I'm a filthy amateur myself so take my thoughts with a massive grain of salt.
>>3822972Disagree with the other anon, I actually like the double exposure in this one. Kind of wish the second exposure was a tad more visible, actually.
>>3822974One of the weaker shots in the set imo. My eyes are drawn to the light/ garage wall in the background, which is rather uninteresting as a focal point. I don't mind the out of focus subject in theory, but here it feels distracting.
>>3822975Cool. Almost wish her feet were in a more kinetic pose -- like she was kicking them out or something instead of letting them just hang.
>>3822976Would be stronger if the model was looking at the camera I think.
>>3822980The background is really dark here, making the subject hard to discern. I think it would have been a little bit better if the light was directly on her and she had her face turned slightly towards the light rather than away from it. Can't fault you too much though, can only work with the light you've got.
>>3822981Like it a lot. Subject is well framed, the lighting from above/the model's upward gaze add some intrigue. Good shot.
>>3822983Also dig this one.
>>3822986Looks like a shot that would accompany a newspaper article for some reason.
>>3822987Mostly like, a bit too many stray hairs on the model's face for my tastes
>>3822988Very disorienting, in a good way. Feels like the shot was accidentally flipped 180 degrees, but it wasn't. Like this one a lot.
>>3822990Also very good in my book. Absence of the model's face and heavy emphasis on the torso works well here.
Hope I don't come off as too nitpicky, just trying to identify small things that jump out at me. Overall strong stuff OP, definitely better than a lot of the crap on this board.
