>>3217348Nice and soft. Good use of overcast weather
>>3217283>>3217290I prefer the second one as it's more dynamic and less obvious/blunt which makes me study the image
I'd love a person or two on there for context though
>>3217293Those clouds could be a thousand times more interesting in this shot
There are also too many intentional mistakes at the bottom half to look like anything other than mistakes
Nice noise and tones though
>>3217454I love the exposure on the background/top clouds and cityline. Really adds to the distance and drama
>>3217480Nice and soft and sharp but the foreground is too dark to be a foreground
>>3217509Nothing is in focus. Try again
>>3217582Technically good but extremely boring. Focus is also off.
>>3217652Also technically decent but completely boring. Light is the only good thing in here.
>>3217708Doesn't work for me but I'm sure this has appeal to many here
>>3217862Underrated. Could benefit from a tighter crop I expect.
>>3217870Lovely work on the mountain but the clouds are uninteresting and the cars shouldn't be there. Nice though, I like this
>>3217874Definitely needs a subject
>>3218183Really well done. Something about the foliage at the bottom screams camera-phone though. Perhaps some burn to the rear of the floor to create depth.
>>3218188Grass is far too sharp, tent isn't prominent enough to create a scene
>>3218195Really well done. A little uninteresting
>>3218386Made me pause and study but ultimately it's not saying anything
>>3218460Lacks in depth and dominance because of the lack of an angle/better use of light. I'd also like those people sharper to distract less (usually I'd say the inverse)
>>3218494Get higher or use diagonals to give this distance. The hills are the best part of this and they're wasted
>>3218499Much better angle and use of light. I'd like a tighter crop but great choice of tone and light
>>3218531Pick one subject. Give this a full dynamic range too.
