looking for honest evaluation of my pictures

[redisburning]

It's hard to know people's opinion on this sort of thing over the internet. No one wants to be brutally honest about stuff because it might hurt people's feelings. That's fine, but after 2 years I need some help evaluating where I am with this whole thing and for that I need some (brutal) honesty. I don't have access to anyone in person to do this for me, so I must turn here.

I take it from the fact that overall most people simply ignore my photos that they aren't very good, or alternatively that people simply do not like whatever it is that I offer.

here are some things I would like to know
quality: good, bad, stunningly mediocre?
unified personal vision: do you see one? could you say what it was if you do?
influences: am I derivative or unique? could you guess any photographers that I like just by looking at my photos?
where to go next: book recommendations, things I should try, etc.

so, I figured that almost 190 pictures on my flickr would be far too much, so I picked 10 photos that I think represent a fairly broad overview of things. If you want to go past those 10 and look at my photostream I would be most grateful. Fair warning: my digital shots are merely for evaluating lenses so those are almost certainly worth skipping.

the set is here : http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmcmani...7625069250855/

thanks ahead of time to anyone who donates their time and wisdom to me.

[I Love Film]

They seem to be random snapshots with nothing that really grabs one's attention. I'm not sure what you're trying to convey with your photos, if anything.

The shots of buildings and trees seem to fit into the "lens evaluation" category.

Technically, they are all over the place.

[redisburning]

well, would you prefer to see a group that is more closely related? that is more "evaluate my set of images" rather than the general question I am asking but if that would be better I will be happy to oblige.

and, no you have guessed right. they aren't trying to convey anything. I don't have a story to tell, or a message to get across and (here is my moment of honesty) I think that is a worthless pursuit, personally. I am merely interested in making some nice photographs that stand by themselves. the bit about the personal vision is I want to know if they are identifiable as all being my photographs or if they are disjointed (you indicate the latter).

and the picture of my dog is certainly a snapshot. but I could not leave her out. photography is, afterall, a personal thing and she is important to someone who has so frequently left all the of the people he knows behind.

oh, and from a technical standpoint that is not what I want to know. I don't worry about that sort of thing honestly. I am looking for a purely aesthetic evaluation.

I appreciate your thoughts, thank you.

[ChrisN]

Originally Posted by redisburning

well, would you prefer to see a group that is more closely related? that is more "evaluate my set of images" rather than the general question I am asking but if that would be better I will be happy to oblige.

I don't think it matters what others would prefer to see, unless someone is paying you for a product. What is it that you want to show?

Originally Posted by redisburning

and, no you have guessed right. they aren't trying to convey anything. I don't have a story to tell, or a message to get across and (here is my moment of honesty) I think that is a worthless pursuit, personally. I am merely interested in making some nice photographs that stand by themselves. the bit about the personal vision is I want to know if they are identifiable as all being my photographs or if they are disjointed (you indicate the latter).

and the picture of my dog is certainly a snapshot. but I could not leave her out. photography is, afterall, a personal thing and she is important to someone who has so frequently left all the of the people he knows behind.

OK - perhaps this would be a good starting point. Put together a set of photos that show the things you love, things that are important to you personally, photos that bring us into your life. Think about content, sequence and presentation (style). The photos of your friends are a pretty good start.

Originally Posted by redisburning

oh, and from a technical standpoint that is not what I want to know. I don't worry about that sort of thing honestly. I am looking for a purely aesthetic evaluation.

To be brutally honest (as requested!), the technical issues can be a barrier to consideration of the aesthetic, if a certain minimum standard is not met. You need to recognise and meet that minimum standard if seeking critique from people who call themselves "photographers" (as opposed to artists perhaps).

Originally Posted by redisburning

I appreciate your thoughts, thank you.

You are very welcome.

[mdarnton]

Originally Posted by redisburning

. . . they aren't trying to convey anything. I don't have a story to tell, or a message to get across and (here is my moment of honesty) I think that is a worthless pursuit. . . .
oh, and from a technical standpoint that is not what I want to know. I don't worry about that sort of thing honestly.

If you don't care to connect with your viewers in any way, and aren't concerned about even the fundamentals of photography, you should not be surprised that you're not getting a lot of love for your photos in this thread.

