Your photos look a LOT like most young, untrained d-slr photographers from today. Lots of use of the tilted camera, cross-processing and faded types of effects, and kit-lens depth of field looks (formerly called pan focus for decades). Your photos look very much like the blog-type images seen among young, female photography enthusiasts of the early 2000's...they will look very dated within a few years, once the next big thing comes along. So...you're easily able to emulate a specific style that is currently popular, and comes largely from using the kit lens type gear sold with most lower-level d-slr's these days...those lenses have deep DOF, and the images have a pretty similar "look" to them, courtesy of the small-chip d-slr cameras and relatively low-noise, smooth images that most consumer d-slr cameras produce.
I'm not sure what,exactly, you want to do, but like I read in your blog, you had a heck of a time learning to touch type--but NOW, you are very good at it. I think that's a good story, and there's probably a lesson in there for your photography. For example, typing's home row position...what about photography's "20mm position", or photography's "300mm lens angle of view"...both equally foreign to many younger people who do not have experience beyond the d-slr and 18-55 or 18-200,slow kit lenses, or the 55-200 kit. Have you experienced the 1:1 macro lens's way of "seeing"?
Let alone the way a square-format camera shoots, be it a Holga, or a Rolleiflex, or a Hassy or an old Seagull 120 TLR; a camera positioned at waist level or chest level is a very different way of seeing things; "film", and "lenswork" and "composition" are subjects that are currently not studied much by the majority of people. I think if yuo wish to grow as a"photographer" (in quotes), you need to study photography, and to broaden and expand your equipment and your approaches beyond what is currently being done by the Flickr and the blogging crowd, both of which are filled with self-taught people whose work is technically okay, but who often lack a real vision that has been shaped by others in the field. photography has been around since the 1840's,and has been done by the masses since the 1890's, but the vast majority of on-line photography is now being put out by people wth an interent connection, a Nikon D40 or iPhone, and who have never studied a single book on the subject....kind of like learning history from a 19-year-old college freshman.
I re-read this, and it might sound negative to you, but it's my dispassionate advice and analysis; your stuff looks almost exactly like what I would expect it to look like from a beginning, self-taught person of your age group. The takeaway message is, "pay attention to what you study, and to who your teachers actually are." Would you want to emulate Miley Cyrus as a singer if you were going to become a singer? Or perhaps, somebody older, better, and more-talented and who will not fade like yesterday's newspaper?
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/42/42023-bdd979ff50e78cc28479297780caeb90.jpg?1734176407)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/42/42020-6dbbc2fb244014aa89adfe2ccf067af7.jpg?1734176400)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/42/42021-ffc326f5dc5b4c65ce53935e6e9e4338.jpg?1734176401)
