>>3590495>You have a good sense of balance. The organization of layers of landscape textures is nice.Thanks!
>Did you process these to match how you perceived the scene literally, or subjectively?Most of these are very lightly tweaked SOOC JPEGs, so I would guess I'm quite literal.
My most common edits are:
1. Tilt correction
2. Exposure adjustments in ACR
3. Cropping
4. Curve adjustments
>I would suggest organizing your photographs into distinct categories, and then harshly culling each category to an arbitrary number depending on who you're showing the pictures to. You definitely have some bangers in here, but you've mixed them in with so many mediocre or repetitive ones that it's not worth looking through the whole thread. Understand the viewer's perspective.Culling is definitely a weak point for me. However one reason things are getting repetitive sometimes is that I'm working through sets of images right now and using this thread to find the ones I might use. I plan to leak them onto Instagram/Flickr over the course of years so the risk of seeming repetitive is probably not so high. However, for a book or portfolio, I agree I need to be much more selective.
It's really hard to separate bangers from mediocre because it's so subjective. I totally get what you mean, I think some of these shots are potentially quite mediocre. I wasn
t sure about
>>3589040 but two people in this thread pointed it out as a favourite and someone IRL asked if they can make a print for their home. So I err on the side of just sharing anything I like because it's pretty low-risk at the moment.
But when your main audience is "100 Instagram followers" you can get away with a lot! For a serious portfolio or something I agree I really have to cut down the number.
