>>2606519>Well, they're photos of models, so that makes sense. Should he focus on landscapes in his model photography? Or maybe macro? I'm not understanding your point.Good photos of models involve direction. Sorry you don't understand real people photography.
>So? Do you get the impression that this vastly variable disjointed list of photos is meant to be taken as a set? Obviously not.Relevance? Zero. If you're going to recycle the same composition for every photo you take, it better be a damned good one, and even then you need to break it up.
>Only in the most basic sense, just like landscape photos are "the same thing over and over and over again" because you point your camera at a pretty nature scene every time. There are hugely different techniques and intents in all of these.lol put your trip back on trip9
>hugely different techniquesno, they pretty much all use the same 3 gimmicks in rotation or progression;
prism
shoot-through
vsco
it's clear that this guy has watched a bunch of 5hoe streams and only took away the surface level of it all.
>In what way? Exposures are good, framing and composition are good, technique is good, unique, and varied.Several of these exposures are very poor. Scroll up, someone annotated a photo.
Framing and composition are extremely basic and lack variety.
Technique is clearly not good, as evidenced by the fact that the majority of these are not in focus.
Technique is neither unique nor varied, this is standard fare in 2015. Everyone knows about prisms and shooting through candy wrappers, it's not at all unique. It's less unique than heart-shaped bokeh.
>you should explain whyI already have, it just didn't satisfy you because you get upset when people don't agree with you. Fucking faggot.
