I know I'm likely replying to a troll, but hopefully some budding photographer doesn't take this guy's posts so seriously.
>>2660945>too much going on in the picture. that shot is almost acceptable thoughBut what if that's the point of the picture? What if that says something about what's in the picture?
>Boring, but still better than the bee>So bad it hurtsHow can these be judgements be more impulsive?
>This one has potential, it would be a good shot if...Why and how would cropping make it better? Because it removes something you don't like, or because it would make the photo more effective?
>GarbageIt's a gloomy photo which includes a dark topic, death. The fence frames the train and the sign, without cutting anything off. To the right of the pole, the whole top of the fence is included in the photo, in a way that indicates it was done so intentionally. How long do you look at a photograph before judging it as "garbage"?
>Boring (underpass)Something that comes to my mind is: why did the anon use selective color? Is there something to this photo? My question to you is: why couldn't you ask something about the photo to learn more about it, if you saw nothing? "I don't get it, so let's just call it boring".
>This is really the best shot you could take at pride?I repeat my previous statement. Not the kind of question you ought to ask when critiquing.
>Great. I love this.Why? If you don't take any time to explain what you see when saying something is "good" or "bad", then why should we care? It's just one guy's boring, unconstructive opinion.
>Up the aperture and shutter speed and...Do you really think that's going to make the photo better? A visually stimulating background? Why must a photo's (or work of art's) quality rely on its immediately apparent beauty or lack thereof?
>No artistic sensibilityMaybe it's you, the one who takes no time to analyze a photo or inquire about it, who wastes space with quick-shot opinions.
Forgive me, /p/.
