>>3441607Because of the pastel tones and composition?
>>3441628Her posture alone makes me wanna barf. I guess it could be in more focus.
>>3441864I see nothing wrong here. I guess it could be improved with bigger asses, but otherwise. Enjoyable.
>>3441871I think it's fine, but if you wanna test the composition, I guess you could cycle through grids.
>>3442722>>3442723Nice and wholesome. The second one lacks in focus.
>>3442725Wut?
>>3442800Well done.
>>3442801No!
>>3442863I like the colors. Perhaps too much of the first column? I'd maybe crop it.
>>3444586Only if everything's in focus.
>>3445339"Too fat" as a friend of mine would say. Not sure what the technical term for it is. Too matte?
>>3445496Remove the cars and level the horizon, then we're talking big money.
>>3445514Enjoyable.
>>3445515Underexposed?
>>3445516OK in general.
>>3445518Enjoyable.
>>3445661A sudden urge for a dump rises.
>>3445832Don't know.
>>3445854This is definitively the superior of the two. Actually very enjoyable.
>>3445858Need to think about this one more.
>>3445899Composition needs work.
>>3445952Too grey?
>>3446137>>3446139Try other angles.
>>3446142Comfy.
>>3446235>>3446236>>3446239>>3446250>>3446419>>3446420>>3446421Night shots, good shots. I don't personally see much wrong with them.
>>3446468>>3446469>>3446470No bugs, no love.
>>3446801>>3446802Yes.
>>3446978Hey, that's pretty good. For a shot of a car.
>>3446993Enjoyable.
