>>3717494Some interesting shots, I quite like the second picture (the one of the building).
The feed looks chaotic though, there is a lot going on
>>3717496Not enough pictures to critique, I'm a fan of the third one (trumpet) but I'm not sure what to think of the others. Keep on going through!
>>3717505I really like the lush store one, so much that I actually went to your feed just to like it. Its pleasing!
The other images aren't bad, but they don't speak to me. But I'm incredibly picky so don't let me discourage you haha
>>3717519Pleasing architectural shape spotted
>>3717524Nothing to critique on this, clean shots that don't overwhelm my eyes. Cool use of lighting and darkness, I'm a fan.
>>3717545Not all pictures speak to me but the colours are soft and nice. You made good use of 35mm film in a medium format camera. I like how it looks with the cars!
>>3717876Good use of lighting, nice soft look. Pretty good
>>3717885Some good ones, as always I like "simple" (non overwhelming) images and images with intresting lighting. An example is your bottom-left image and your thrid row - second image. Love these
The over-saturated mountain I don't like though. Maybe if you shifted the colours a bit so they look softer, or made the blue sky a lighter shade. (Use H/S/L sliders in Lightroom)
>>3718140There are a couple of good shots in here.
The car ones at the bottom I don't really like though. Due to the background and foreground both being in the shade there is a lack of colour and contrast. It doesn't "pop" (Which happens a bit better on the Mercedes). You have potential though, good luck with the product shots!
>Error: Comment too longbaka
