>>3417861I actually love this one, curiously framed, but it's working that way. Makes you look all around and then focus on prow of the ship. I think i'd prefer blue of the ship to be a little bit stronger, and with maybe a bit faster shutter.
>>3417977>>3418162While not perfect, I quite like it. Got some trashy porn look to it. Would like to see cleaner look at that chest area, and slightly more natural head position on the bottom shot.
>>3417980Get lower. Find or darken the background a little. Characters don't stand out as they could.
>>3418037Ok catto, nothing special, nothing wrong about it.
>>3418044Not a fan of postprocessing tint on them, still they all have a very solid composition. I think all could still be improved, tightened, cleaned shadowy areas. This goes for all of them except for 5.jpg, that one is all out trash.
>>3418268Not very pleasing. I only noticed there's a wall of water behind thanks to image description. It actually looks very artificial, as if background is shooped to the trees in front. I wouldn't give up on location. Will probably never be truly special, but it looks as one that should be revisited many times in different lighting situations, to learned from.
>>3418470Quietly spectacular. Shop off that branch off at the right.
>>3418642Reverse as the guy above. Colours here are much nicer. Composition slightly worse. Again, get tighter, eliminate more clutter.
>>3418719It's quire good, but it's not working on it's own as well as it would in slightly larger, similarly themed, group. And it's hard to judge as well.
