(Part 2) Top products from r/photocritique

What were you going for here? My eyes go from the shoe to the two words that are starkly in focus, to the top of the busses and out of the frame. The woman seems an after-thought.

I get that things like the circular-mask blur and the contact-sheet-esque border create visual interest, but they don't add or enhance anything. They are crutches meant to obscure the lack of actual content from the casual observer. Any attempt at critique is thwarted by these elements - what are they doing there, how do they add to the shot? There are many techniques for manipulating a photograph to enhance visual interest, to make the subject stronger and the background less distracting. Some standards are dodge/burn, vignetting, or cropping the extraneous elements. Consider also the C-B technique of capturing the decisive moment - first find a compelling background, and then camp there until an interesting subject arrives. I believe true craftsmanship lies not in knowing what to include (typically a very short list), but what to cull, what does not belong in your work. That's why we have professional editors in almost every creative field.

The human brain is a marvelous thing, we do so much subconsciously. For instance if you were to put your hand on a hot stove, your nervous system moves your hand automatically, before sending the pain signal - you move your hand before you are aware that it hurts. I mean really, breathing, need I say more? An excellent primer on this idea is BLINK by Malcolm Gladwell (or THE FOURTH WAY by PD Ouspensky if you don't mind the occult). What I'm getting at is that elements like the blur in your composition are literally revolting to the human eye - our brains subconsciously register it as unnatural, sort-of wrong, and that feeling that something isn't right often manifests as revulsion. No matter how good the rest of this photograph is, all of that is negated by your blur.

On the subject of the blur, consider the frame as a container. You choose what to put inside of it. When you're packing a lunch, most of that container is filled with food and drink, with a small share for napkins/utensils/etc. Your frame is filled with forks - I have a hundred forks and only two bites of food to eat them with. It looks like you're focusing (oooh pun) on the shoe/sign/woman - ignoring their relationship or lack thereof, why do these three main elements fill less than a tenth of the frame? If this is a picture about the woman, what's with all this blurry bus bullshit? Crop the crap and be done with it. To further this idea of frame as container, why did you employ that border which only serves to reduce the size of the container? Digitally emulating artifacts of analog techniques can serve a purpose, but what purpose does it serve here? I can see how one may consider the border 'artish' but to add one to a shot it bares no relevance on belays the idea that, again, it is there because there isn't anything interesting in the photograph itself.

You have good material to work with here in your original photograph, I hope your editing was non-destructive because I would really love to see a more thought-out rework of this. Keep working, keep sharing, keep being the champion that you are; that will gain you a lot more respect than your actual work, in many cases.

To paraphrase Dali, "Begin by learning to photograph and edit like the old masters. After that, you can do as you like; everyone will respect you." This is in small part because you will have learned quality technique, but a large part of that respect comes from showing that you have the perseverance, the drive to improve. To end on another Dali quote, "Don't be afraid of perfection: you'll never attain it!"

Four books about art that I personally believe to be invaluable to any photographer: the Adams holy trilogy (Camera, Negative, Print), and Dali's "50 Secrets of Magic Craftsmanship."

Full disclosure: I am a Young Uneducated Male Pedant.

tl;dr: start from the top and then continue until you arrive back at this point.

Yeah it does stand out from the rest, not only because of the subject and the pose, but because there aren't any environmental cues like the rest (black background). Glad I could be constructive with my comments.

A good starting point is a softbox/umbrella 45 degrees over, 45 degrees up, torso pointed towards the light source, face turned about 45 degrees away from the torso/light source (towards the camera). Keep a ratio of about 2:1 key to fill light (or use a reflector), and if you want to use a rim light or kicker behind the hair for it. Or google Rembrandt lighting, which is similar.

The Syl Arena book is pretty much the gold standard of flash photography:
http://www.amazon.com/Speedliters-Handbook-Learning-Craft-Speedlites/dp/032171105X

Neil V's Tangents blog is a great online resource:
http://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/

And of course there is strobist.com

Some of the BH photos are amazing resources. Here are a few (with differing levels of relevance):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5byuHJ9uBns
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWhi4I20s10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eoi5uxZq7z8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtcD84l9eUw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9RQ6YPVWhA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJHfT7lYqCo&list=FLqfXHErKeDtB3zYN9zaNfmg&index=3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxPkxS_ezVg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcpRdrVrtz0

Cheers!

Food photography is all about textures, and for that you need strong light, so this is pretty flat and doesn't entice us with the creaminess of the ice cream, and even the sparkle of the glass can make it more appetizing. Our eyes naturally seek contrast, so giving them what they want in that regard just enhances the overall viewing experience. Also, get closer so we can see every creamy fold and chocolatey sprinkle.

Desserts are tough. Any commercial image you see of ice cream isn't ice cream, it wouldn't last under the lights. Which brings us to styling. It has to look perfect, so no smudges on the rim of the glass, the sprinkles need to be arranged perfectly, and the scoop on top needs to really look heroic.

If you really want to get into food photography I highly recommend assisting. For now, get this book, in which a few of my images are featured :) There's a Kindle edition as well. It will show you a lot of great tips and secrets for making your food shots look irresistible.

Ninja edit to add a note about desserts.

I don't think you can force a style upon yourself without blatantly copying someone else.

Based on the style you are currently shooting in, the fact that you have only 38 photos on flickr, and your approximate age (assuming you are the subject in the photos), you need to shoot a lot more.

