>>37417412/5
>>3739736decent, its very hard to take a photo of trees like this that makes me excited.
>>3739737you know what. this is actually okay. the tones really help this photo a lot.
>>3739740why did you edit the sky so much. ruins the photo.
>>3739745much better. great shot.
>>3739751boring
>>3739752a nothing photo. why does this need a vignette.
>>3739753christ. this is a pretty boring shot but that isnt you biggest mistake. take a min and look around some of the things camera raw on photoshop lets you do anon. this photo shows a lot of chromatic aberration which you can get rid off by just clicking one box in photoshop.
>>3739778i actually dont mind the subject having his back to us. this works a lot. good job.
>>3739781better than the previous photo of this
>>3739782im just not a fan of these type of landscapes
>>3739791angle does not work for this type of photo anon. looks too deliberate.
>>3739794i like this
>>3739801heh. this is good.
>>3739807oh man this is fantastic anon
>>3739808fuck anon, go a bit lower next time. this is a really good scene, come back to this place and take more photos of this area. i dont even mind how crappy your white balance is here, it works.
>>3739809FUCK ME anon. this would be an absolutely insane photo if you didnt underexpose it to shit.
also theres a bit of chromatic aberration in the left.
>>3739833good
>>3739843better
>>3739844best
>>3739845boring
>>3739846great photo
>>3739847shit
>>3739849shoot this in long exposure next time. foreground looks horrid.
>>3739850oh i absolutely love this
>>3739852anon this is great too
>>3739855absolute shit considering the medium
>>3739869ok
>>3739878great shot, reminds me of mulholland drive a bit
>>3739879wish the lighting was a little better.
>>3739884>>3739884overly processed, looks pretty bad.
>>3739895is your metadata wrong? cause this is way too blurry to be 4 seconds unless you just didnt use a tripod for some reason. also its underexposed.
