>>2662886Are you the wasp guy from last thread? That's weird, but whatever. Photographically, not a bad picture, but I think the wasp should be illuminated more
>>2662894A little cramped compositionally, not level, and feels like you were going for a super artsy aesthetic. Nice scene, but I feel it could be done a bit better.
>>2662913Very nice. Captures that dark, dingy, worn out mood perfectly.
>>2662926I see what you were going for with framing through the door; neat idea, but it's not really working.
>>2662965wow so fuckin edgy
>>2662959>>2663212Selective colour is bad because it's a way of cheating to make your subject stand out, instead of thinking about doing it properly.
>>2663029>>2663031>>2662986Crouch down, bend your knees, suck the scene's dick, m80s.
>>2662991Would look good on a touristy website. Technically perfect, no real artistic value.
>>2663011As already said,
>that sky tho, damn>>2663015I don't really like it, but I just don't really get aerial photography. Good photo, though.
>>2663033Too washed out, not enough contrast.
>>2663038Mmm, that's creamy.
>>2663039?
>>2663060>>2663062>>2663064>>2663065Not great, but you're going somewhere. Keep at it anon. <3
>>2663070Too much flash
>>2663075Pretty cliché, but I'd be lying if I said I haven't taken a photo like this. Very pleasing to look at.
>>2663080tourist/10
>>2663084Could be alright if it weren't so vibrant, but you said it's a snapshits so I guess you don't really care.
>>2663149>>2663155>>2663164I saw that last one in a thread a while back and I liked it then, too. Very good abstracts, anons.
>>2663228Accordion dude's too far to the edge of the frame.
>>2663245I see what you're going after and I like it, but it's not quite there
>>2663292Vacuum dude's too far to the right of the frame. A wider focal length would have really nice.
>>2663294This is not centred and that tickles me in a bad place and in a bad way.
