>>3733754Some more detail. I'm now in nitpicking mode.
>>>3733722>The background is awesome! But the foreground is unspectacular, dark, does not do justice to the background at all.It's again a too dominant foreground, but required foreground.
>>3733754>>>3733726>Great photo! The foreground is much too dominant for my taste and It doesn't come close to the others even when considered in parts, but it is harmonious as a whole.Is this a composite? The footbridge is unfortunately a curse and a blessing as it guides to an uninteresting spot. In the shot, everything is about the point perspective, with the viewer following all lines to and from it. The footbridge should support this and not oppose it.
>>3733754>>>3733724>Almost awesome! It's not as consistent and coherent as the first one.I was inspired by the sense of scale, but there is something missing from a scenic thrill that benefits greatly from distance or scale. The small mannequin rather pushes the viewer to the left side of the frame and arouses interest in what they might see. But the scene we see is either exactly the other way round with more interest on the right-hand side or has the impression that it becomes exciting again at the left-hand side edge due to imposing clouds.
>>3733967Very impressive what you do and see! The green on the back meadow could be a little less bluish for my taste.
>>3733968It would be a hit if the black-leaved tree in the background had white leaves. You would have a more distinct triangle over the already highlighted spots. On the right edge there's a tractor track, which need not necessarily be there.
>>3733969You're killing me! Very impressive! Amazing guiding with the lines, the far background highlighted in sun, everything crisp and sharp, scenic excitement wherever you look! The left image edge or the top row of clouds were a bit of a let down for me in the beginning, but I have no idea about the cause and how to fix this.