It sounds like you have accomplished exactly what you intended to do with your photos, which is satisfy yourself, and there is, therefore, no room for growth.

[I Love Film]

Basically, what you are saying is that they are snapshots which have some personal associations for you, such as the dog.

Secondly, you don't care about the technical quality of the photos since in your opinion, that has no relevance to your style of expression.

Grouping them in a different way wouldn't make any difference to my perception of your pictures.

What I would say if I was pressed to give my opinion is that you have a bunch of mediocre snapshots in which you purport in some way capture some personal meaning for you.

Since by your own admission your pictures resonate mainly with yourself, you can't expect the public at large to be mind-readers and see all these things that appeal to you only.

You have very few hits on your photos. This is probably because only you, and possibly the other people in the photos find them of any interest whatsoever.

Personally, and this is only my very personal opinion, I don't like the out of focus, indistinct "blurry" school of photography. For me, this very rarely works and doesn't appeal to me.

If you like your photos, that's good, but don't expect praise from the masses.

Originally Posted by redisburning

well, would you prefer to see a group that is more closely related? that is more "evaluate my set of images" rather than the general question I am asking but if that would be better I will be happy to oblige.

and, no you have guessed right. they aren't trying to convey anything. I don't have a story to tell, or a message to get across and (here is my moment of honesty) I think that is a worthless pursuit, personally. I am merely interested in making some nice photographs that stand by themselves. the bit about the personal vision is I want to know if they are identifiable as all being my photographs or if they are disjointed (you indicate the latter).

and the picture of my dog is certainly a snapshot. but I could not leave her out. photography is, afterall, a personal thing and she is important to someone who has so frequently left all the of the people he knows behind.

oh, and from a technical standpoint that is not what I want to know. I don't worry about that sort of thing honestly. I am looking for a purely aesthetic evaluation.

I appreciate your thoughts, thank you.

[shadowfox]

Originally Posted by redisburning

I am merely interested in making some nice photographs that stand by themselves. the bit about the personal vision is I want to know if they are identifiable as all being my photographs or if they are disjointed (you indicate the latter).

Going by this, I think one of the shots, "sleepyheads" is going in the right direction.

The hurdle there is more about composition techniques than anything. How do you make two heads (even lovely heads with full hairs ) look interesting in the photograph? As is, the photo has all the ingredients notably the walking lady in the background, but they are not arranged in a visually captivating way.

I think in general you just need to sharpen your eyes to spot and use the viewfinder to create a visually interesting composition.

For what it's worth:
- The grey ones would work in a set. Don't be close-minded to creating sets of photographs, it's one of the most satisfying aspect of photography when you succeeded.

- Don't worry about influences. So what if your photo looks like one of Gary Winogrand's or Ansel Adams'? A good photo is a good photo, no matter what it looks like. Nobody, not even the greats can work in vacuum, void of any influences from others.

[Araakii]

If you want to have an identifiable personal vision then you need to narrow down your focus and concentrate on the core things that you want to pursue the most about. For example, you can still take snap shots of your dogs even if your main focus is landscape, but I would leave those aside and not show them together with the landscape images.

I guess the one thing that's in common is that you are documenting your lives with images. But then this is pretty much what everybody else does and that alone would not lead you anywhere if you don't have a particular goal or focus that you want to pursue.

I cannot tell which photographers you like the most.

[f16sunshine]

I think you should ask yourself what it is you enjoy about photography or rather how photography enriches you.
If you are journaling for yourself and want something to look back on. Then, just keep going and eventually, you will find a style that will look like the experience you had the day you took the photo (at least to you).
If you enjoy the gear and learning the technical aspects of the craft. Continue to explore all the options that are out there.
You may be interested in journalism, expressive/artistic work, studies in form etc...
Figure out what draws you to the craft and explore how far you can go with it.
There is no end or finish line to cross.

What I see in the link you posted is a mixed sample of snapshots and experiments in what might be more serious efforts.
The fact that you are looking for input is a good sign you should keep going. Again I would look inward and ask yourself...

What is it you want out from the effort you put in?

Cheers!

[Chris101]

Here's some things I don't understand: there is a mixture of media, color and black and white; some of the photos are horizontal, some are vertical; some of them are 3:2 and some are not; some are people, some are buildings, some are pieces of wood, one is a dog.

