>>3346519Sweet baby Jesus, dial back the blues and greens. This could be a nice shot with a little less of that unnatural colour. As said elsewhere, a polariser might have helped with the ultra while splashes.
>>3346546Did you destroy the colours in this yourself or is this a $10 lens with irreparable chromatic aberration?
>>3346714Holy saturation, Batman!
>>3346717No subject.
>>3346735Not my kind of thing but nice shot.
>>3346740Pretty nice shot. I'd like to see what it would have looked like 30 seconds earlier looking straight down those streets. Still works nicely. Would also like to see it without the wing in the shot but might be unavoidable.
>>3346747I really like this. Foreground looks a little flat but that's probably just morning/noon lighting in the shadows. I'm guessing this is shadows all the way up, highlights most of the way down. If so, you kept the colours in there fairly well.
>>3346758eh, I prefer the colour shot. mostly for the building on the right.
>>3346764Nothing really wrong with this but not really anything interesting to me.
>>3346765Pet photo. But a nice pet photo.
This is a snapshit from yesterday. Likes the look of the birds flying around my place. Not sure how well EXIF data will work from my phone's save. Overly sharpened now that I look again.
