>>3997522>Why did you take...this photoPartly to test ISO performance of the D610. Partly because it looked 'cool'.
>Why did you...share this photo?Mostly to show that I too take snapshits of statues so I'm not a nophoto hypocrite.
>>3997713In some ways though wouldn't the best approach then be a more 'technical' picture? Are we contaminating their art with our take? Are we making new art? I feel like a wanker for even thinking about this btw.
>>3997701Thumbnail looks boring, but full size feels 'okay'. A bit stale but still a keeper.
>>3997707Nice.
>>3997720I dunno. A bit too 'stump in the woods'.
>>3997848Just a chicken? Really nice work in post. Digging the muted tones and pop of colour in the eye.
>>3997891An attempt was made at a vanishing point photo. Maybe try wider or longer? For a photo with so many depth cues it still feels too flat.
>>3997899Feels cinematic. Nice idea with the framing. I like it.
>>3997950>>3997951Top notch.
>>3997996Resize this grainy mess. Though it is a pretty cool grainy mess. Doesn't detract.
>>3998011Nice use of negative space with the water. Still kinda meh but definitely a decent snapshit.
>>3998067This one is 100x better than your other take on the subject. So much better that it makes the other one look shit by comparison. Composition and processing so you can see more of the scene helps too!
>>3998071>>3998076Second one is better.
>>3998078Nice.
>>3998308Bit too snapshotty.
>>3998324I like! Drone shot? Really nice.
>>3998330Cool...freezing even?
>>3998355Cool house though I don't get enough subject outta it.
>>3998362Moody but feels like it is missing something.
>>3998370Plz resize. Pretty nifty.
