Do I stand a chance?

[elementgs]

I know this is such a vague question but I really am kicking this around a lot lately and I'm just wondering, do I really stand a chance?

I want to make this a career more than anything and quite honestly I'm not worried about the difficulty I know I will face. I know making money in landscape photography is really difficult, even if I was Ansel Adams, I'm just not worried about it... I spent my life up to age 29 in sales and the past 7 years in the military. I can handle the difficulty... what I want to know is if I actually have the talent for it.

I'm 100% self taught at this point, no classes, no mentor... just one year, the Internet, a lot of passion, and 10,194 mistakes so far.

My 500px has all the pictures I've published and if you start from the bottom up you may notice a steady progression of knowledge gained... I'm still bouncing around a bit trying to decide on my personal style but I'm really getting a feeling for it.

I'm open to honest feedback and appreciate any and all comments.

Thanks!

 

[amolitor]

You might want to do a little research into the number of people who have in fact made a career out of landscape photography. I do not have any hard answers here, but would not be surprised to learn that the number of people who have managed to make even a modest living purely at landscape photography numbers less than 10.

It's a bit litle being a concert pianist, at best. Being excellent isn't enough.

 

[Gavjenks]

These are my 5 favorites. I assume you're okay with me posting them directly, since you're asking for critique and linked us already and everybody knows who took them:
1)

2)

3)

4)

5)



My choice of those 5 in and of itself probably says a lot about what things I like pattern-wise and which things I don't from that set, even if I can't explain it.
But in general, something like:
1) Strong large-scale shapes
2) Vivid but not unnatural looking colors
3) Plenty of well rendered detail to keep me in the photo once the strong shapes and contrast have pulled me in.


Nitpicks:
1) I think this would have been a lot stronger if the rocks were not centered.
2) The horizon looks a little crooked and maybe pan a little further right.
3) The new growth on the bush to the right is in the way. Moving in front of that would really help. And the office building in the back is terribly out of place. moving a bit to the left might fix that without changing the image much, assuming you can do that without falling into the creek (moving back and left with a longer lens in that case might work).
5) I don't actually like this image very much as is, but I think it had a lot of potential. Minus the flare, which isn't really helping much, and in softer light, this same angle and scene though could be brilliant.


As for overall can you hack it professionally, who on earth knows? Probably not, simply because almost nobody does. But could you make a decent side income? Quite possibly. I'm not sure this is a cash-money-right-now quality portfolio as it stands, but you definitely seem skilled enough to get where you want to be with practice and time. And I'm sure several of these would sell right now through the right channels.

Probably your skills in business and marketing are just as or more important than your photography, and I have no idea how good of a businessman you are. And you almost certainly would want to supplement your photography with PEOPLE shots if it's your only income. If you love good landscapes, then specialize in outdoor people shots with the people in the context of beautiful landscapes, if you want the best chances of making a real living doing something close to what you like.

 

[Derrel]

I spent a few minutes going through your 500px portfolio, and I will tell it to you straight: your landscape photographs are receiving low ratings because there is very little "engagement" with the landscape in them. A pretty scene, a pretty sunset sky, and so on are simply not enough. Your photos are simple recordings, made at pretty locations.Many of the photos lack a strong or compelling foreground, and are simply semi-wide-angle recordings of pretty locations. That is simply not enough to make the photos compelling. Yes, you might be growing into your style, or finding your style, but what I see is the same basic thing over and over. Pretty location, rich,vibrant,saturated color, but no real "engagement" with the landscapes before you. There's also very little focal length variety, and almost everything seems to be over the top, full on saturation sliders to the maximum.

The shorebird above, for example: the bird is located almost dead center in the frame, but the bird is looking to the right...that makes for a dull composition. The bird is highlighted by rim-lighting, but the shadowed side is all basically the same tone. The lighting there is tricky...nuanced...delicate, and yet brash, but the post-processing is not sophisticated enough to show any nuance. It's a beautiful scene, and a neat-looking bird, but the lenswork, and the photographic skill to elevate this scene to its full glory, are not present yet. You have a long way to go. In today's market, it's simply not enough to travel to pretty locations and take good recordings...the photos need to cause the viewer to "engage" with the scene shown...and the shots simply do not do that.

 

[Gavjenks]

I agree that many of the images suffer from too little going on in big patches. I'm not sure it NEEDS to be a foreground object as Derrel is suggesting. That certainly is one good ironclad option that will almost always work (animals are always nice, or cool buildings, broken boats, you know, whatever). You can get away without foreground stuff, too. But if so, you need "interesting stuff" across the frame, ideally a variety of it.

For example:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Adams_The_Tetons_and_the_Snake_River.jpg

This doesn't really have anything in the foreground per se. But instead, i t is divided up into a bunch of diverse and interesting section to explore that have shapes and things to look at. A peninsula, a river, trees, mountain, clouds make for 5 good solid regions balancing one another and leaving no huge dead spaces that don't contribute.

Which is almost always harder to do, I'd say, than just putting something cool in the foreground.

 

[Derrel]

I agree that many of the images suffer from too little going on in big patches. I'm not sure it NEEDS to be a foreground object as Derrel is suggesting. That certainly is one good ironclad option that will almost always work (animals are always nice, or cool buildings, broken boats, you know, whatever). You can get away without foreground stuff, too. But if so, you need "interesting stuff" across the frame, ideally a variety of it.

For example:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Adams_The_Tetons_and_the_Snake_River.jpg

This doesn't really have anything in the foreground per se. But instead, i t is divided up into a bunch of diverse and interesting section to explore that have shapes and things to look at. A peninsula, a river, trees, mountain, clouds make for 5 good solid regions balancing one another and leaving no huge dead spaces that don't contribute.

