>>2603947All the corners are soft and/or not in focus. Ruins it Bort.
>>2603964No balance. Top heavy with nothing but a bit of sky for your efforts in placing visual weight, all the interesting shit is in the lower half of the frame.
>>2603965You have seen it but then not committed. The road. That's what you are leading with but you have the horizon flying across the centre. I want to look off into the depth that is there, but then clouds. It's a shame.
>>2603966More balanced, the clouds aren't entirely redundant here as you have a nice slope but it's still too top heavy for me. The clouds/sky should be the subtle truffle oil, not the scallop.
>>2603968I want you to tell me why you took this.
>>2603970I couldn't find anything majorly wrong with it. There is some pin cushion distortion but fuck it call the cops. It's pleasant, but has no anchor, point of interest, something that makes me want to look at it for a while. It would go well in a set of similar photos if you were doing a study on similar structures, the typography, history.
>>2603972The red is wrong. It's a file under B. Bin.
>>2603977Why did you take this. Your angle doesn't invite any kind of form that might lead the viewer in. It's split down the middle, the light is ok, but use it in post. Dodge and burn that shit so the lower part of the frame takes you to the idea, which by the way, if it's juxtaposition or contrast of age (and if that is it then it's a more than valid concept to pursue) you really need to start working angles so you can position form, shades, light, shadows, how you will fit all of these in the frame - it's like a medley of sounds that putting into synv... at the moment they sound like shit.
>>2603978Tell me why you took it.
>>2603987This has a bit of intrigue about it. You have this glow bringing the building forward, dramatic sky and a chopper. Decent colour mix, someone might hang this on their wall.
