Your technique is good enough to take photography seriously.
>>4112709Most people have no opinion on art, let alone something niche like photography. When they say it's nice it's a polite way to say they don't care. Don't rely on your non educated friend and family saying it is "nice"
Personally from an artistic perspective I see nothing special in your photos.
- They don't seem to evoque a theme or message
- I don't feel anything special when looking at them
- I don't see anything original or personal about your subject, light, technique pour processing
>>4112722Now, reading the thread it seems you are mistaken on the reasons why you would consider photography as a career. It as nothing to do with you producing good photos as an hobbyist. It's more like: are you ready to make weddings and stock photos ? Do you know people that could hire you ? Do you know how photo business work ? If not are you ready to go through and education on that ? Do you have money to support you while you will try to get by with photo ? Are you determined to take a career path that will make you most likely poor and with no recognition ?
Given the economics my personal opinion is that you should keep that as a hobby. You can take it seriously but remember in photography it's very hard to progress because there is very little objective criteria of quality. So essentially progress in photography can be done by developing a taste for graphical arts in general. If your eye is good at judging art you will likely be a good photographer.
Lastly you should not take seriously this retarded board that only care about gear and is filled that retarded people with no life that lurk here only to spam that photography is dead, is not art, and is easy.
