That one really got my attention.
The others though, could've been better.
Stop sharpening so much.
I have a hard time believing that you took all of these. The only consistent elements are things that can be done in post processing; the composition, artistic quality of photograph, and style are all very different between the photos.
Edit: I checked most of them in tineye and it didn't return anything, but it still doesn't make the incredible disparity between the artistic and technical quality of the images sit any better with me. Seriously, you have photos that look like they were done by a professional nature photographer, and photos that look like they were taken with someone's cellphone camera. Some of the animal shots look like they were shot with a high end DSLR and a 70-200 2.8 and then you've got the peacock one that looks like it was shot with a point and shoot by your aunt at the zoo.
Some of the photos are good I suppose, but others look like you've never ever practiced or even looked at rules of composition. The only common thread through all the photos is that they've either been horribly marred with artificial lighting effects and sharpening in GIMP and/or repeatedly uploaded and downloaded from Facebook in an effort to render them almost unrecognizably compressed.
Over-processed and poor composition I'm afraid. You've certainly got some ok shots in that bundle so keep at it. Post over in the creative photography thread. People there are friendly and will help you out.
Most importantly the processing needs to be seriously altered. It's what really kills most of them for me.
Also, the compression on the pictures is pretty bad. That can be easily fixed, and it's not as much an artistic thing as it just really bothers me.
i took all of them over the years with different cameras..that is just my portfolio
the ones that look grainy or blurry were taken buy my Canon Powershot A20 its only 2mp..its lame i know but i dont have the money and some of the better ones were taken on a Canon Powershot A620
Hahah these are all so awful
I'm not very good at crit but here's my opinion on each photo:
1. (with a broken image tag) Not really too bad, I don't like the selective colouring, but the sky and trees look pretty cool, and it's not squint or anything. There's a black dot in the sky which I find pretty distracting.
2. Not very nice, over contrasted and the selective colouring does nothing to improve the picture. The sky is also very grainy.
3. Had some potential, but it's pretty squint and a bit over contrasted, and I'm not sure what the dark leaves really add to it. Looks like it's been over sharpened too.
4. The flowing water looks really dreamy, but the colours are bad and the subject is pretty boring. Also squint.
5. The light rays are gorgeous, but the picture has been WAY over sharpened, and there's a shitload of JPEG fuzziness laying around. There's some odd shadows on the ground, and the ground itself it's just messy and uniteresting. I think if it was cropped a bit it'd be nicer.
6. Horrible shadow running through the picture, bad colours, and uninteresting foreground.
7. I don't know about this one. The light ray just looks... off, I don't really know why. The quality of the photo is really poor, and I think it would definitely had more potential had it been taken with just a slightly better camera.
8. This is a pretty cool photo, but as I said above it's a shame the quality is so poor. Nice subject, and it's cool that they're facing the camera, but the quality is just terrible.
9. I like this one! It's pretty grainy and the colours are a bit off, but it's a nice subject and composed pretty well. Probably the best out of all the photos you've posted.
10. Just no. Don't add stupid text like that to photos. Just totally ruins them. There's alot of completely unneccesary space at the bottom, but I assume that was intentional, to fit the text in. It's an alright photo, minus the text and blank space, but a bit annoying the toe and tail are cut off.
11. Squint, poor quality, definitely not as good as your other animal photos. Looks quite unnaturally contrasted.
12. Pretty cool, nice framing, trees in the background are a bit strange/distracting. I find it a bit boring, but that's just me. It's much better quality than a lot of your other photos.
13. Pretty boring, bunch of unneccesary space to the left, something being cut off over to the right, toes are way too close to the edge of the photo... It's in a really cool position and I think there's ways to photograph that subject a LOT better than how you have.
14. It's... alright I suppose. I just find this very boring, cool subject, but just really boring. The bird is just staring into nothing, and it'd've been nice if we'd be able to see where or what it's staring at.
15. Really cool photo, but the poor quality just really ruins it. It could have been a really lovely picture with a better camera: you can see what it's looking up to, the light rays look really gorgeous, the composition is nice, but the quality is terribad.
16. Boring, generic, nothing special at all, also a distracting chicken. You can see the edge of the fence (?) in the corner which is annoying.
17. Kinda boring, oversharpened, bad colours, bad quality. The water looks etremely unnatural, and the sailboat is too... centered? Like your other (animal) photos, it can really improve a picture if you can see what theyre looking into/where they're looking/etc. This just looks like a stationary sailboat.
18. Horrible framing, horrible colours (really, really unneccesary selective colouring), boring subject, just a really bad photo. There's not really any redeeming qualities about it.
19. Could've had some serious potential, but it's been WAY overcontrasted and just ends up looking horrible. Good location, and subject, but it's just been messed up in PP.
Sorry if I'm too harsh, that's just my two pennies worth.
i am speechless
A lot of them feel WAY too colorful.
It's an eyesore, really.
But you can get a decent camera for cheap, you don't need to go for like, a DSLR or something until you're maybe more experienced or have a bigger budget. Sony Cybershots are pretty cheap and can produce quite high quality photos.
Look, I feel as if you've had a rather unfair and harsh intro to the forum. People here aren't mean, but rather very direct. There is little to no sugar-coating on this forum (diabetics welcome ). I'm going to own up an say, these aren't very good. One or two are maybe "ok", but you still have a long way to go. Photography is a skill. Some people are better at it than others in the beginning, but it's all about practice practice practice! Read up on some technique and photo theory, and then just go out and shoot.
Also, your camera has no influence on the quality of your work. Well it obviously does in the actual quality of the image (noise, depth of field, clarity, etc.), but as far as artistic merits go, the photographer is more important than the camera. A good camera will only help the photographer, but a good camera does not a photographer make.
As far as post-processing goes, that's a whole other beast. Honestly, you should really focus on taking better photographs (working on getting interesting subjects and proper composition) before you delve into heavy editing. The usual rule of thumb is, less is more. Obviously rules, especially in photography, were meant to be broken, but it's more important in the beginning to keep the editing pretty modest. You will pickup the editing as you go, but it's more important to take a good photograph in the first place.
[QUOTE=Edthefirst;34276581]A good camera will only help the photographer, but a good camera does not a photographer make.
Opinion "a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty."
why did you post back in this thread
nedz moar HDR
I don't like any of them, and why did you take a picture of a fat guy and greyscale it?