Newbie to photography, looking for constructive criticism...

[suzbaby]

Hello all,
For my wedding anniversary this year, my husband and I decided that we would like to take up photography as a hobby. Just something to enrich our lives and try to learn. I know it will be difficult, but that is part of the fun.
We bought our very first digital SLR camera a few weeks ago. So far I have taken a lot of very bad photos with it. :)
I thought perhaps the best way to learn (aside from taking classes) would be to put a few of my photos out there and look for advice/constructive criticism.
The photos below were taken outside my parent's home in Grangeville, Idaho.
Any thoughts or advice the experts here in this forum have would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!!!
Suzbaby

[JeffR]

1. Well, you asked, so

I have to say the first one doesn't work for me, because I'm unclear as to what you want me to be seeing. Perhaps more sky, or being closer to the structure on the left, would have made it all clearer. Or, of course, maybe I'm just obtuse. I do like the sense of space, though.

The second one is a home run, on the other hand. Nice use of shallow depth of field, nice "rule of thirds" composition, and here the sense of space works really effectively as a foil against the closely focused elements.

One piece of advice I can offer is to try post-processing a black and white variation of almost everything you shoot. I'm amazed at both pros and amateurs I know who never bother trying this. It's my personal bias, of course, but B & W is "pure" photography to me. Not everything works well without color, but a lot of photographs do. It's also a good way to get acquainted with dynamic range in your photographs without the "distraction" of color. Definitely something I'd advise experimenting with, and with digital, producing a B & W version doesn't mean sacrificing the color version.

No matter what else you do, shoot a lot. Carry your camera with you whenever possible and point it at everything you can. Those "bad photos" you mention may be everything you need to steer you toward taking photos you're happier with.

If the second shot you posted is any indication, you're well on the way.

[suzbaby]

4. Thanks for the advice

I'm not offended by any criticism. That's how I'll learn. The first photo was about the pig shed in a field of grass for me. But you're right, I could have framed that better.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

9. I see what you were getting at

but there is no sense of scale.
That could be a pigshed or a house, and the grass could be an inch high or a meter.

to pull something like that off, you need a really wide lens and something of interest either in the foreground, or something of undeniable size, like a person or a pig near your "object"

does that make sense?

[suzbaby]

12. I think I do.

Like placing a dollar bill near something small to give it scale?

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

13. that's the idea

does not always pan out, but...

[begin_within]

2. I like the second one,

because it's "about something." In the first picture it's unclear what it's about. In most of the great photographs I have seen, you know immediately what it's about, at your first glance. Something grabs your eye immediately. I guess this point was made by the first replier. I would add that most professional landscape photographers usually shoot in the early morning or very late afternoon, when the sun is low in the sky. Everything just looks better at those times. You might even try taking the same photo again when the sun is low in the sky and highlighting the texture in the wood.

[regnaD kciN]

3. I would agree with the time-of-day recommendation...

It appears your photo was taken at mid-day, which is about the worst time to take natural landscape photos (at least in color -- you can get good results in black-and-white). The contrast is too high, meaning you'll get burned-out highlights or shadows with no texture to them, and the light coming from directly overhead doesn't "shape" the subject like early morning or late afternoon light.

If I were to make a suggestion, I'd pick the time (sunrise or sunset) when the light would be coming from the right side of that image, so it would be hitting the fence from the road side.

Also, try to change your shooting position to mask or omit that piece of machinery or whatever behind part of the fence (the yellow, red, and white object, whatever it is). All it does is add background confusion, when the focus should be on the fence itself. It seems to me that, if you moved your shooting position a bit to the right and slightly lower, you'd be able to conceal it behind the fencepost and crossbar.

Sometimes, one of the tricks of photographic composition is not in what to include in the frame, but what to leave out of it...basically, you need to ask "what am I trying to show here?" and cut out anything that doesn't contribute to the answer you give to that question.

[suzbaby]

5. I've been reading about the sunrise, sunset time of day thing.

I'll have to try that out, thanks!

[begin_within]

6. You're welcome. Your avatar shows a photo of a polar bear taken either at sunrise or sunset.

[Tindalos]

7. Hiya!

Hi,

I'm new to photography too and I hope you don't mind me sitting in on your lesson. There's some good advice here. I'm trying to learn how the camera "sees" which is quite different from how the eye sees. You've already gotten better advice than I can offer, but I really like the second one too. Also, don't be afraid of taking too many pictures - you can always delete them later. Have fun with it.


Cheers,
Tin

[suzbaby]

10. I don't mind! :)

We're all here to learn. I think I have a lot of lessons to learn about lighting and composition. Practice, practice, practice, I guess.

[regnaD kciN]

14. One piece of advice...

I'm trying to learn how the camera "sees" which is quite different from how the eye sees.

Before taking a photograph, look at the scene with one eye closed. The reason? It means you'll be seeing in 2-D, just like a camera will. Although we scarcely realize it while photographing, the fact that we see in 3-D means that we're perceiving depth in a way that often "interprets" scenes with a lot of visual complexity (think a forest scene) rendering them understandable, whereas a 2-D view without that depth perception will just make them a jumble of visual elements in the same plane. That's why it's common to take a photo of a scene that looks great to our (two) eyes, only to have the resulting image seem disappointingly flat and confusing.

[Tindalos]

16. That makes sense.

Thanks, I'll give it a try. I'm heading out for some "sight-seeing" later today and will try to remember everything I've learned in this thread. Hopefully, I'll have some results to post and everyone can decide whether I'm a good student or not.

[NashVegas]

8. Go Ahead and Take a Workshop

There are some interesting things going on here. A qualified instructor understands it's in her/his best interest to see that you learn how to operate your camera and that you come away with an understanding of why experienced photographers do things in a certain way.

[suzbaby]

11. I'd like to, but don't know if it's feasible for me.

Maybe someday in the future. :)

[tekisui]

15. What everyone else said so far....

Time of day is key. The low light makes all the difference in color.

The first one, know what the subject is, like others said.

The second one is good. Depth of field and interest in the fence railing. The only thing I would recommend is look carefully at everything captured in your image when you take your picture. For instance, it looks as if you could have moved up just one post of the fence and taken the same shot without the plastic piece on the fence. To me, that is a distraction from the interest of the old split rail fence.

You are on the right track, take lots of pictures, that is how you do it.