>>3194126strange , the shadows are all phucked up with banding greens, its really distracting, otherwise its still a pretty boring photo with no point to it (that i can tell from face value) try stepping back from big structures and really getting all of them in the frame
>>3194127once again, great lighting and grit for a subject, i just with there was a unique subject to look at, im a stickler for human subjects though
>>3194128a bit much on the VSCO greens and fades, but this is really damn cool to look at, with a fuck load of dynamic range that doesnt end up in haloing and looking like shit
>>3194129this is the same as
>>3194126 but slightly brighter...why?
>>3194148i think on a technical aspect you did everything right, dont mind the flares, you cant do much about it with street lights. I just wish, looking at it, that there was something more to it that i cant put my finger on. i guess, to me, it blends in with the thousands of other urban long-expos that i see
>>3194180the blues are in the green a bit too much for my taste, and most of the photo is dead space, with the interesting things to look at all the way at the very top and bottom, there just a ton of wasted space in the middle for something useful also
>>3194190>>3194191i see youre new with urban/architecture work, as i see mainly closeups and experimenting with shadows and lines, which is good, so id say invest in a wider lens like a 35mm or 28mm to fit a little more in without it looking alike a fisheye. editing is good as far as i can tell
>>3194192cool, theres a person here now, but his back is turned to me, and hes all the way at the bottom, with not much else to look at for the top 80% of the photo, id say def. work on your framing and timing, keep at it anon
>>3194193the lighting is nice but i wish she were looking at the camera
