Alright, here I am for the critique. Please keep in mind, I am not a nature photography. I am only going to critique the ones that stand out to me as either really great and explain why they are great, or poor ones, and explain why they are poor. Make sense?
First one that caught my eye is this one.
In a way I like it, it’s interesting, but there are some things about it you could improve. First, there are a lot of distracting elements. I’d crop out (what I think is) the pavement behind at the bottom, and also the distracting stuff out of the back. In the future, I’d have set my aperature wider, so you could catch the details at the front of the image as well which are currently blurry. Also, I’d crop more to the right – you’re sort of getting the rule of 3rd here, but not quite. If you don’t know what the rule of 3rds is, go look it up. RIGHT NOW!
This one isn’t particularly bad, but I want to make the point once and move on,
It’s just sticks straight up and down with very little interest. All up and down. Nothing draws your eye around the picture. When you look at a picture, generally the lightest thing is what draws the eye, and there should be a flow throughout the whole image so your brain can take it in. This is too many vertical lines, and it’s boring, and there is nothing to lead the eye. Avoid shots with no means of leading the seer through the image.
This is a better example, as the road leads the eye through the trees. Watch for the blown highlights, because you are missing detail, but you’ve nailed the rule of 3rds here.
Selective colour? No thanks. This might have been nice in full colour.
I am not sure how much you know about horses, so if you know lots, try not to be offended (I have owned horses all my life).
This horse is clearly irritated and not engaged with you at all. The angle is closely cropped, and I can tell you used a wide angle. When shooting horses (or any animals in general) it’s a good idea to use a longer focal legnth, 85+. This is for the same reason I told you the bride had a fat ass – on a wide angle, the closest thing to the lens is the biggest. Take some steps back, and use a longer focal legnth. If you’re father away, it all balances itself out. If the animal is looking away, it should appear relaxed and comfortable (unless it’s an action shot, obviously). If it’s looking at you, you want an alert and open expression, like ears forward and eyes focused on you. That’s my “photographing animals” Speil.
I like this one for many reasons, but dislike the distractions in the back. If you had shot so more of the stem was in the image, the flower was to the left or right, and there was nothing behind it, I’d buy it. As it is, it’s got distracting elements, and your eye doesn’t know where to look as there are no clearly defined leading elements.
This one is neat. I really like it. You’ve not centered, the lighting is interesting, there aren’t many distracting elements. I think you were a bit heavyhanded with the fake lens flare, though.
THere is a technique to shooting STUNNING lens flare, and if you want to know, I will teach you.
This is an image of mine, and this is SOOC (Straight out of camera)
There is no need for fake sunflare.
THis is a really good example of the eye being led through the image.
See how it runs from one corner to the other? That’s neat. Not all photos work that way, but this does. I would have liked to have seen more focus on something… even one specific berry, so a slightly different angle and aperature might have made this really neat. Again, I see lines in the background drawing my eye away. Avoid shooting them, or learn to photoshop that out.
This is a neat angle, no distracting elements – BUT – the focus is in the wrong spot. It probably should have been on the eye of the feather, no the whisps.
I like this, except that it’s centered, and the white in the background. Therefore, I’d crop the top right corner out, almost like you did in the 3rd version, but more.
This one is neat, and breaks all the rules, but it works. Except for that damn lens flare. That is distracting, and it really takes away from this image.
This image is PERFECT. It’s set off to the side a little bit, all the details are in focus, it’s intersting, the light leads to the dark and out the image, the balance is nice, is’s processed lightly and lovely. Love, Love, Love.
This is another really interesting piece, and I like it a lot. I’d crop out the dark at the top, which pulls the eye in the wrong direction (up) and leave the dark at the bottom, so it pulls the eye down and through. Good processing, really intersting.
This is a really neat find. It is centered though, so it kind of kills the interest. Also, the longer parts are cropped out on both the top and bottom, and there is extra space to the sides – I’d have shot Veritcal. I also might have removed the branches in the background, as they are distracting.
This is super, EXCEPT for that white patch in the background that pulls me away. I would also crop a bit of the empty space off the right. It’s close, really close.
I looked in the other galleries, and see a lot of repeats at different sizes, and nothing that really stuck out at me.
A few notes overall – if you’re selling your work, you need a proper logo and a proper watermark.
Try to plan your compositions more – make them more deliberate, and removed distracting elements before you begin.
Please stop putting in fake stars and lens flare. Accomplish it camera, or skip it.
I hope this has helped you out!