>>2818805part two of the double episode, whatever
>>2814400I already told you, find a subject, snap simpler pics, try and edit your pics a bit to make them look more lively, try to focus on composition - where lines point, where they intersect, what has the most weight (what catches the attention more)
>>2814467I haven't found a good shot without people in it yet
shooting that construction with a wide angle lens (Untiteled) wasn't a good idea, it fucks up composition a fair bit
the portraits are overall good enough if ya ask me
>>2814572street photography catching the poor living conditions and the rural atmosphere
in b/w
if you want to do something that's been done to death already you either do it better than anybody else, which I find unrealistic considering how many skilled people have done this before you, or you do this in a different way
stuff like 5038 looses a lot of appeal if you remove colors, and if you were shooting b/w film I'd rather not shoot that sutff
>>2814591neat beach stuff, do you by any chance use VSCO?
the b/w stuff doesn't seem to have any reason to be b/w
there's some composition going on, tho there's a lot of pics of nothing - flowers, b/w rocks...
>>2816052there's nothing there really, the only interesting pic is pic related in your post because of the subjects, but in the other snaps there's jack shit
no composition, no interesting subjects
>>2816058nnneat
I still don't see any purpose in shooting these pics in b/w but the rest is quite diggable all around
>>2816520I'm getting the feeling that I'm starting to sound boring, but what do these pictures gain by being shot in b/w instead of color?
because your colored pics are quite a e s t e t h i c, but there's still not much composition going on, and by loosing much of that aesthetic going b/w you loose most of the appeal, because I find no composition in most of these pics either
ubtiteled 4 is hella good tho, even with that amount of noise
stuff always takes too much time