Keep shooting the way you do maybe. Try to improve your technique both at the camera and at the computer in photoshop while thinking critically about what you like/don't like about your work. Your style will develop organically as you introduce or take away things that are either lacking or over pronounced in your work. Eventually you fill find a way of working that really flows well for you.

I think the best advice is to move slowly and try not to get too frustrated with yourself if you dislike your results.

There is a theory that it takes 10000 hours to master any craft: source. That's a lot of time, but think of any truly talented person you follow. People don't wake up one day with flawless photographic technique, much like someone that runs casually will not be taking any medals in the olympics.

Concepts may appear out of the blue, but the ability to translate it exactly as you wish into any artistic space is really the holy grail of any artform. And it takes a lot of practice.

Practice practice practice :D

Just try to be uncompromising while keeping yourself conscious of every artistic decision you make. Your style will flow out of you with little effort if you are practiced and confident.

And don't fake it - we'll know ;) :D :D

You might want to consider a warmer color treatment:

example

It's always a good idea to add warmth to subjects in the shade, especially if you're wanting to portray something positive.

Also you subjects should be facing the camera to the point where their noses don't protrude from their profile.

The leg should be closer to a 45 degree angle (high or low). This helps lead the eyes to your subject. Currently the leg does not direct your eyes anywhere useful and draws attention to the cross formed with the tree behind the knee.

Ultimately, don't get too discouraged though. There's a lot of complexity with posing subjects and it takes awhile to master. I'd recommend reading Picture Perfect Practice, as it has a lot of great tips on posing and composition.

Definitely a biased subject, but that's a good thing in the long run. It just makes learning to be critical initially hard, because it's difficult for any parent to go "Wow, my kids look like ass here." Not that they look like ass here, but that's the mentality you will have to develop.

Any photographer will produce their best work when given subjects they're passionate about. Your kids are a subject you are passionate about, and are going to put in the extra work to photograph. Keep photographing them.

The time for passion and zero judgement is when you're actually shooting and making images. At your workstation, the critic has to be the predominant force. John Cleese has a talk on youtube about creativity and the two modes, if you're interested.

Here's one of my favorite books on composition. It has virtually nothing about the camera itself or workflow, except insofar as it applies to composition itself. Short, focused, and dense with information/examples.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0817454195/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Pick up the book Night Photography: Finding Your Way in the Dark by Lance Keimig. It's a great book, it has lots of takes on different kinds of night photography. I took a workshop with Lance, he's a smart, talented dude.

Composition is a very broad and extensive topic, and throwing a few sentences in your direction won't help you much. So, instead a link to some basic info and the advice to look for good books. And while you are at it, look for books about the usage of light in photography.

After having said that I can't help but give you indeed some personal advice.
Think about your pictures before taking them: what is the main subject of your picture. What objects do you want to have in your picture. Why do you want them in your picture. Do they actually make your picture better, or are they distracting from the main subject. Is the place I stand at really the best place for this picture or should I move a bit.
Basically, think about every element you see in your viewfinder (or LCD screen).

hmm if you are interested in conceptual photography I would read this [book] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Photograph-Contemporary-Art-World/dp/0500204012/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1394500027&sr=8-1&keywords=photography+as+contemporary+art) I think it will give you a broader notion of what conceptual photography is as well as introduce you to some great artists.

If you feel like taking a step further into using a pinhole, you can use black and white photo paper instead of film and with a tiny little hole you can get some incredible sharpness. Granted you'll need the chemicals to develop it, at least you won't need an enlarger and can skip the film developing process! For more contrast you can use an enlarger filter in front of the opening as well.

Story is key! I do a lot of photojournalism, so I focus on that a lot.

If you want a good read about including story in photos, here's a book that may help: http://www.amazon.com/Storytellers-Photographers-Developing-Creating-Pictures/dp/0321803566/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345262080&sr=8-1&keywords=storytellers

A good start! I'd say that you're pushing the blacks up too much, and not exposing for your target's face.
Switch from full-frame metering to spot (or center-weighted if you're worried that you're going to blow out the background). After you're in spot metering mode, zero out your light meter on the shadow side of their face. In most lighting situations, that's kind of what you want-- 18% gray in facial shadows.
Pick up The Camera and The Negative . The combination of his discussion on the finer aspects of photography, his philosophy, and the practical aspects of the Zone System help more than any other resource out there.

By any chance have you read Photoshop LAB Color: The Canyon Conundrum? It goes into a lot of detail about driving apart similar colors to different areas of the colorspace, and uses canyon images like this one for the examples in many cases.

Reminds me of the cover of this book, except the angle is better:

http://www.amazon.com/Play-Away-Workaholics-Cure-Anxiety/dp/0615918174/ref=la_B00IAVMZJ0_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1406661268&sr=1-1

There are fairly inexpensive t-mount lenses that seem to do an ok job if you don’t need autofocus or image stabilization. here’s one.. It’s kind of funny. I just inherited a 400mm version of this from 1976.

http://www.amazon.com/Print-Ansel-Adams-Photography-Book/dp/0821221876

Besides the DSLR mod the OP mentioned, you can also use a filter on your lens; however, most DSLRs come with a film on the CCD that also filters out IR, so you usually need to use very long exposures (30s+) to get anything.