>>2857212>Photographers have a choice on what they frame and where, the issue here is you chose a shit venue with too small a crowd to create any sort of tangible atmosphere, that falls on you for picking a shit venue.There's plenty of tangible atmosphere. It's just not the one you want it to be. So stuck trying to make things what you want, and not just taking what things are.
>You can polish turds all you want but shooting at such high ISO with no dynamic lighting in that venue works on no level.if you keep repeating it, maybe it'll change.
SOOC, btw. Hardly polished.
>If you want people to go through each image and give better critique then the set as a whole needs to be more inviting.If you don't want to critique, you don't have to. Just don't try to pass off the decision not to critique because you don't care as a meta-critique unto itself.
>People post this kind of shit when they get their first DSLR and go to a friends gig, they might get some helpful advice but you should know better.You've already admitted to not actually looking through them because they weren't inviting. They're posted chronologically-ish, so can I assume you're actually only addressing the first couple?
That'd explain the lack of response to the odds-and-ends at the end.
>These are crap, they are crap in every conceivable way. "Kopi Luwak is the world's most expensive coffee. Though for some, it falls under the category of "too good to be true." In the Sumatran village, where the beans are grown, lives a breed of wild tree cat. These cats eat the beans, digest them and then... defecate."
>You may have tried your best with the framing but there is so much going against you that you might as well have no bothered with it at all.Again, your *own* egocentrism is what is being laid bare here.
"I scoff on this scene, unapproachable by a photographer of my merit"
You clearly only like to work in comfort. Some people like a challenge.
1/2
