Silvian rating:
>>3308504Good thumbnail/framing. Falls apart when opened. Not sharp, exposure problems.
>>3308686Too low apperture, focused on some random stuff, not working with subject, at least the foliage is great colour and moody.
>>3308711Crap flaring, too high exposure, intriguing flowers in the undergrowth, but framing is too high to put them forward as proper subject that they should be.
>>3308804Foreground's near perfect, fallen tree's been a bit hastily processed, likewise details around highlights, and I suspect resolution of the file is hiding some clippings in the top of the folliage as well, but it's darn good effort, moody and well framed. No idea how much room you've in cropping, but I'd also try some perspective correction, to straighten the trees a bit. I don't like the second one.
>>3308810Well lit, but completely missing some structure. No idea how a subject would help, but as it is, it's just a backlit trunk.
>>3309047It's a tree, so I'm giving it a chance, despite being also occupied by horrible avian fauna. And I'm doing just that so I can scream that it's backlit! Move ot the other side, or shoot at different time of day.
>>3309062Hope you were careful. Patches like this can kill you. Also, no flora! Booo!
>>3309571Fantastic. Get rid of those white lines, or at least put them all around.
>>3309588Minus points for fauna, plus points for cattle. Hard to judge silvan element since it's not focused on it.
>>3309685It could be worse. Actually, you could do a lot worse shooting urbanised speciments, therefore you're to be commended on avoiding that.
>>3309704Superb execution of the shot. I don't ask often, but I am curious about processing.
>>3309705REEE why is not the central tree the subject?
>>3309707Overdone clouds. They're not even the third of the shot, they're not the showpiece, so put them back. Pump highlights higher, lighten first two crest, and maybe differentate amongst them. No good at all as it is.
