Each of these images from my portfolio has earned 2 stars. I'm emotionally biased, but being as objective as I can I still think they're each worth a solid 3. Am I wrong? Tell me. And please don't suggest the answer lies in editing them; they stand or fall as they are.
Please feel free to be completely honest and speak plain. If you want to use words like 'boring' then do so.
I think you've answered your own question; they aren't bad images, they just aren't that interesting on their own. Some of these images could work if they were presented as a series, I could see the 3rd and 4th image shown as part of a set. Besides people being overly critical with ratings on here, they don't take into account that some photos could be part of a collection.
they aren't bad images i think composition is where they could be improved.
the conditions are beautiful the exposures are nicely done i feel that if you look at a few of these they may have benefited from a portrait orientation to better ground them especially in #4 just something to consider in future take shots in both orientations so you have more options when you are finalizing your images
Fog, rocks, trees. I don't know what to look at in any of these photos. None of them make me want to take the time to figure it out either.
I echo Francisco's and Joseph's sentiments that the photos are certainly not "bad," by any stretch. Since you specifically requested that we not comment about the editing, I will focus on the composition / subjects.
For me, the first one is the strongest. Full disclosure, I'm a sucker for the soft-light progression of tree lines / mountains in a landscape =) - Full res, assuming correct focus, my floor for it would be a 3.
My critique of images 2-4 is that your compositions rely on the foreground subjects and none are strong enough to carry the scenes. If the mountain had more dramatic light or if the trees in the scenes had more interesting shapes / organic uniformity, your outcomes would clearly be different.
I like Joseph's recommendation for a portrait orientation. It allows you to choose the most interesting tree, isolate it, and capture the color contrast. Then with Francisco's suggestion, make a collection out of the various captures.
Hope this helps.
You cannot expect the 'community' to validate your work as you would desire it to be. In any social context there's a tendency of following the hurdle or a certain trend, etc. That is even more noticeable if there is an implied competitive background to it, as when what you do is evaluated by those that are also being assessed, like a kind of ouroboros snake.
It's a bit of cliché, but I do believe in trusting one's own guts, and aiming and working at permanently improving, knowing that outcomes are starting points. You will eventually become your best judge, and that will make you reconsider what you once though was great work. In time, your work will speak for itself, no need for social appraisal. Sure, it's good to know what the others are doing, but not in the sense of comparison - unique is incomparable, and all the contrary of an hurdle. It first needs to satisfy you, and on the long run that's all there is to it.
That said, I see some flatness in your images. That's ok if it's intentional (I guess in no.3 and no.4 it is, the first two I am not sure).
Cheers
I can't add anything of value beyond what's been posted. However, if these were rated during one of the contests, take those ratings with a grain of pixels. :-) I have a shot that was rated as it stands in my portfolio with a 3.25. In the contest, it was rated a 1.8. Because of that, I don't take anything from the contest ratings. There are a lot of members here that consider winning more important than honest ratings, so they rate entered images poorly in hopes that their images will win.
Human nature is a very fickle entity.
Folks thanks for all your comments; interesting reading. It's difficult to be objective about one's own work. To be honest, the most painful feedback to hear is indifference. I can accept that there is always scope for improvement however I do remain firm in my belief these are strong, though not necessarily to everyone's tastes.
The most useful thing I've learned doing this is seeing where those tastes diverge from my own and how I may see one thing but other people something else entirely. I'm not so much looking for validation of my own view as I am interested in finding out what those other tastes are.
They'll remain in my portfolio as to me they are meaningful expressions of my love for the forest and wild places, and honest examples of what I do.
In viewing your other work I'd have to ask - do YOU feel these images are as strong as all your others?
I love your first image (I'd give that a solid 3) but personally don't feel that the others compare to the rest of the excellent images in your portfolio.
In these I don't feel the subject/composition is as strong as your others, and can see why they may not stand out to the community.
Thanks Alan - fair comment.
To me they are every bit as special. But my challenge is disentangling my emotions from the scenes. My mind tells me these are not as strong, but admittedly that's come as a surprise. But then I'm so in love with these shots because of the places they mark in my journey. There are certain nuances in them that are invisible to a casual observer if they do not know the place or the work of some of the people who have influenced me.
For instance, I took number one after camping out on my 30th birthday. It was a reshoot of a previous attempt and I feel it went perfectly. It's a view of my favourite place in the world but I guess to understand why I love that shot you need to know just how rarely it looks like that and how much effort went into making that shot happen. Those are things you can't get across even in a caption.
Number two is a bit more straightforward - just a photo of one of Scotland's most beautiful mountains. But I do like the lighting and tones.
Three and four are very special to me. They are a set, and show the same stand of trees. I had number 3 scoped out for several years before finally finding the conditions I wanted. Getting a heavy frost that early in October when the leaves are gold is rare here. To me it's a shot about the colours. It's deliberately abstracted a bit because to me it's like a garden - you look nowhere and everywhere at once. You can pick out details or take in the whole. It's about the beauty of the whole forest.
The final one is over a year later. It's silver is a counterpoint to the gold of the image before it, and with the blue bands of mist and forest inverted. It's about the changing beauty of the place, but it's also a reference/homage to a short line in my favourite book 'The Living Mountain' about the brilliance of water in the Cairngorms:
"It's waters are white, of a clearness so absolute that there is no image for them. Naked birches in April, lighted after heavy rain by the sun, might suggest their brilliance. Yet this is too sensational. The whiteness of these waters is simple. They are elemental transparency."
This is now the longest post in human history so I'll just finish by saying that I composed every shot the way I did for a good reason, but I'm just trying to see past the feelings I have about them so I can do a better job next time I find one of those personally meaningful moments in nature. But, on the other hand, I'll always shoot what feels right at the time.
Because it's a useful indicator of whether or not an image has broad appeal. I'm quite happy to judge how useful critique is, but since feedback is rarely left for a 2 star rating I had to go looking for it.
Although all the pictures are accomplished, and I enjoy most of them, but trying to figure out why people might overlook them is possibly due to the lack of an obvious focal point.
In the first picture the focal point is the layers in the trees, but the trees at the front sort of act like a barrier, stopping your eye wandering into the area, so leading lines in the foreground could help this.
For the second picture, I think the textures, again, are great but there is a lack of scale to the mountains, something in the foreground could help show that. But then I haven't been there and there probably is nothing to help.
The last two pictures are all about the colours, but for me the compositions don't emphasise the colours to their fullest. In the third picture brightest part is the low cloud, and the darkest area is the forested slopes behind. For me my eye is drawn away from the colours in the foreground where the interest is,
Then in the fourth photo the sandwich effect from the trees and the clouds emphasises the green trees instead of the white trees. Perhaps getting rid of some of the cloud will also help show the nuances in the trees further as well, or if there is greens in the grass this would also shift focus to the trees.