If I try to put them together, I can make some stories out of them - the street scene at night demands a story: who is the kid, why is he or she on the street at night, who is the figure at right? The couple consisting of the dark haired woman, and the man with the stripped shirt appear in two photographs apparently taken on the same day, so they must be important to the story. Who are they? Two pictures are of rough wood, one natural, and the other seems to be broken lumber. What does that mean? And I get that your dog is a spectator that you just wanted to include.

The story seems pretty personal, and in code that I (and likely most others) do not understand. Unless there is no story, and you are conveying that things are just random, but that sometimes things get repeated.

If there was something more dramatic or interesting - to me - I would find the photography more compelling. For example, I don't know any of the people pictures. The couple who appear in two pictures are slightly more interesting then the writing woman, the blurry person, or the beach walker, if only because we see them twice.

I don't take any more away from the experience of looking at those 10 pictures than that.

[JayM]

Stand alone photographs do so because of their ability to tell not just one, but many different stories as interpreted by each viewer. They are objects you can return to time and time again reading in deeper and different ways as well as connect with personally. Even someone like Henry Wessel Junior, who described his work as a series of "one liners" achieves this. All good street photography also achieves this, though does not require the viewer to engage it on that level. This is much to its benefit as well as its detriment.

You are unlikely to develop a style so identifiable as to separate you from others except in the eyes of viewers who look at photographs in a way that you do not. Since you believe that one of the fundamental qualities of photography and of true personal vision is "meaningless" you are unlikely to attract such viewers. There are a huge number of amazing photographers in the world, quite a few of whom are "famous," that lack something that makes your garden variety viewer of photographs say "Oh that's Bruce Gilden I know it."

You are a very capable camera operator and based on your photographs you seem to leave your home, have friends, see people, things, etc. This is great because these are all good things for someone who wants to grow as a person and as a photographer (though they are not required!) That said, I feel that you need to continue regularly exercising your camera and begin to exercise your brain. At this point more photography is just going to give you more pictures, which is a surprisingly small part of the overall puzzle.

Do you have a good college nearby with a collection of photo books that are not all coffee table books of Weimaraners and the Kittens of Madison County? If so, I challenge you to go there, notebook in hand, and start looking at books that you would not in ways that you would not. Take notes, what you see, what you feel, what you think the person might be trying to say, what you think about the sequence of images, recurring themes, etc. Hell, just make **** up, it doesn't matter if it's silly as long as it's based on the picture. But seriously, write it down, this step is of the utmost importance. I did this myself at the CCP in Tucson for about 15 hours a week for 2 and a half months and it was a tremendous experience that gave me so many things. So much that I held really high got taken down quite a few notches, and things that I initially thought were SERIOUSLY boring and/or dumb became things that I now must find a way to live with (which sucks because a few of them are "collectibles" the price of which is equal to about a month or more of my life.) Hopefully I'll get to go back and visit again someday. I could suggest books to you if you really want but that'd probably be **** for you since it's my list of books and you and I are not the same person (lucky for you.)

The second challenge I have for you it to go through the last two years of your pictures and begin to organize them somehow. You probably have the first few steps of this done already. It could even be as simple as color in one folder and black and white in another. Find your favorite images and even in the most simplistic way you can decide if they say ANYTHING to you. Your dog, your home, cats, the beach, people you know, the looks on their face, the weather, body language, the structure of the photo: they all say something. Get even a half assed idea of what some of them say and start forming them into sentences and paragraphs. Make little poems out of them. Play with the order. Have fun and be creative with photographs you've already made. It will whisper secrets to you about the thoughts and processes that surround pressing the little button

Wish I could tell you the exact details of how to live your life. Sadly, all I can really say is start looking around and trying to figure **** out

edit: Oh yeah, and steal steal steal. You're not hardworking or talented enough to become an exact copy, or even a half assed Gary Winogrand by trying to be Gary Winogrand, Bruce Gilden by trying to be Bruce Gilden, or John Gossage by trying to be John Gossage. Even if you are, you'll get bored before you succeed. You will however learn a whole lot of **** about looking at the world (hint: this has very little to do with things in front of your eyes but instead how they bounce around in the space behind your eyes) as well as "the process."

Enjoy!

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Chris101

Here's some things I don't understand: there is a mixture of media, color and black and white; some of the photos are horizontal, some are vertical; some of them are 3:2 and some are not; some are people, some are buildings, some are pieces of wood, one is a dog.

