so when discussing composition one critique that is commonly passed around is "if everything is important, then nothing is important."
in some of your shots this works to your advantage. you seem to do composition at a macro level, where no individual object is sacred, it's all scattered and indistinct. the audience's eye-movement can wander willy-nilly. Even photos like
>>3262484 where you're clearly fixating on a given object, it still has a big blob of cluttered bokeh filling up half the frame.
so why is this a problem when it's also a strength? if it's your only trick then the shots where you really pull it off get muddled in with the shots where you only somewhat achieve the intended effect.
So, a critique on an individual photograph, this one because I think it has the most potential for improvement
>>3261820Disregarding your photo editing ability, focusing entirely on perspective, you have a great subject. The cat, too, could be a huge addition, but your timing is off in that. The cat is not prowling, not tip-toeing, its silhouette is a blob. a cat-blob. Similarly, you don't have a foreground. It's foreground-blob. It's not your fault it's a blob, that is the objective nature of the subject. However, as artists we have a responsibility to sell all parts of a composition. Some photo manipulation might be done to improve it. Perhaps another angle might improve interest. I can't say I wasn't there.
I think you could return to this location when there is some added atmosphere. fog would be ideal. smoke from the chimney. maybe twilight. the mood on this thing could be absolutely picturebook, instead it's just objective and maybe a bit aloof.
I think
>>3262986 is your best work based on your preferences. It has a human element, a lot of variety of texture, some architectural elements, a defined atmosphere.
