>>3317417I think if it were a bit further back and higher with near equal parts blue sky, green trees, white building, and red vehicle, it'd be a lot better.
>>3317420Good subject. Being slightly further back to get more of the face, or tighter in to only get lips and eyes would be better. Though, not sure you'd still be able to get it quite as good.
>>3317423Too centered on the subject and the expression is too blasé.
>>3317424Good action, but is that another photographer in the back to the left? They always seriously detract from a photo I think, unless they are intended to be in it and compositioned correctly.
>>3317426This one is to generic, but the serial killer farmer in the far back right makes up for it.
>>3317428Good framing. Too bad about the lighting in most of these of course.
>>3317429Too disjointed from what is going on as a whole. Without all the other photos, there's no context at all. Landscape would probably have given it what it needs.
>>3317436Too centered. Everything else is fine.
>>3317438#2
Looks like any other photo from such an event, but one taken by someone's gf/bf for their blog. Nothing wrong with that, just not interesting beyond, "would fug".
>>3317440Very nice. Not sure anything is amiss. It would be neat to see what a longer exposure with GND would do to the waves.
>>3317443Good action, but I think color would have done well for this. They normally have good color schemes and if the light is good it can work well.
>>3317455Nice use of colors. Too bad about the posts.
>>3317562The contrast with the foreground trees is odd to me for some reason. Otherwise, it is difficult to mess up too much with those. I'm sure there were better locations...
>>3317563Just another snake photo. Nothing wrong, just boring. Getting interesting snake pics is pretty hard to do.
>>3317564You really need a tilt-shift lens for places like that.
>>3317571Good framing, uninteresting subjects.