Which is almost always harder to do, I'd say, than just putting something cool in the foreground.

WHAT the **** are you talking about?????????? The photo has an incredibly compelling foreground.

"Doah!" Surely you jest. It's the Snake River in the foreground, leading right into the image.

You must just be here for sport I suppose. My God. Talk about pedantic.

 

[runnah]

Don't quit your day job.

 

[amolitor]

Ansel Adams pictures always have gigantic amounts of design in them. The guy was a frustrated painter, as near as I can tell. The Snake River picture can be unpacked forever.

 

[Devinhullphoto]

These are my 5 favorites. I assume you're okay with me posting them directly, since you're asking for critique and linked us already and everybody knows who took them: 1) <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=56557"/> 2) <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=56558"/> 3) <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=56559"/> 4) <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=56560"/> 5) <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=56561"/> My choice of those 5 in and of itself probably says a lot about what things I like pattern-wise and which things I don't from that set, even if I can't explain it. But in general, something like: 1) Strong large-scale shapes 2) Vivid but not unnatural looking colors 3) Plenty of well rendered detail to keep me in the photo once the strong shapes and contrast have pulled me in. Nitpicks: 1) I think this would have been a lot stronger if the rocks were not centered. 2) The horizon looks a little crooked and maybe pan a little further right. 3) The new growth on the bush to the right is in the way. Moving in front of that would really help. And the office building in the back is terribly out of place. moving a bit to the left might fix that without changing the image much, assuming you can do that without falling into the creek (moving back and left with a longer lens in that case might work). 5) I don't actually like this image very much as is, but I think it had a lot of potential. Minus the flare, which isn't really helping much, and in softer light, this same angle and scene though could be brilliant. As for overall can you hack it professionally, who on earth knows? Probably not, simply because almost nobody does. But could you make a decent side income? Quite possibly. I'm not sure this is a cash-money-right-now quality portfolio as it stands, but you definitely seem skilled enough to get where you want to be with practice and time. And I'm sure several of these would sell right now through the right channels. Probably your skills in business and marketing are just as or more important than your photography, and I have no idea how good of a businessman you are. And you almost certainly would want to supplement your photography with PEOPLE shots if it's your only income. If you love good landscapes, then specialize in outdoor people shots with the people in the context of beautiful landscapes, if you want the best chances of making a real living doing something close to what you like.

Dang! That sky on 4! Killer!

 

[Devinhullphoto]

WHAT the **** are you talking about?????????? The photo has an incredibly compelling foreground. "Doah!" Surely you jest. It's the Snake River in the foreground, leading right into the image. You must just be here for sport I suppose. My God. Talk about pedantic.

I think it's a great shot. I know loads of people require something in the scene other than nature but I love shots of pretty places. That's just me though.

 

[Gavjenks]

The nearest point to the photographer in snake river is like 200 meters away probably, no particular objects or shapes really stand out close up. The entire river itself takes up half the image and goes all the way out to half a mile away.

I wouldn't call that a "foreground." I would say that if there are no particularly nearby shapes or objects to the camera at all, it simply doesn't have a foreground. Otherwise the term is fairly meaningless, because if you define "foreground" as just whatever the nearest interesting objects are, then by definition, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to take a photo with a non-interesting foreground, because it just wouldn't be the foreground yet...




But whatever, it doesn't really matter. The point remains the same that you want to have a good distribution of interesting regions throughout your landscape, with no huge areas of dead space that don't contribute. Whatever terms you use, that will still translate to the same basic architecture of an image. The advice to the OP boils down to the same thing.

I merely wanted to clarify that there doesn't necessarily have to be an actual shape or object up close to you to make an interesting landscape (like a moose, or a cabin, or a particularly compelling tree or whatever). If the OP already understands that from his definition of "foreground" being the same as Derrel's, then great. mission accomplished. If not, then now he does. Either way *shrug*

 

[amolitor]

There are lots of Ansel Adams pictures that aren't built around a near/far relationship, but I'm with Derrel here, the Snake River picture ain't one of 'em.

 

[Derrel]

fore·ground

[fawr-ground, fohr-] Show IPA
noun1.the ground or parts situated, or represented as situated, in the front; the portion of a scene nearest to the viewer (opposed to background ).

2.a prominent or important position; forefront.

Origin:
1685&#8211;95; fore- + ground

Again, the definition of "foreground" is well-understood by people of normal intelligence.

The OP's photos lack engaging entry into almost all images. Basic compositional skills are missing. Pretty scenes are 19 to 39 cents per download in today's stock photo market. Yes..nineteen CENTS to thirty-nine CENTS, per file, on basic for-the-record landscape snaps.

 

[tirediron]

Okay folks, let's try and keep this relevant; the OP isn't asking for critique on 'Snake River'!

 

[amolitor]

The OP actually strikes me as having a moderate grasp of near/far, but not consistently. The bigger problems are putting stuff into the frame in a balanced and pleasing way. There are a few hits, quite a bit of stuff simply jammed in the middle of the frame, and a fair number of near misses, where the elements are trying but are not quite pulling together to make a pleasing design.

On the other hand, Peter Lik and a couple other guys doing pretty much the same thing seem to be making a living selling stuff that's only a modest notch better. Lik's photos look similar, but Lik's worst frames are about as good as the OP's best/luckiest compositions, to my eye. But Peter Lik and his colleagues are largely about marketing, not about photography.

The OP could probably work away at it and build a deep enough portfolio to pull a decent small portfolio of quite decent work out without much trouble. The problem them becomes turning pictures into money, and that's a very very big problem in a genre like this.

Seriously, how many successful landscape photographers can you name? How many people are making a living in the genre right now? I think more living men have been ON THE MOON than are making a living selling landscape photographs.