>>3377732The lighting in this is really neat. It looks like something out of a fusion of Asia and Lovercraft.
>>3377733I think this just needed a different subject entirely or perhaps a different angle.
>>3377735This one is "ok" but I think it needed to be taken from a lower angle.
>>3377736There's a lot going on here. Interesting details. Even though some of the trees look straight the feel seems like everything is slanted. What lens?
>>3377737I think a bit tighter aperture should have been used, but it looks like you had really low light to deal with without using flash. The foreground being out of focus is a bit distracting, but I can see that being what you were going for, giving it more depth. I think it is a little lost on the subject matter though; if that makes sense.
>>3377757Not my genre of art, but technically it looks okay. I can't tell for sure, but are the doors a bit out of focus? Looks like the piping is in focus though. I think it is due to the really wide aperture. If you had a tripod for this I'd certainly have used a tighter aperture to ensure everything was in focus. You'd be able to lower the ISO and simply increase the exposure time then.
>>3377806This is a pretty good composition. I think the tree needs a bit more sky above it to be more perfect, something that you can actually edit to add in post without too much difficulty. I think the shadows are a bit too harsh and could use some raising to give them a bit of detail.
>>3377808I don't see anything wrong with this, but the subject seems mundane is all.
>>3377810Sharp and vibrant. The color theory is pretty much perfect. With all those lines in the area, I think you should have tightened up the aperture so they were all in focus. That I think would make it more interesting.
>>3377812The color and shadow lines are okay, but it is off center. This is a bit mundane, but
>>3377813 is extremely mundane to me at least.
>>3377996I like this. Very surreal. Unusual composition!