I don't see what is so wrong with that...

[FrankS]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

I don't see what is so wrong with that...

Well, the OP was asking if we could discern a personal style.
The answer to that is no, given the selection of images in various forms and types presented.
I'm thinking that that was what Chris101 was referring to.

[Chris101]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

I don't see what is so wrong with that...

I don't really find anything wrong with Red's pictures. They just raise some questions in my mind. So I stated my observations and asked my questions.

My biggest question whenever I look at a picture is "why was this picture taken?" Asking questions of that sort of others, helps me to answer it when I ask myself, internally.

[braver]

Disjointed is the word. Like you say, it's a very broad overview of what you shoot. Looking at each image separately there are some serious processing flaws in the black and whites, but that could also become a style that ties a series together: noone said your pictures should be well executed for them to say something.

If you're just snapping away and having fun, I'd say knock yourself out but don't expect others to see any value in them. Presented like this there simply is too little content to be interested in. But do work on your black and white technique, for the images to stand alone as you say, the processing gets in the way sometimes.

If you really want to do something with this, ask yourself what you're adding to the conversation. I think your grey still-lifes could turn into something seriously interesting but the way they're represented in your flickr stream (inbetween carefree snap shots) I don't get the sense you're serious about them and that prevents me to invest in looking at them and taking them serious as well.

So:
- Consider what you think is your personal aesthetic and stick to that for a while. It doesn't have to be very beautiful but I need to see your personality in the pictures and you can't dull and bright and dark and gray and colorful all at the same time. I'll look at the Flickr interesting stream if I want pictures without personality.
- Also think about what you want it to be about, what's the content? Sure, you can have dogs and trees and landscapes and people together in a series, but I should be able to recognize why they're together.
- Edit edit edit. You can take a color picture of ducks, but if you present those along with a moody still life both pictures are reduced in strength. If you're presenting a series (like you did now, perhaps unknowingly), don't expect the viewer to evaluate the pictures one by one. Use series to have the content emerge from the series. Use singles only if they're very strong (none of these 10 are), or if they're bland enough to be hung on an office wall (your building shot for instance, sorry, I've seen too much of these).

[Jamie Pillers]

Clearly you can make nice photos of your friends and of scenes in your day-to-day life. Now if you want to go further, I'd suggest you (1) take some serious photo classes that really push you hard to move beyond your day-to-day view, and (2) study closely the work of some photographers you admire and possibly want to emulate. Try to measure the difference between their work and yours. Try to put words on what those differences are. This may lead you to some valuable self-criticism and growth. Just a thought.

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

From what you've shown, I can't see one shot that I like. However, the phrase "I like" is the clue here. The response you get on a forum like this will be rather different from the response you'll get elsewhere.

I'd suggest that you ask the question of another group of people, who share your other interests. I think you'll find the difference interesting.

[Keith]

To me there's nothing wrong with your photos ... but there appears to be no particular style. The good photographers that stand out at RFF for me have a definitive style ... I can spot their images in the gallery just by scanning the thumbnails.

A classic example is RFF member lynnb ... he shoots portraits in a very intimate way and a lot of his other images involve water and the coastline where he lives. Cloud formations feature very strongly in his work also.

[Sparrow]

As others have said, they seem like a bit of a random selection and lack any real theme or style to bind them together.

One could pick another 10 out of your flicker that fitted together much better, and with a bit of faffing about in Photoshop to address some of the technical shortcomings and some careful editing and hanging

[Speedfreak]

I know I like the first three, the rest appears random to me. Is there a reason you chose these 10?

[Bobfrance]

Frustration is a very valuable emotion and should be embraced. Just keep shooting. Most photography related issues are solved by shooting more. That and by standing in font of more interesting stuff (as somebody once said).

[FrankS]

Aesthetics aside, there is a technical issue with some of the black and white shots in that they lack contrast/tonal range. They appear dark and tonally flat on my computer screen.

[paulfish4570]

key: the light is not interesting, except for the girl in the coat on the beach, where the light is jewel-like on the plaid.
learn to recognize interesting light, then find a photo in there. keith mentioned lynnb. lynn's photos are defined by the light in them.

