>>3566324Thanks for the feedback? Instead of the triptych style is there another sequence you recommend? I'm willing to try others out, at least conceptually anyways, and if I like it, stick with it.
I really like the odd perspectives of your shots, and I'd love to see how you do with nature stuff. I do appreciate less procession, though; that hazy look all your photos have makes me feel like I have cataracts or something.
>>3566356Thanks for the details love. I used to do that more, but I sort of stepped out of that. Want to get into it again, but need something to help me with different details. Have considered getting a magnifier for smaller details.
>>3566378They are pretty redundant, especially recently because I'm trying to get through a backlog of old photos. I'm mostly here to document nature, though, and even if they're redundant I still think each unique thing out there deserves the spotlight for a lil bit. That being said, I would love to know what you might think would improve what you don't like. The bottom right there was shot through my Quantaray 85-210mm f4.5, which is my favorite vintage tele.
Good attention to shades in yours. Where is that, the Pacific NW? I feel like your achromatic stuff would look great with a lot of grain, too, so assuming you're shooting digital maybe try bumping up that sensitivity and really stop down and raise that shutter speed?
>>3566380Fair. I made a mistake when I first decided to do borders, and I wanted consistency across the feed, but not necessarily among photos, so I stuck with the mistake... Thanks for the love though.
You have some nice use of light, but I do not like how busy your photos are. It's just not my aesthetic. That second one down, far left is my favorite in that feed.
cont.
