New here; Some Example Work for Critiquing (And an Introduction)

[Kasper]

Hey everyone, I found this forum on a Google search in hopes that I could get more in-depth constructive criticism on my work since this is a forum dedicated solely to photography.
A bit of background info - I'm 16, and I do work for the newspaper and school yearbook occasionally. I also do senior portraits for $75 a session. I currently use a Canon 7D and have just upgraded from my EOS40D. I used a Rebel XTI Before that. So without further ado, some photos.

Flickr: Paddy Kelly's Photostream

 

[inTempus]

Welcome to the forum.

Thanks for sharing your pictures. Here's my constructive criticism.

1) The subject is muttled, the trees really obscure the subject and makes the image look more or less like a vacation snap shot.

2) I like the subject, but the editing really doesn't do it for me. The colors aren't appealing to me as the sky looks over edited/processed and fake. The detail in the ground isn't there either, it almost looks as though you've blurred it with a blur tool in Photoshop.

3) Sort of interesting, but honestly, shots into the sun with lens flare are a bit over done. It's right up there with posing people on train tracks. That's all this image really appears to be to me, a shot of the sun with a tree in the way. Perhaps if you had a more interesting subject or the tree framed differently it would be more interesting.

4) Not sure why you would post a shot with the strobe in frame. I could see posting this shot to show others how you set the shot up, but this by itself looks like a snap shot. Where's the picture you shot (without the strobe in frame)? Lets see that one!

5) The subject is lost on me. Is it the mountains/hills or the clouds? I'm not a big landscape guy so I really shouldn't comment. I find most landscape shots I see posted to be uninteresting so it's quite possibly a personal problem on my end.

6) This one had the most potential out of all of them... but it's out of focus! Even if the guy with his mouth open was in focus and the rest of the people were out of focus this would work, but with the entire image out of focus it just don't do it for me.

7) I like the endless road with the snow capped mountains off in the distance, but I would have centered the road in the frame. I know-I know-you're not supposed to center things in frame, or so we're always told. Well, rules are meant to be broken and this is one instance where I think the image would have been better if it were centered.

 

[Kasper]

I can agree with most of your criticism; but keep in mind that photos #1, #2, and #7 were shot out of a moving car.
None of the portraits from that session with the strobe are on my flickr, but here's one of my actual portraits

Also, I just took a loot at your flickr, I really like your portraits.

 

[Derrel]

I think your photos have a pretty fair amount of "feeling" in them. Your second, third shots,and last shots (the sky one) in your first post show promise. I can understand the shot of the girl standing in a field with the strobe and umbrella in the frame--sort of a commentary on the entire "Strobist" movement, I suppose.

The shot of the church is a bit off, I think. Your exploration of lens flare, ghosting, and veiling glare in the third shot is well-seen as sort of a commentary on the photographic process, I guess; keep that lens in mind when you need flare, ghosting, or veiling glare in a shot. I've seen some nice advertising as well as portraiture shots done with a lens that has that type of poor against the light performance.

The mountaintop with clouds and the tug-o-war shots do very little for me; there was some excitement in the tug-o-war shot, but the framing and composition don;t really make that excitement come through. Still, overall, you've got some shots that have something going on in them; like the first landscape with telephone poles--I like how the telephone poles just "end" in the center of the frame--very well-seen.