If you want a meaningful critique from members, it helps to give some info, such as MTVision mentioned, above. Other useful information would include:
1) What was your vision when you made this image?
2) What did you intend the audience to see or feel?
3) How did you go about achieving your goal?
4) What area(s) do you feel you did not succeed in and are asking for help on?
Then we can have a meaningful discussion about whether or not you achieved your goals, and if not, what to change to get better.
okay.. wil post them !
1. i wanted to create an eerie atmosphere wit this pic .
2. i wanted my audience to appreciate me effort . nothing else
3. went to a forest. got this idea. searched for a perfect spot. clicked it .
4 . that should be answered by you . thats why am posting it here ...
Not sure which image your comments are intended for.
However, lets go through the images you did post.
Image 1 (post #22): heart-shaped shadow. Neat idea but you cut off the bottom of the heart, the text does not support the heart sentiment, and the symmetry of the image is somewhat off. The basic lesson here is that all parts of the image need to work together to support the main idea.
Image 2 (post #23): crow on a wire. Strong diagonal, but the dead-center placement of the bird weakens the shot in my opinion, and the less-than-level horizon is slightly distracting. As a concept, this image has potential, but the actual execution of the image leaves me feeling indifferent.
Image 3 (post #24): walls/trees/house. The toning implies that we should be less concerned with color and reality and more concerned with texture and pattern. The fence/wall has interesting textures and patterns, as do the roofs, but overall its a bit of a mashup in that nothing especially stands out. As a photographer, you havent given us the clues as to why we should care about this image. Yes, its your home, but what else is there compelling about the image to make us want to look?
Image 4 (post #25): Field of flowers. Again, the idea of having selective focus in mid-frame has potential, but your chosen vantage point shows too many distracting elements, such as the pole in the background, various wires, and two out-of-focus posts. If you had chosen a higher vantage point, you would have had a band of yellow, topped by a band of red, and presumably, topped by a band of green, and this would have been an interesting texture/color contrast study.
Image 5 (post #26): Forest. Of the lot, this one probably appeals to me the most. Again, the toning implies that we should focus on the overall shapes and patterns, and there is a symmetry that is pleasing. However, at the edge of the frame (lower right) we see dead branches that take away from the images of the trees.
Image 6 (post #27): close-up of your phone. The vantage point works in that we dont immediately recognize what the object is, and the toning and narrow depth-of-field constrain our view somewhat to the center where we see a texture/pattern combination. However, once weve figured out that its a phone, what else do you want us to take away after seeing this image?
In summary, Id say you know how to get the basic exposure right, but you need to focus on the essential message of each image and distill away anything that diminishes that message. The more you make the viewer work at figuring out what you want us to see, the less impact the image has. The exception to the previous statement is a well-crafted image where the story is ambiguous, but the nature of the image makes us want to invest the time to study it and figure it out.
