Since you bring these points up yourself, that is indication right away that you are growing, and your willingness to express that is a kind of openness necessary for artistic development. I'm all for encouraging the snapshot takers who post here, and I genuinely enjoy some of their family pictures. But most of the photos I see here don't exhibit much artistic achievement. There is no point in criticizing these people's works when I know they are partaking in beauty and adding something to the world. But I have a special thing for a real photographer, and a respect for anyone who wants to be one. So any criticism I offer here is meant to be constructive.
The eyes are almost as unreliable as the ears. At a cocktail party, we can hear the conversation we want to hear and tune out everyone else if we want to. The same way, when we look at a building, we see the beautiful thing. When we take a photo of the same building, we are often surprised at what else we notice in the photo that we didn't notice when we were there. There may be cars, random artifacts, people, telephone wires, bad lighting, none of which seemed to mar the experience of being there. Your challenge when you make a photograph is to be responsible for every pixel in that frame as surely as if you had painted it yourself with a fine brush on canvas. Like a good book, everything has to work together and somehow have a reason for being there. Look at what a great painter does, given all the time in the world to ponder exactly what will go into the painting and where. Have a look at photographers like Henri Cartier-Bresson as one of the most exemplary photographers who ever lived. Each photo that he published was a symphony of shapes, light, and figures, which all gelled together in what he called "The Decisive Moment". His book by that title is worth a read. Others you might like are Kertesz, Brandt, Robert Frank, W Eugene Smith, or any of the early Magnum greats or those who published in Camera Work.
This may sound funny, but when you look at a composition, take note of what it "tells" you. You can read compositions in all sorts of ways. There is stress and attraction between parts of a composition. There is drama and resolution. There is cultural meaning, intuitive meaning (how do you feel looking at sharp things as compared with soft things). You might try designing the coverpiece for a CD as an experiment using Photoshop. Experiment with different elements and colors, and see what effects subtle changes in placement and color have, and why.
Let me give you one solid naturalized aesthetic principle: The amount of work required to perceive something has to be proportionate to what one expects to derive from the thing perceived. There are many implications, one of which is that a work of art can be complicated, but not needlessly complicated. This is as close to first principles as you can get.
Here's how you might experiment with conceptual challenges:
1) Is every bit (every branch, every flower) a part of the composition, or is there needless complexity?
2) What is special, beyond the ordinary here? Is it compelling?
3) Does the lighting play? Does it create drama where you want drama, or inhibit it?
4) Have I really engaged the situation, captured its essence at the right (eg, decisive) moment? Or do I need to engage more closely?
Something tells me you might enjoy thinking about these things, and I assure you they bring results, and sometimes a bit of self-confrontation as well. But the pleasures outweigh the pain a million to one. Have fun.
Luke
But I just not getting that punch out of my pictures, They just
seem a bit too lifeless - maybe the focusing is not sharp enough or
the composition is not very good. I'm not sure if my subject matter
is not helping or if I am missing a trick.
