>>3978896It's got some really obnoxious, unnatural, multi-shot phone HDR shit going on. The original scene probably looked very different, because the sun is pointed at the camera. The buildings didn't look that bright IRL. If it had the sun behind the photographer and illuminating, with a dark sky as a background, it would be maybe "perfect". This isn't it.
I'll say, it is a "good" photo, and above your average phone snapshot. But, little details like the time of day, the specific framing, or the placement of chairs are what make it very clear it's shot on an "untrained" eye, and it's insulting to photojournalists with decades of experience and tens of thousands of photographs on their belt that this approaches their level of work, because it doesn't. Really, it's curious how often the people on /p/ conflate an above average photo with a brilliant one, and in what little regard they hold photography that they think just having a good subject and not particularly god awful framing makes a photo "great", let alone "perfect".
