Honest Opinion about my Digital Photo's?

Question

http://www.artistrising.com/galleries/jamessheridan

Do you like this? I would like constructive criticism before I send in the papers to actually sell them. Thanks.

**There's 2 Pending Approval, so there's only 2 up.**

Answer 1

I love the lightning photo.  Very well done.  The other is good but doesn't appeal to me like the other.  Good work!

Answer 2

Good but cliche....

Answer 3

He didn't "catch" the lightning in that photo...he added it.  That's blatant image manipulation if it's true and it's very misleading    :(

So it's not like he was actually out there during a thunderstorm and just managed to get the perfect shot of lightning with a long exposure, like a skilled nature photographer might.  It was Photoshopped in.

I'll apologize if I'm wrong.  But did I read your caption right on "Mother Nature's Evil" that you ADDED the lightning in with Photoshop??  If that's true, then you went way beyond just editing your pictures to improve them and actually added something that didn't even exist when you took the picture.  It's misleading because it's not a real photograph and completely mis-represents how the scene looked and what your skills are.  You didn't take a picture of lightning, it's a computer generated image.  In fact, if you try to sell that picture, some places would consider that fraud.  A newspaper or magazine definitely would.  Editing an image is one thing...but adding things that weren't even there when you took the picture is completely different.

Like I said, if I misunderstood your caption or what you did, then I'll apologize.  But the deception you used with that picture would completely turn me off from any of your other work.  Sorry  :(

EDIT:  This is exactly what I was talking about...Nathan Grammatico apparently didn't read your caption or the other answers here, so he thought that you actually took that picture of the lightning.  That's why I say it's complete deception.  It's hard to get a good picture of lightning...and manipulating a picture to show something that you did NOT photograph is very misleading.  Also, by the way, a more experienced landscape photographer would be able to tell that it's fake.  The lighting is too flat, and with a scene with real lightning you wouldn't have a completely even exposure like in that picture.  The area closer to the strike would be more brightly lit and the foreground is usually darker.

More like this:

   http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/...

Or this:

http://mcgonnigle.files.wordpress.com/20...

You can also tell the second picture is a REAL photograph of lightning, and was with a long exposure, because the city lights are blown out.  My guess would be a 6 -10  second exposure.  Photographing lightning is difficult to achieve and is a skill, something that you shouldn't try to pass off as yours with Photoshop.

Answer 4

They are pretty good, not going to say they are amazing but they are pretty good.

If you take lots of photos try posting them on the below link, they sell stock photos to web and graphic designers and anyone else who wants them.

Keep on snapping

  

Answer 5

nice catch on the lightning.  I like it.  Might need more editing though.  the first one is just ok.   Nothing really caught my eye in that one.

Answer 6

I love the second one, it has something in it, which is lightning, which is hard to photograph, so that's an achievement in and of itself. However, the first one just looks boring, just dirt and brush, which isn't so appealing, but it's well composed anyway. Just when you take photographs again make them more interesting ( referring to the first one only ) i really liked the second one though, it's hard to photograph lightning. I can see people buying that one, but not the second one.

Answer 7

The fog one does nothing for me.

Adding the "lightning" with Photoshop makes the picture a fraud.

Try taking real pictures that don't require manipulation.

Answer 8

Both images are split in half by the horizon which makes a very static image. You need to check out the rule of thirds to understand how an image may be more visually pleasing.

I do not object to using photo editing to create an artsy image, but if you are sending it to a newspaper, they might object. I created this in editing, but I would not offer it to a newspaper  http://www.flickr.com/photos/perki88/243...