Every time I see these thread I remember I should just stop sitting on my ass, go out and shoot.
500px is acceptable right? I've moved there.
https://500px.com/giacomofotiBut I still keep my Flickr updated, anyways:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/galf506/>>2656365Everything is kinda pleasing as a whole, but you're too trigger happy with saturation/vibrance: tone it down a little. It tends to make photos look a little bit fake and "acid trippy" looking. But you're right on the edge of that, it's still not really too much. Some pics are cool but show clear white halos which are always a bad sign.
Others are heavily posterized, and that's a HORRIBLE sign, like this one:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/121660587@N06/20694396662/in/dateposted/so
>some cool pics>generally pleasingbut
>mediocre postprocessing, tone it down>>2656381A bit of a mix match of snapshits and cool ideas. I like your "bobber" picture. And there is something about your people pictures. Try more people, more streets. Postprocessing kind of a mess in general.
>>2656385Muh dick. Followed.
>>2656487Sadly wildlife photography is heavily gear dependent and... well, you don't have it. Save your money for some kind of fast fixed tele in the 300-400mm (effective, so even a 70-200 would be okay) range. Get in places when there's interesting lighting going on (dawn-sunset) and sit for a while. You'll get better pictures, with some luck.
>>2656453Really interesting pictures. More colour, please. (Followed.)
>>2657606Stop with the names. Really. You don't need them.
>>2657420Really pretty.
