>>3752970i've seen better skyline shots. if the focus is the skyline itself, you have too much of the buildings below. if the focus is the buildings below, with more interesting lighting on the rooftops, this could be a fantastic shot of the city.
>>3753037the thumbnail looks great but i don't like it when i open it up. not sure why. i think that's still a good thing though because i'm interested enough to actually look closely at this shot.
>>3753660cool bird, but unimpressive shot. it's obscured by the leaf, and nothing distinguishes this from 99% of bird shots i've seen. don't be too hard on yourself though, birds are super fucking uncooperative and as someone who's tried shooting birds a lot, you have to be reeeeally patient to get a shot that isn't worth immediately skipping past while editing.
>>3753863intended subject is not clear, and whatever it is it's too small.
>>3754615darks are too dark, lights could take slightly more exposure, so as a whole i think this should have been a longer exposure. the comp is pretty iffy in the first place though, i don't know what i'm supposed to be looking at here. there's nothing particularly interesting in the frame.
>>3755162the entire bottom third of this is fully black and adds nothing to an otherwise wonderful shot. i'm guessing you either didn't crop this at all or did so in a way that maintained the original aspect ratio. this would easily be one of my favorites in the thread without that bottom third.
>>3755353slightly underexposed and there's not nearly enough light on the cat. too much sky but otherwise comp is okay.
>>3755491my eyes are not drawn to the kids in this photo, which i assume are supposed to be the subject. the lines don't lead to them, and the light is not on them. if they aren't the subject, then what is?