[Bobfrance]

As you will have no doubt seen, opinions are much easier to produce than images.
I'd advise you to look at the work of those who are comfortable to post links in their signatures, see who's images you prefer/or which represent what you'd like to produce yourself and pay particular attention to their advice. You could always ask them more specific questions privately. A few nuggets of gold can go a long way and people on this forum are generally a pretty generous bunch.

[Benjamin Marks]

Originally Posted by redisburning

here are some things I would like to know
quality: good, bad, stunningly mediocre?
unified personal vision: do you see one? could you say what it was if you do?
influences: am I derivative or unique? could you guess any photographers that I like just by looking at my photos?
where to go next: book recommendations, things I should try, etc.

Well it is a gutsy thing to do to ask responders to beg off the politeness required by convention, so my hat's off to you on that score. Please take my comments in the courageous spirit in which you framed your original post.

In terms of quality, I assume you mean technical quality of the images, not quality of your "vision" or something less coherent. In the pictures you have shown I think that the technical quality is spotty and could use some hard-nosed attention. For instance in the first picture, the night street scene: on my monitor there is no black in that scene. The shadows are a dark gray. This distracts me and suggests that not enough time was spent processing in post to place the black and white points where they will make the strongest impression. It is like poor grammar in a sentence: it doesn't mean that the reader won't understand what you are saying, but they will have to fight through some knee-jerk annoyance to get there. Also, you will have started to lose your audience before they take the time to really look at your picture because they are likely to infer that you don't understand the grammar of this craft. I would note that this is, generically, a huge problem posting to the web where there are millions of monitors out there, each out of calibration in their own unique way. Hey, for all I know the problem is on my end.

Similarly, the picture of the dog is massively grey on my monitor. Looks like the dog should be white, at least. The image is covered in dust spots (or some other white detritus from scanning). I read above that the dog is significant to you emotionally (or to a friend) -- that significance, and the importance you accord this particular animal, CAN'T come through with these technical defects. The viewer will ask: "If this subject is so important, why didn't the photographer take the time to look at the image critically, assess its defects and fix it?" So: dog=white, tonal range = rescued from gray, dust spots=gone... now your viewer might have some emotional response to the image. Until then, all the importance you place on the subject matter is not even part of the discussion; we are too busy with the distractions.

[EDIT: I see in a response above that you make a distinction between the technical aspects of your pictures and something you call "aesthetics." Let me cautiously suggest that the two are really the same (or so intertwined that they can't be separated). You can't in seriousness ask someone for an aesthetic appraisal of a picture with technical defects. Or said another way, "Moonrise over Hernandez" with white dust spots is just a bad print. Photography is a technical art -- you don't get to evaluate aesthetics until you have mastered technique. There is just no point. The dog picture IS the sum of its technical achievements: I just see a grey snapshot of a dog in the middle of the frame with white dust spots all over -- it has no aesthetic quality at all, which is the ability to generate an emotional response from your viewer based on its beauty/ugliness.]

A note on content, which is also part of "quality." A plurality of the pictures (and a majority of the pictures with human subjects) don't show faces. When evaluating my own pictures with the same problem, this usually suggests a lack of courage to confront or acknowledge my subject. Personally, I don't find this mysterious, I just find it boring. Those pictures, thematically, read as instant failures. Or said another way: If I am going to spend a lot of time looking at the backs or sides of peoples' heads, I have to be convinced that there is something bold being attempted, rather than just a snapshot of a stranger retreating from my vantage point.

Unified personal vision: short answer: no. This is a tough one, because just as you have been pointed to some RFF photographers who have forged one, the vast majority have none. I have none. But the question is a little confusing in your case, because of the variety of image you have selected. I would turn this question back to you for refinement: why do you think someone viewing the 10 image you posted would come to the conclusion that you have a unified personal vision? If you had one, how would you characterize it?

Derivative? Red Herring. Who cares? It is so challenging to take a good photograph, what does it matter if it is in the style of Nan Goldin? And it is a Catch-22, because as you take more pictures and become a more sophisticated viewer, your answer to this question will change. Ignore it. Take lots of pictures. Take 25,000 pictures in the next three years. Edit ruthlessly. Throw out 3/4 of what is left. Then ask the question about the remainder. And look. See as many images as you can.

Hope this was not too painful. Now go click that shutter button.