'>rules in art';

'>>4297041
if anything I think the composition is pretty good. I think getting a little lower and shooting at like a 30 or 45 degree angle to the ground would have helped a bit. But my main complaints is that is seems overly sharpened';

'>>4297041
do you really think its that simple?';

'>>4297261
No I don't know what to think. I read it on a photography blog and got confused since I don't see anything wrong but they said there's loads';

'>>4297341
Stop reading about photography and stop caring what other people think. Just take the photos you like and you judge what is good and bad about them.';

'>>4297342
How can one get better if he doesn't know what is fundamentally wrong with his photos?';

'>>4297343
Photography isn't objective, how can someone be an authority on it?

>How can one get better
>take a photo
>look at it
>I like [x.y.z] about my photo I will try to replicate this in the future
>I did not like [a.b.c], I will try to avoid this in the future
voila, your photos will become better and better';

'>>4297345
When you adhere to certain rules and expectations, then the message and point you are tying to convey to other people becomes clearer. You know what is the focus and the story in your photo, but if all the basic rules are ignored then no one else can understand it without asking.';

'>>4297349
If you don't want to listen to me that's fine. But my advice is the same. Same taking photos for other people. This is my final reply.';

'>>4297041
You are retarded for liking pictures where people climb on train tracks.';

'>>4297041
>I find myself then drawn to the anomaly
The critic in your OP is making more effort to sound like some pissy art book than in actually looking at your picture.

That said, leading lines are a compositional aid, they make a very dull subject indeed. Your picture only works in so far as that you have demonstrated that you know what leading lines are. It would be fine in a textbook about basic composition techniques.

Otherwise, the only interesting thing, >>4297410 , is that it is Coombe Lane tram stop, though if you are from Fuckwitland you probably call them streetcars, and that OP is on a designated crossing controlled by traffic lights.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>coom lane';

'>>4297041
low quality crop but feel like this is relevant
i didn't quite get it aligned perfectly but you can see what i was going for';

'>>4297041
leading lines have to lead to something or help fame a point of interest
if that photo is not an example of leading lines';

'>>4297041
it's just an overdone boring shot';

'>>4297041
>leading lines yadda yadda
yeah, it's not a very good picture. personally, i've got very lost in trying to find the subject, then i've realized nothing is really a subject here, or maybe lines are leading you into emptiness because calm emptiness is what caught your eye
>am i retarded for still liking it
not really, i kinda like the general vibe and this odd sense of emptiness despite having a person in frame. it's not a good photo, it feels like a smartphone snap you do when you feel the mood and want to quickly try capturing it, but it can be liked
>I find myself then drawn to the anomaly in the image which is the pole in the centre of the frame.
oh, so there's a pole there';

'>>4297041
Snapshit cringe picture feels like someone who just started photography 2 days ago

0 value';

'>lines don't lead to anything interesting
>lines take up too little of the frame to be the main focus
>way too much empty space
>symmetry isn't strong enough to carry the photograph
Those are the reasons I don't like this photo.

That doesn't mean you aren't allowed to like it. If you're looking to improve, maybe ask yourself exactly what you like about it and then ask yourself how you could exaggerate those features even more next time you come across a similar scene.';