>>3486906Only one I like of those you posted. The others are OK but they feel a bit saturated and crunchy. This one seems bright and artsy. More like this.
>>3486832Its blurry, you need to be shooting at above 1.8, theres no reason to shoot at 1.8 if you are just walking around snapping portraits. 1.8 is good for a studio shoot where you can nail the focus, but in this situation if you miss even a tiny bit your photo if fucked. Also 1/30 shutter speed is too slow at a 50mm focal length. I'd keep it around 1/60 or 1/80. Obviously, with a fast shutter speed and lower f-stop you will need to bump the ISO up. Also, work on clearing the background, you couldn't get here to take a step away where there's not people picking their nose in the background?
>>3486786Cool snaps filmfag. resize your shit I don't need to see 4MB of noise in broad daylight.
>>3486640I'd want to see more contrast here. Really make the black and white work for you, I want some black and some white damnit - not just gray.
>>3486524dude you got grass, trees, and a white coated subject and you go B+W? Where's the color?
>>3486463DIAGF
>>3486449>>3486446This shit is boring unless its part of a set. The colors are nice, on it's own its bland.
>>3486383I like this one better. You also missed the focus on
>>3486381 so its out by default.
>>3486378>>3486379I see you can take crisp images with your camera and edit them. But what is interesting about an old metalic gearbox? Why did you feel the need to saturate your flower photo in blue? You need to have a vision before snapping and editing away.
>>3486255I dig it, I'd like to see the highlights come down a bit and maybe some more contrast/saturation.
