>>3481788>architectural detail latepostingAccidental double exposure. Just got a Bronica and I'm still getting used to it.
>>3476928You really like your macro. Focus seems to be just below the necks, if you wanted to just show texture you could have the faces completely out of focus to abstract from the shape of the object. Or maybe it would just look weird and the focus should be on the faces, I don't know. Just not inbetween.
>>3476942Thanks for the clarification anon. It's a very loose challenge.
>>3478311I would crop it a bit, but still leave some black around the texture. Also make a local adjustment so the texture is much lighter than the rest
>>3479253The toy is the subject here, the little texture there is on the wall is just an aside. Also dark subject and ultrabright background, hmm.
>>3479440She seems concentrated on looking at the photographer rather than thinking about Amazing Grace
>>3479442A worse photo compositionally than the previous, but more apt for content
>>3479443Still you NM? Same comment applies, I preferred the bw
>>3479942If it was after a long drought then it would deffo be grace, but it needs a context to be understood. Those are graceful shapes tho. Again, softer contrast would help
>>3480007Is texture the sea? The rocks? The pier? The boats? These could all be texture by themselves, but putting all together makes it difficult to understand
>>3480031I'm not sure if texture is the grain or what else
>>3480033I think a proper detail would be a tiny crop of that. Or same point of view with a way longer lens. Like that part in top middle where all the lines of the roof and windows meet.
