>>3996133I'm starting to remotely develop a style and consistence in quality but it's far from satisfying and it took me 6 years (not practicing intensively, more by little periods of time). So you should not worry. What was the most helpful to me is to buy books (image, technical and philosophical) and constitute a list of photographers I need to check out.
>>3995942So here is why I don't like your pic trying to be precise and objective. First off the brightest part of your photo (where the eyes are drawn the most) is that sky and greenery. It is completely overexposed, to the point the light is leaking on the leaves, and the leaves look black. This is technically very bad, so even if the rest of the photo was amazing it would be hard to forgive. It also make the rest of the photo looks underexposed.
The general treatment of the color is not good. Those walls are all kinda red or yellow or off white, and you are muting them with a blueish white balance, making them look grey.
There is nothing out of the ordinary with this scene, apart from the line in the middle, but it's too tiny (at the top) and unoticeable to really give value to the scene. So I guess what you like is those patches of different textures that are presented with geometric patterns, am I right ? It's a good idea but doesn't work that well especially in the right side where the wood wall is to dark, the geometric patterns are not clear enough, and there is this horrible patch of light that emphasize the darkness of the wooden wall.
In summary, you could improve this photo by bringing the white balance to the yellows (improving colors) and reducing general contrast (and maybe increase micro contrast) to emphasize this idea of patchwork of textures next to each other. Start by bringing highlights down to see if you can work with the overexposed part or just crop it out.
Do you think that's fair ? I tried to illustrate what I mean by precise arguments.
