>>371637111/?
>>3714652doesn't work. framing like this is justifiable is it enhances the photo; that doesn't happen here. also you bumped the saturation way too much here. youre at an interesting and colorful space, let the camera show me this, not photoshop. pretty garbage.
>>3714654framing works better here due to the monk's direction but it still doesn't justify it imo. also you completely botched the focus.
>>3714656this is shit too. hard to decide if i hate this or the first one more.
>>3714718fantastic photo anon. i would try to lower the blacks on the bottom of his shirt. the photo is underexposed so if you were hoping to print this its gonna come out really badly. still a very good photo tho.
>>3714725i like this. good job.
>>3714749stop buying ilford. youre good enough not to be wasting money on that crap.
>>3714750clarity is a bit high? good picture. definitely lower blacks, you have a lot of lost detail.
>>3714751out of focus, not that it matters, its a pretty shit photo.
>>3714762out of focus therefore its garbage. i suggest for you not to shoot longer than 1/60.
>>3714773pretty shit anon ngl, what happened. you had such high potential. maybe you do deserve to stick to ilford film.
>>3715127underexposed as fuck (and it doesnt work). what are you even trying to show me here?
>>3715128open up your aperture and shorten your exposure time. it's not a bad photo by technical aspects but its not engrossing (at least to me).
>>3715133safe photo. boring.
>>3715134i know someone who does stuff like this. what youre doing doesnt work. really high commendation tho for experimenting. dont give up.
>>3715135doesnt work and quite boring.
>>3715165eh, you have good ideas but youre executing them in the most milquetoast way possible.
>>3715205same thing i said to the other shot of this scene.
>>3715299very boring photo again. we've all seen photos done in this style that are much better. not impressive.
