

[The_Traveler]

Nice even work, especially for a teenager.
They do lack good finishing, that last touch that makes them good - or even passable.
A lot of the scenic ones are near-far shots that are pretty standard, almost formulaic. I think you have to work harder at seeing something unique and capturing it.
IMO, the weakest category is the cities. Nothing new, interesting or insightful there.
IMO, the weakest genre are any picture with people in it.

But, for 16, great.

 

[Alkey]

Very nice pictures... bravo. What gear do u have?

Thank you very much!! I have a Nikon D3200, Sigma 17-70, Nikon 55-300, and Tamron 90mm macro.

 

[Alkey]

Hey, welcome, there, Alkey.

You're going to make me click offsite? I would rather you post up one of your shots for which you have questions or for which you would like to receive criticism.

I'm certainly not going to go through your entire portfolio and critique each one in turn.

Sorry, Designer, I am new here.
I was mainly asking for a general critique, not really specific to single images.

 

[Alkey]

Nice even work, especially for a teenager.
They do lack good finishing, that last touch that makes them good - or even passable.
A lot of the scenic ones are near-far shots that are pretty standard, almost formulaic. I think you have to work harder at seeing something unique and capturing it.
IMO, the weakest category is the cities. Nothing new, interesting or insightful there.
IMO, the weakest genre are any picture with people in it.

But, for 16, great.

The Traveler,
Thanks for all the feedback! I see what you mean when you say "near-far shots that are pretty standard", probably something I will start working on. When you say finishing, do you mean the editing, or something else such as making the composition a little better? I also agree with you about the cities category.

Thanks again!

 

[Rgollar]

I think your off to a good start.

 

[Razvan_Gavrila]

Very good start.

 

[The_Traveler]

The landscapes don't have that luminous, real-life quality that really good landscape images have. That may lie in the quality of the original image or the finishing, impossible to tell at this size.

In regards the people shots.

What is it you want us to see in these shots. Frame, expose and edit for that.

In this example
Can't see his face, his hands look big out-of proportion. Wide angle too cloe, underexposed and not fixed in post.
And not every non-US, old, non-white person is interesting. Maybe to your friends who weren't there but not to the viewers

This is the picture -with the face lightened to see- the interesting part, not all the rest.
Know what you want to show

IMO, every single one of these in this album People are not good enough to be here.
Post only your very best and unique.
Putting up ehhh pictures drives everything good down.

Sorry but that's what I think.
You have a good/great eye, are past the learning curve on skills, now you actually need to concentrate on making great pictures.

 

[KmH]

Have you seen this at National Geographic ?

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/siteindex/careers-faqs/
How can I be a photographer for National Geographic?
We are often asked by aspiring photojournalists for advice about entering this highly competitive field.

National Geographic photographers have college degrees in a variety of disciplines. Most did not major in photography, but all took photo courses. The most common majors have been journalism, anthropology, sociology or psychology, fine arts, and sciences. Our editors and photographers agree that it is important to complete a degree in a discipline other than photography. Freelancers usually come to us with at least five years of photojournalism experience or with specializations such as wildlife, underwater, nature, or aerial photography. We seek balance and an eclectic blend of interests, abilities, and photographic styles in the freelancers we hire.

Our photography site has galleries, photographer bios, and tips. You can also join the talented members of ourYour Shot photo community.

For those interested in the craft, we have books and DVDs about photography.

 

[vintagesnaps]

The longer I've been sitting here looking at your site it occurred to me that I wouldn't know this was done by a teenager. I've been looking for awhile so obviously once I started, there's enough there of interest to keep me looking.

You have some real nice photos, but to me some are really processed. If that's what stands out, it's probably overdone because I shouldn't notice or be thinking about what did you do to that photo?? lol Lew mentioned exposure and that might be where you're off and needing to post process more to compensate.

Of course I'm a longtime film photographer so I learned to frame photos the way I want them, but even shooting digitally I do very little post most of the time. I don't want to be fixing every photo, it should need minimal adjustment most of the time. Especially if you hope someday to get your photos in major publications, there will be a high standard and high expectations. Keep working on getting proper exposures.

I agree you're seeing photos, keep thinking about what's interesting about what's in your viewfinder. Learn about composition (if you search 'elements of composition in art' it should bring up some websites that will give you resources on learning about composition).

What caught my eye was the one of the rainbow, and one of something B&W coming thru the water that made me think of Shamu - that to me is something different and a cool perspective of it. Some of your interior shots are interesting and might have been even better with a slight adjustment to your vantage point, like the one of a round sconce, it's at a bit of an odd angle, and the one of the rings - that's really cool, I like the reflection to the left but there might be a little more space than necessary and the light upper right is a distraction.

