How to see the good and bad of a photographic work?

As a layman, judging whether a photo is good or bad depends on whether you are comfortable looking at it yourself. Some people can shoot that kind of artistic sense in the same scene, and some people know at a glance that they shot it casually.

Personally, I don't think most good works will have too many colors, because too many colors will make the whole picture look cheap, and I don't know where the focus is. Of course, there are also some special arts, so I won't talk about them here. Now we advocate simplification, which is a big stream, and the same color makes people feel comfortable.

A photographic work, why did his author shoot this work? What does he want to express? What does he want to convey to us through this photo? When we face this work, we can think of these problems, that is, half the battle, because some photographic works are just copies of nature, but they are not as good as nature.

One more thing, is it true. Some works cost photographers a lot of energy and time, just to shoot the truest side. Some works are post-synthesis, or posing. There is a kind of photography about wild animals, but now some people raise these animals artificially as a means of making money. For example, photographers provide "wild" animals that are hard to see and teach them tricks so that photographers don't have to hide in a corner.

The latter is more relaxed than the former, and may be better than the former, but the nature is different, but we ordinary people generally can't see it. These things should be attached to the connotation of this work. As time goes on, the truth will surface, and we will see it slowly.