Hello! I have some photography I would like critiqued please

[Glycerol Sound]

Before you all fire away, I would like to mention I would like feedback on composition only. These photos have all been altered to the point where, unless something severely takes away from the composition of the photo, telling me that a photo is underexposed etc would be pointless. Thank you


Holga by Dan White Photography, on Flickr


Grant Barn by Dan White Photography, on Flickr


Stuck Somewhere Between the Future and the Past by Dan White Photography, on Flickr


The Hanger by Dan White Photography, on Flickr

 

[Glycerol Sound]

...or not

 

[MohaimenK]

To be honest, just looks a little boring. Although if I had to chose, #1 is the best captured out of them all. I'd focus on leveling the horizon. I do take crooked images at tiems while doing model photos w/ things in the background but if you're capturing a building like #4 you want to make sure its level or else it doesn't look that great you know?

3rd one a little crooked as well.

#2 you did use the rule of third and not too much sky, which I like.

 

[Glycerol Sound]

To be honest, I dont see what youre gauging a "level horizon" by on any of these, except possibly the second

 

[Robin Usagani]

Glycerol.. nothing is really interesting except #1.

#1. Best one of the 4 but I am not crazy about it
#2. Ugly building, weird composition
#3. Cool. Still not crazy about it
#4. I rather see the 2 people chatting than looking at the building. The banners are annoying.

 

[MohaimenK]

To be honest, I dont see what youre gauging a "level horizon" by on any of these, except possibly the second

Don't have time to go through every single of your photo but here's a start. Look at the grid vs the vertical lines (which would be the pilars) in your image and you can figure out the rest. G luck

 

[SrBiscuit]

glad to see i made your sig, mo.

the pillars in the foreground are perfectly plumb. the ones toward the back lean in due to wide distortion. can you explain further mo?

these shots look pretty good to me.
i would probably dump the house one, but thats just my opinion.

 

[MohaimenK]

glad to see i made your sig, mo.

the pillars in the foreground are perfectly plumb. the ones toward the back lean in due to wide distortion. can you explain further mo?

Yeah you did. :thumbup:

And yes, perhaps that's the case but it does give the illusion of it being crooked. Which makes the entire image in my eyes not totally horizontal. Now that's my opinion if the OP is happy w/ his image, totally up to him. Actually only only 1 pillar (front one) looks plumb, rest don't.

 

[MohaimenK]

And another thing w/ that image is that it's quiet hard to get the entire image in perfect horizontal because of the angles but when you see the image, your eyes go straight to the middle where the people are sitting and the black door and the guy sitting along after that. Yes the front pillar is aligned correctly but when you take your eyes off there, everything else looks crooked

 

[SrBiscuit]

youre right, it is just the first one thats plumb, but that leads me to believe that its level. so for me it works.

my fave shot is the first of these. :thumbup:

 

[MohaimenK]

youre right, it is just the first one thats plumb, but that leads me to believe that its level. so for me it works.

my fave shot is the first of these. :thumbup:

Yes but when you see the entire image itself, what grabs your attention first? Because I believe he's capturing the entire scene as his subject. Having 1 pillar perfectly leveled and leaving the rest doesn't do good for this image IMO.

Yeah 1st one I liked alot.

 

[SrBiscuit]

the foreground corner grabs my attention first, and then my eye is lead down the perspective of the patio area. i enjoy the deep blue sky, and the lovely reflection. i do wish the end of the building (on the right) was included in the image though.

 

[LaFoto]

Well, I'm with Señor Cookie (erm SrBiscuit) here, thinking that if one of the pillars is perfectly vertical, then everything is all right. There is such thing as lens distortion, and if you don't own (like myself) any software which can remedy that, or you don't WANT to remedy something that's second nature to photography, then... it's totally ok by me. I like the stark white against deep blue in the last, I like the repetitions in the pillars, I like the reflection on the water, I don't mind the posters, as they were there and Glycerol Sound was probably not invited to put them down first. And I'm happy to see there were people there!

So I myself quite like the last.
Contrary to most others here, I don't think the first is very interesting.
I do not like the second at all. But to "like" something is so subjective ... it doesn't really count as valid critique.
And with regards to the light streaks I must say that I have seen better before. I guess, exposure was too long so the lights became too bright.

 

[MohaimenK]

Yes it just comes down to everyone's opinion at the end. If that is the rule then that's fine, in my eyes I don't enjoy it but that doesn't mean it's totally wrong. We're just all here w/ our opinion. Who's to say who's right/wrong I don't know He wanted C&C I gave him my side of it. I guess OP can always ignore it.

 

[Glycerol Sound]

Yeah I see what youre saying now, Moh. I'm kind of huge a fan of wide angle distortion (these were all done with a 20mm lens except the first, which was on a 35), and generally surreal elements in photography. Probably should have mentioned that sorry haha. I do appreciate the feedback even if I do come off as defensive about it. So thanks