i'm the anon from the other thread. looking at these, my first bit of advice would be thinking about what you're trying to say with these photographs, what are you trying to communicate? could you reasonably tell me why i should care about these shots? yes? then do so. no? then why bother posting them.
a photo like
>>3785462 might work in a larger series but in the context of being surrounded by random snaps, it doesn't interest me at all.
also consider the techniques you're using and why you're using them.
>>3785461 these photos are in a diptych. why? you don't have to answer but just think it over. i'm only questioning it because i'm presuming the reasoning isn't strong.
>>3785470 same with this one. you use a double exposure. why? what is it adding to what you're attempting to communicate? does it add anyhing aesthetically? did you just do it because you thought it might make it stand out? i know you're a new shooter so i won't knock you for experimenting with this kind of technique but an experiment with a technique is just that. consider it another tool in your technique toolbox for when you have an idea for something that requires a double exposure to be expressed. speaking of tools, when you're shooting people like in
>>3785468. let's say you're just trying to capture them - think about their expression, their posture, the background, the lighting - these are all tools at your disposal and neglect of any of them when taking a photo is a missed opportunity. is the blank wall helping to express this character, do you think?
>>3785472when shooting something that is "static" like a building, imagine there are 100s of photographers who shoot the same building. it's not something you get the luxury of having exclusive eyes on. search it on google images and see how other photograhpers are trying to capture it, then try to capture aspects of it that they aren't, maybe a part of it that means something to you personally. apply your style to it if you have one.
