I wouldn't say that.

With regard to the Scotsman pics, whilst the exposure is a bit off, here are some things that you got right:

Focus (subject is clearly defined and features are nice and sharp)
Depth of field (the subject and immediate surround are focussed whilst the background is unfocussed)
Framing (subject in centre of picture)
Light position (behind you)
Colours (the kilt and tartan leg-banding are excellent)
Contrast (the difference between dark and light isn't too large or too small - details are easy to pick out)

The only thing you really got wrong was the exposure (and you'll get that right with practice). Otherwise it's not that bad - seriously.

Bratty, there are two things to photography as far as I am concerned-

1. The art- seeing the photograph and composing it.

2. The technical bit- taking a properly exposed image.

If you haven't got the first part, then you haven't got it. I haven't, but I keep at it.

It depends what you want out of photography. I originally bought an SLR because I considered applying for a police "scenes of crime" job, so first I needed to learn how to use a camera and I was going to shoot loads of film of rooms and fake blood spots and bits of stuff next to rulers in order to get the feel for correct exposure. That went out of the window when I got the job with the ambulance service. From then on, it was just about taking better pictures for myself and there is no doubt that having an SLR and knowing more about the principals of using it made for much better pictures, but it didn't give me artistic talent.

The question is, why do you take pictures? If you want to take pictures as a record of places you have been and things you have seen, then there is no doubt that with an SLR and some understanding, you will take better pics. But if you want to actually explore the concept of taking pictures in the hope that one day you will have a work of art, then you would need to enrol on some sort of course and even then, what some see as art, I merely see as utter [LIFTED].

Don't be too hard on yourself. I have been using an SLR for over 11 years and I am still not "there" yet because I don't have anything much in the way of artistic talent and I keep making basic errors with exposure and stuff, but I keep snapping away and now and again I get a shot that I am truly pleased with and proud to show off.

I think that it is easy for anyone to be more critical of their own work. Even if the result is an excellent photograph, it might not be exactly what you wanted in the first place. No matter how good it looks, if it isn't quite what you want then I guess it's easy to think that it is rubbish.

Another thing. Each different aspect of photography has its own techniques and secrets- portraits, landscapes, architecture, macro etc. If you are going to try each and every type of photography, you are going to find it harder to perfect your techniques in one particular area, particularly if you can't afford the best equipment for that activity- such as a decent macro lens and ring flash. It is easy to feel inaqequate, I think, when you look at the work of professionals, but that is quite possibly all they do, day in, day out AND they have many thousands of pounds worth of kit backing them up.

Don't be so hard on yourself. Enjoy the camera and experiment. Every now and again, you might even surprise yourself.

The white shirt is almost glowing! It looks like he's spent too much time at Chernobyl. The exposure needs to be brought back down a bit.

Everything else is good though. You should be able to see whether it is overcooked from the camera's screen. If it looks a little irradiated, best get handy with the exposure compensation. Although I'm surprised it over-exposed. A white shirt would normally make it under-expose to look grey. If you were using matrix metering it could be the camera being fooled into over-exposing - that's where exposure comp comes in. Take it down a stop and see what happens. You can always increase the exposure again on the computer, but when it over-exposes to the point where detail is lost, you can't recover that easily.

I don't think it's overexposure that's causing the white of the shirt to leak into the rest of the picture; I think the lens was a bit misty, It doesn't look overexposed to me at all; Just check that your lens is properly clean.

Overexposure affects individual pixels and only in very extreme cases will it leak into neighbouring pixels; even when it does, it doesn't spread as far into the image as the white haze in that photo.

It's amazing how a bit of careful (mis) quoting can brighten up ones day