I agree with Lew about the people, there's one under Cities of a man seated out on the sidewalk that could be very poignant and make the viewer feel something, but the lines of the building are at odd angles (you maybe needed to scrunch down a little) and I would have waited and watched out of the corner of my eye til the guy in the jacket was out of your shot. It takes practice to get good at the timing and capturing a moment when there isn't much time, but waiting 1-2 seconds might have given you an even better picture. Notice your backgrounds and watch for distractions (like edges of things) that are sticking into the sides or corners of a photo and just cluttering up what's in the frame and what will be in the photo. Pets to me for the most part might be best as a personal collection more than a portfolio.


You seem to be seeing patterns a lot which is great, There's one under Film (Rivers?) in B&W and I don't even know for sure what it is (made me think of a coat rack sideways) but that's unusual and I really liked that one (went back and looked again). Also the triptych of the cactus, good use of light and shadow, maybe keep playing with that idea with other subjects.

Under Nights and Lights I like the B&W of the house and stars but the light of the house made me think of it being a movie where something's going to blast out of that house any second! lol maybe I have too much imagination, maybe keep playing with the long exposures and adjustments (the bright light of the house distracts some from the lovely sky). I like the one of the long shadows of the trees on the snow (the angle seems a bit odd which might be that it's on a slope) but that's a good one. I would say in that category 'everybody' is doing car taillights, light painting of squiggles, and the moon.

Editors and curators probably see a blue zillion photos of beautiful scenery, yours will need to stand out. It'll probably take time to develop your own recognizable style. Imitating other photographers' work may be useful in learning but you don't want to go that direction if you ever submit anything. (I'm thinking of one that's beautiful light in a desert canyon but right away I thought of another photographer.) You may need to start with local or regional magazines, look at their info. on submissions; it would take time to work up to getting anything into a major publication.

I don't know if I'd separate out work on film on your site, maybe a B&W category? I'm not sure on that. I've found doing submissions to juried exhibits that unless there's a specific criteria (like plastic cameras) they don't care if the image was shot on film or digital or a Polaroid, I've had all accepted, they want good. (I've also had plenty not accepted so it takes a good bit of trying and knowing that they will only accept so many for any given exhibit). Your pricing looks a little low, I don't know where you're located and this is geared more to the US I think but maybe try American Society of Media Photographers . Good luck and keep at it.

 

[The_Traveler]

Of course I'm a longtime film photographer so I learned to frame photos the way I want them, but even shooting digitally I do very little post most of the time. I don't want to be fixing every photo, it should need minimal adjustment most of the time. Especially if you hope someday to get your photos in major publications, there will be a high standard and high expectations. Keep working on getting proper exposures.

Without wanting to start an arguement, I did want to make a statement about the bolded text above.
This above is essentially the SOOC arguement as in 'I get it right in the camera and so I can use it straight out of the camera - without editing.'
That has been discussed before and the counter-statements are:

• There is no such thing as an unedited picture, whether film or digital.
• Nature doesn't care what you want to be bright or dark or what is an acceptable dynamic range. Sometimes the photographer can wait until conditions are correct, sometimes the situation is too ephemeral to wait, sometimes the best conditions will never occur.
• Photography is an art and saying that art and creation should stop at one specific step is an artificial condition.

Vintagesnaps may not like to edit (I've never seen any started threads by him/her) but that is a personal choice, like using a specific camera or lens, and is absolutely not the best way for everyone or even necessarily an end to strive for.
As part of the creative process I try to go as far as I can with every step in the process, just to save work and give myself as much as possible to work with.

Lew

 

[imagemaker46]

As a young teenager you seem to have the luxury of being able to travel to a lot of different locations. I have to agree with what has been said, there are some very nice images, many based on location, but even with that they are for the most part ordinary. That's not a hit against what you have done, you have a young talent that will only get better. Birds, flowers, bugs, animals and scenics have to be exceptional just to stand above the millions that are being shot everyday. You are working with the light pretty well, many photographers, fight the light and struggle to use it. The light is there, but many don't look at it from all the angles, you seem to look past the obvious which is going in the right direction. Keep doing what you're doing, you are off to a great start.

 

[Derrel]

Pretty good job so far, and you are off to a good start. There is one thing I see overall that is very consistent: your images look FLAT, and low in contrast, even in high contrast lighting, which makes me suspect that you are editing on a laptop, and also that you do NOT set your images to a proper black point using the levels tool. Your images are simply too low in contrast, and also a bit dark, by about .5 to .7 EV on almost every image.

Keep working on your craft. You WILL get better and better if you stick with it and work hard on the craft. Study painting and composition, from ART BOOKS, not from idiots on YouTube who make videos with dumb stuff like, "use the rule of thirds to make better pictures."

Look up and study the elements and principles of design. Google that. Spend the next week really,really, really looking into what the elements and principles of design are. The kinds of images that NG has made its reputation on have been made by people who can create good compositions.