>>3473428>I don't see a shadow or a reflection of light on the whole thing.Then you're blind and dumb. Yellow is bight spots, gray is shadows, and mind you, this is after reducing contrast. It'd be no problem to bring out the difference in light more by doing post differently. The light is both directional, and not flat.
>I can clearly see the outlines of the wood board panels which make distracting vertical lines in the photoYou're a literal idiot.
>>>The composition is poor. >The subject is centeredThe bird is in the center of the shot?
>and composition is nothing beyond point and shoot.Only if you somehow read this as the feeder being the subject. Again, just how stupid are you?
>There's a distracting plant in the left for no reason. There absolutely is a reason. The photographer wanted this aspect ratio to keep from cutting off the feeder at the top. Not the greatest choice.
>It was clearly taken at eye level. Couldn't even get low or get high.Literally says nothing about the quality of the composition. Not. a. thing. It does say something about you though. Specifically it says you mistakenly confuse novelty for quality. I'm not arguing that this is a particularly good composition, but it's by no means a "poor" one. I do agree it'd be served with a little crop and add it should be leveled, but it's a perfectly fine image.
>>>your colors are bland.>The red is like dried blood. Who wants a bird picture with shit color?Which isn't bland. Imagine that.
>>These are objectively incorrect statements.>>>>It's a shit photo, but you don't know 95% of what you think you know.>Go take more phone pics or jack off to your film photos. You obviously fit one of the two archetypes. Sure thing guy. I'm not the visually illiterate one being painfully wrong.
>I'm on mobile so of the formatting doesn't work, I don't give a shit. >Sage sage sage 