>>3443879Portra? A bit too much plants on left, but cropping would take away the island. It’s alright as establishing shot.
>>3443881Not sure why you decided to include trash, more trash, green trash and a trash car in your shot. You could do without the top half, but maybe it becomes too abstract for what you wanted to do
>>3443883As it is, a bit meh. If you crouched you would have got the cars as a frame with reflections, but ofc the dude wouldn’t be centered anymore. Could have worked, or maybe not.
>>3443884Whatever is on the hill looks very small. To work it would need to be taken further away with a longer lens, which I guess was impossible.
>>3443886Get closer, straight on gives a sense of detached neutrality.
Lab scans, they look fine. I don’t pixel peep anyway.
>>3443889Those neons almost look fake. A bit of a forgettable image. Care to explain why you took it?
>>3443892I like it and I don’t. I like the lighting and reflections with backlighted, dark railings. I don’t like that it’s centered but not really. Either precisely center or clearly offcenter would be better for me.
>>3443893A bit forgettable. All the empty space would work if the pier was closer.
>>3443894People on the walkway are too much. I think there was a good photo somewhere if you got closer.
>>3443897Empty hallway. I personally don’t get the appeal of this kind of shots. If it was busy with subjects, alright, but all these leading lines lead to nothing.
>>3443899Cool shot, lovely tones, not sure what’s going on but makes me stop to watch a bit more. Subject is close and detailed, which wasn’t the case in many previous shots.
>>3443903I don’t get it again. Care to explain?
>>3443906I feel like in many of your shots everything is too far. There’s quite a swath of water until the first notable object, the boat. I understand you couldn’t walk on water, but it’s not the only photo where you’re too far.
