>>2621469annnnnd,
Just to appease you I've attached a (slightly more acceptable) photo from the RPT with more in depth criticism, and why it's irrelevant.
1. Is that supposed to be the subject?
Why have you chosen that subject when it offers zero visual interest, why with all the geometric loveliness going on would I want my eye to land on the ugliest part of the photo? If it is the subject, the background has to tell more story, there is no story to tourists walking on a beach.
2.
Image quality issues, the left is all smeary, the top right looks weird and crunchy. There is also a lack of contrast across the scene which loses the visual impact and magnitude of the rocks and forest.
3. What is this shit? tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum? putting a brightly coloured distracting blob right next to the 'subject' is clearly a bad idea. If you want the subject to be a subject let it shine at it's brightest. removing these blobs would be a 3 second fix.
So we have an image with composition problems, processing issues and image quality issues. For this to be a better photo it needs to go in a direction, instead of the halfway house it's currently at. Either do a much closer environmental portrait with a nice stripy background, or get a very clean photo to allow the stripy background to shine all on it's own.
The photographer is visually illiterate, he is not seeing what is wrong, this can't be taught with 2 paragraphs on 4chan, read a book, go to a gallery, practice.
