>>2653261Blurry stars, boring.
>>2653262edges of house cut of, rule of thirds (more zoomed in would be better), and vertical is unappealing to the eye, but colors are great.
>>2653264Missed focus + motion blur on cow's head, bland colors.
>>2653265Bland colors and exposure, a bit HDR-looking sky for my taste.
>>2653267Not the most original, and the sky is a bit too gray, but otherwise decent.
>>2653270Nothing wrong with this one really.
>>2653271Could have used more pop; a little on the bland side, otherwise a decent shot.
>>2653275Sci-fi colors? Well at least you're experimenting. You missed some spots of green in the grass though, so it looks badly edited. Otherwise, you know, it's just a normal flower with blurred grass background.
>>2653277It's a good shot, but the sky is just ugly and odd. Did you blow out the sky and then just made some colors up instead of having just a white sky? Looks weird. If it weren't for the sky, it'd be a nice image.
>>2653279I like this image. Would've been better horizontal, and the oil filter is a bit weird. Otherwise it's decently solid picture. Looks like a miniature forest, like you're some giant or something. It's pretty cool.
>>2653280Meh. Blurry - missed focus? And dude, stop with the vertical.
>>2653281Meh, don't like the split toning. Pretty obnoxious colors.
>>2653283No. Still good colors (as the first one), but that composition doesn't work with vertical. Just confusing to look at.
>>2653287Pretty good, but that tree in the bottom sticks out too much. Shadows are almost burnt in an otherwise low-contrast image. Otherwise a decent picture.
>>2653290Not sharp focus / bad focus. Still, it's just a generic bush branch.
>>2653294This one's nice.
>>2653295This one is also nice.
>>2653298Another great image ruined by the sky. Horrible artifacts, and blown out highlights in the bottom part of the sky.
What is up with the vertical images holy damn?
