>>3735146These are hella soft. For this one. I'd suggest trying to isolate the sign a little more. The fence already does a half decent job of this, but I think that wouldn't work so well if the image weren't incredibly soft
>>3735147>>3735149>>3735150Pick one of these three as your best. I personally like the third, but make your own choice; my reasoning is that a frame within a frame only really works if there's something particularly interesting going on in the sub frame, or if it lends context. It can be neat just to play around with though
>>3735151Double exposure?
>>3735153I personally don't see the interest here
>>3735154I feel this one would be neat if it weren't so soft. It's a nice deadpan aesthetic. I'd suggest, if you can, getting up closer and exploring the subject in depth. Could be some good shots there
>>3735156I don't see the interest here, unless it's about the colours
>>3735158>>3735159>>3735163>>3735165These four are okay. I see what you're going for. The second one is a classic subject
>>3735160lizerd.,,,
>>3735162Kinda neat how the tree fills in the gap int he rocks with the direction of its branches, but you gotta show that better
>>3735166Don't take pictures of statues (generally)
>>3735168>>3735169I can't really hate on these, but for the first one you should have gotten a higher angle, if only slightly to cut off the bits at the top
>>3735170As statues go, though, you could play around with this one
>>3735172>>3735173flourz..........
>>3735174I don't see the interest in this structure
>>3735175Dangerously close to a cliche here. Should have taken a step right and shifted your viewing angle left to avoid the other car bumping into your frame
>>3735176I kinda like this one
>>3735177Again, nothing is happening between the buses. Fine if you're just looking for compositions, but it doesn't stand on its own
>>3735178>>3735179I think the top one works better;
(1/2)
