this is my pleb taste so take it with a grain of salt, i tend to hate landscapes & architecture.
>>3232285no subject, why was it shot in portrait instead of landscape? seems like you've chosen to capture a sun glare gimmick instead of the terrain and what's going on with the low clouds which imo would have made a more beautiful picture. also the bottom of the picture is dead. 3/10.
>>3232303subject would have been more interesting from a different angle. imagine if we could see the bookends instead of paper stacks. the poles on the front are out of focus. great tones/colors though. 3/10
>>3232317birdemic, love how the background matches the bird. i hate this pic because i hate bird pics sorry. but 9/10
>>3232320extremely crushed whites, and blacks on the coats especially makes like 2/3 of this picture uninteresting. 4/10
>>3232322overly blue tree hills, could have been fixed in post. the interesting part of this pic is miniscule. you were going for desolate but the tones don't capture it. 6/10
>>3234083restaurant menu/10, wish the plate would have filled the frame. uninteresting bland plating, but i guess maybe it isnt your fault.
>>3234088too dark, cropped the background. ya blue it. its a snapshit. better luck next time.
>>3234080even if you had had the dof you needed it would have been the same picture literally everyone takes. 3/10 for unoriginality and bland,clinical post. would have been 6.5/10 tops if you'd gotten it right.
>>3234071blacks a little too crushed imo. imagine if there was a guy sitting in one of those chairs reading a paper or a cat or something alive here instead of a desolate seedy alleyway. i like it, 6/10
>>3234066no subject, 4/10.
>>3234035-1/10 for having the gall to watermark this crap. the bloom, muted/morose (in a bad way) colors and general lack of sharpness makes it look like a cell phone picture... was it?
>>3234085>>3234100>>3234003>>3233998>>3233997snapshit, there is nothing here to critique. -1/10
