Below are some photos I like from my travels, but I feel from a less sentimental position it's because of the subject matter not because I've done something interesting with the subject. If that makes any sense.
So I'm looking for constructive criticism on composition and on the technical aspects as well please.
These photos are probably taken with a fast shutter speed and a large aperture as I have an essential tremor and no tripod. I have now purchased a tripod so can start experimenting more with settings. Although with these photos I don't think I would change that much.
In the terms of composition, I think that everything is pretty good. Now that you've bought tripod experiments maybe with the long exposure, some shots during late sunset, blue hour or early sunrise, and you you want a better light anyway. First one in Patagonia looks slightly inclined to the right, otherwise technically fairly correct and beautiful photos.
Hi Peter, thanks for posting. As with Radisa I think the compositions are pretty solid in general. It is difficult to critique as a group but if you wanted to create individual posts in future I'm sure you'll get more in-depth feedback.
Speaking of tripods your post reminded me that I had yet to post a blog entry on my site. Just some rambling thoughts about how tripod use impacts my own workflow but you may get something out of it if interested;
https://www.alanbrownphotography.com/blog/2019/2/17/the-undervalued-tripod
Again, channeling Radisa, a tripod will open up a whole world of possibilities to you - get out there and have fun!
These are all interesting photographs. I agree about the slight tilt to the right on the first image. One thing that separates interesting subjects from interesting photos is that an interesting photo shows the interesting subject in context. It's the inclusion of context that makes these photos work. the last photograph is more abstract, so context is the texture and shape.