>>3776009>>3776007>>3776013I think telephoto lenses are my favorite tool for landscape photography, but maybe I'm biased. What focal length was
>>3776007? Great textures.
>>3776001>>3776002The color version captures more of the humidity of the weather and lushness of the environment, which is interesting because it contrasts with the aridness of most montane ecosystems. The b&w version looks too tryhard, like you're trying to be Ansel Adams, but you forgot that the photo looks completely sterilized when you take away the main markers of the narrative.
>>3776014Perfect weather for landscape photography. Fog does a better job than any fast lens at subject separation.
>>3776015Could go either way. IMO, this photo has less of a narrative than the OP one, and looks good mostly for geometric, textural reasons. It has a lot of negative space and the environment wraps around that, like any good landscape photo.
>>3776018>>3776017"Narrow" is obviously better. But only because the wider one lacks focus. I feel like I'm being shit-tested.
>>3776024IMO, this is where landscape photography goes wrong. The photo has all of the aesthetic elements that people like to see, but lacks either a subject or a central, negative space around which the landscape can congregate. Too imbalanced.
>>3776026The foreground stuff was just in your way. Bad vantage point for a photo.
>>3776029This is good because of the lighting. I especially like how all the buzzword-spouting idiots on this board hate it. That means you're onto something. IMO, I wish you'd taken it at a different height also, aside from just "eye level."
>>3776031It would be better without the lens flare, which is too bright and distracting. The lighting, composition and subject are very nice.
>>3778533>>3778536>>3778538>>3778542All these are perfect lighting, perfect weather, great subjects. Color vs. b&w doesn't matter.
>>3780170The trail is interesting, but the foreground is underwhelming.
