>>3057442Not bad but looks a little overexposed to me. And you could probably have done more in post to keep the top of the fountain from getting lost in the sky.
>>3057457Might have been more interesting if you didn't put the sculpture right in the center but honestly it's a pretty boring statue to begin with.
Also RESIZE
>>3057458Get a macro lens if you want to take interesting shots of something that small.
>>3057462The duck/goose/swan/whatever is too difficult to see and too small/far away. It might actually be a better picture if the bird weren't there. Also fix your horizon ya goof.
>>3057463>>3057464I like these a lot. Well composed and edited for what they are.
>>3057484>I can't figure out how to focus it thoughDo you mean you don't know how to make the bird stand out more or you literally don't know how to focus your camera? In either case, no, it's not very appealing at all with how poor the IQ is - get a sharper lens and try again.
>>3057486Not bad overall if I don't zoom in but you really butchered the detail in the plants. That or your lens/camera is a POS.
>>3057492Take it easy with the yellow bro. Also the sky and higher branches look overexposed.
>>3057494>f/2.8, 1/4000 secThose are some weird ass settings for a photo like that. It's underexposed so the subject (which I assume is the tree) doesn't jump out at me at all, the lower part of it gets lost in all the other colors.
>>3057497Aggressively crop in on the lower-middle and go nuts in Lr and you'll have something a lot more captivating.
>>3057506Foggy, shitty days are great for photography and I'd say you captured why. Also eggsellent editing my dude.
>>3057511>>3057512>>3057513Cute animals and decent editing. Not much else to say here.
>>3057520I think you need to be more creative if you want to make something as cliche as a photo of a pier interesting. Not badly composed though. Also clean your fucking sensor/lens, and RESIZE.
