>>37117273/?
>>3711617is this film or did you just edit it to be that way? either way, doesnt work. why? because this photo would look 1000x better without all the grain. you saying 'going for an 80s aesthetic' seems more like you deciding on that after you realized how out of focus and ugly the lighting in the photo are. also, her arm shouldnt be cropped off.
>>3711619literal garbage. why are some of you so fucking pussy. if youre going to take candid shots of people do it so i can at least look at their face. who in the world finds a shot of the most ordinary looking man in existence sitting down with a starbucks frap interesting? no one. also his hands and face are out of focus. why even post this?
>>3711620boring
>>3711621why did you post this
>>3711622this works. good shot. why is everything so hazy though? also, drop the vignetting. vignetting is awful and unnecessary 99.9% of the time
>>3711624this is good but the haziness is really hard to ignore.
>>3711625same as the other photo of the guy sitting down. this isnt a good photo. this is literally just a voyerism shot where you thought "oh hey a tree between two people, that will make this shot interesting". think again; its not.
>>3711626out of focus, over exposed. are you trying to blind me?
>>3711706boring
>>3711712whats with the white balance on these, stay consistent anon. composition wise, bottom left sucks. top left i wouldve preferred the camera a tiny bit tilted up, two on the right work but im not sure i like the over editing of the sky.
>>3711718>>3711719if there ever needed any evidence that being in an interesting place and over editing your photos with a lightroom preset and borders were not the only things needed for an interesting photo, these are it. you are deliberately choosing to take photos of these people from the most uninteresting angles you can be at. you cropped the foot of the first guy and the actual subject of the second isnt even in focus. what the fuck are u doing.
