IMG_4194.JPG

I have been messing around with the camera and the different settings,

trying to learn about everything and hoping you guys could give me some

feedback/pointers to what you think could be done to improve the photos

thank you so much for even taking the time to look aswell!

Kenny the final arbiter is always the photographer. Does the photograph convey what you wanted it to convey? Now a lot of people can tell you how to make a ‘different’ photograph, but I seriously doubt that anyone can tell you how to make this photograph better. The lines are beautiful,  composition is well balanced, the darkness conveys age, the colors are rich. In all it is a beautifully elegant photograph. I, of course, am assuming that this is not for a hardware catalogue.  

Thank you so much for your comment and since im new at photography i have no clue what is concidered a "good" photo and stuff i guess i was more just wondering if it would be concidered a good photo lol but you right i guess it is all up to the photographer and what he wants from the picture. thank you so much  for the kind words and helpful advice!

Kenny, there is no one definition of a ‘good’ photograph. What you will generally get when you request a Internet critique is some arbitrary conventional wisdom about the rule of thirds, sharpness, correct color. Taking that approach it would probably be mentioned that your image is a little dark and possibly not crisply sharp. I see that as being arbitrary because those that make the comments have no idea of what you, the photographer wishes for the photograph to convey. Some photographers can only see the photograph as the object photographed—those are picture takers. To be a photographer you have to reach beyond that to see the photograph as a new entity, an object of art in its on right. 

A second and in my opinion a more useful approach is to try to draw from what the photographer presents rather than whether or not it conforms to rules. Taking that approach the reader looks more for ambiance, mood, an aesthetic sense created by lines, color, balance, positioning inside the frame, what is included, what is excluded. What does the photographer want us to see, feel, experience from this photograph. Something caused the photographer to take this photograph, that something was important to the photographer. It is the readers job to at least attempt to understand what that was. Taking this approach I perceive that the darkness of your image, the richness of the color speaks to the age, history of the door latch and how many thousand thumbs have pressed it, passed through this door. This approach can be accepting of the lack of crisp sharpness. Having said that, this approach would also be accepting of a crispness to the thumb latch but it doesn’t denigrate the photograph because the thumb latch is not critically sharp. 

Generally the eye will go to certain areas of the image. This is not an absolute rule but generally the eye will go to a larger element over a smaller element, to an area of highest contrast, either tonal contrast or color contrast; to a sharper area over a softer area, a lighter area over a darker area, a human element or animal over an inanimate object. There is a whole hierarchy of these elements so generally as photographers we gradually begin to understand what draws the eye in the photograph and from that we attempt to use this hierarchy to call the reader’s attention to what we consider the most important element in the photograph. In your photograph we see that in mainly the dark/light opposites. The left side of your photograph is darker which says that area of the photograph is not the most important yet it has a weight that nicely balances the more interesting side. The latch is the lightest element which draws the reader’s eye and therefore becomes the element with the primary importance in your photograph. I feel pretty sure that is the effect that you wanted. You also have another opposite going which I did not mention, detail vs. lack of detail. Again the most detail, the most interesting lines in your photograph is the latch, therefore it has more draw than the left side which is devoid of intricate detail. Some photographers have to learn this hierarchy, some seem to know it instinctively. You often hear this mentioned as contrast in critiques. Of course, contrast is important but it goes well beyond simply contrast. 

There is another approach which to an extent is an extension of the second approach. However it is more interested in content, what the photograph conveys. To a degree that grows from the interests of the second approach but goes a little farther in trying to read the photograph. 

As advice based on this one photograph. You have a good eye—that is more important than all the photographic technique your will ever learn. Technique is craftsmanship, a good eye is a necessarily for the artist. Technique can be learned, I am not entirely sure that a good eye can be. Never be fooled into believing that technique is the end all of photography, it is simply the sentence structure of the story of the photograph. 

More advice, with a passion avoid the how to books, how to expose, how to compose, how to print—those are for the technique geeks. Study the writings of David duChemin, Chirs Orwig, Bruce Baunbum, George Barr—they will explain what is important about photography as an artistic expression, an entirely different concept. 

First recommendation is Within the Frame by David duChemin. If you would make that your photographic bible from the beginning you will be moving in the right direction. Sorry to be so long but even at this I have only scratched the surface of photography, it’s not even bleeding yet.

A little odd this, as I'd normally be writing to comment on the photo rather than the comments, but I just wanted to say that Gary's critique is one of the best I've read on this site. Bravo!

I've reached the point in my photography that I'm more a slave to technique than is possibly healthy, and it's wonderful to read something that makes me sit back and appreciate a photo again without a lot of the aesthetic baggage I've collected.

No, I don't think it's a "great" photo as it's technical imperfections would distract me if I'd taken it myself, but there's a certain look to the image which is compelling regardless. Keep practicing Kenny, I look forward to seeing your future contributions to the site.