nice frames
I'm very sympathetic towards the 'processing in camera' approach for this kind of photography. I assume the white balance is the camera's/the preset's. (the specific qualities and comprehensive character of such automatic 'choices' is interesting and worth investigating further, since in the continual/constant context of ur photos it can tell us more about the camera's relationship to the scene than each particular photographic image can on its own. In other words, the rigorous use of profiles and presets in conjunction with a standard set of cameras and subjects seems capable of indexing the non-visual properties around which the images cohere (or in aesthetic terms, the conditions of possibility for the subjective experience of wherever you are); in the digital age indexicality is valuable commodity indeed).)
>>3001745the reflected raindrops and the octopus' spots work well together. when you think about it this scene would probably look *more* unnatural if the reflective white objects were white in the image.
>>3001760unless you went to deliberate pains to underexpose the foreground for effect (i.e. if it was otherwise visible or contained visible objects and was not, presumably, an empty and/or unilluminated field or lot or street of some kind), this is pretty much perfect
>>3001771>>3001772>>3001773the subject in that soft focus field and overcast/dim lighting gives me a hackneyed haunted house vibe
>>3001797the white trunks + black roots are fascinating, I would look for more views of that subject
>>3001799good composition, arrangement of the tree trucks in the scene. with the contre-jour there's a pseudo atmospheric perspective or layering effect that defines the fore- mid- and back-ground as darker to lighter respectively. this is less visually than conceptually pleasing.
>>3001808the light and exposure in the top half of the picture is resplendent and edifying, the scene in the bottom is stultifying and mundane
