>>4062922The (mildly) interesting part is literally shadowed, the subjects are all in front of eachother and it's not their fault, it's because of your placement
>>4062924It's tilted, cluttered, I don't really know what to look at here. Is the fence the subject? Is it the child? Is it the contrast? Needs better framing otherwise it's just a bunch of stuff thrown together
>>4062925This one is good, the contrast between the silhouette and the girl in the light, the lights and shadows on the water, the textures. It's good
>>4062927The photo is tilted, the subject is butchered, it's not interesting at all, it's flat. It's something I'd expect to get attached to a text message from a friend telling me how a random guy was trying to lecture them about the Bhagavad Gita: merely descriptive, no actual aesthetic value
>>4062928Not my cup of tea but it's ok, at least it tells a story
The guys talking, the empty tables
Not a great story, but a story nonetheless
>>4062929Just no
Don't go around taking pics of kids, especially kids in underwears
Your shadow is there, it's fucking creepy, they clearly don't want you there
You shouldn't have taken this picture in the first place, let alone post it
And aesthetically it's still awful
>>4062930This is the definition of whatever
>>4062933I kinda like the deep shadows but they're cluttered and they suffocate the illuminated part
I like the idea, the execution not so much, but there's a lead there
>>4062934Learn how to work the shadows
You don't control the dog, but you control the camera
You can call it or just wait until it moves to the light
And you can control your body not to cast a fucking shadow in the pic for fuck's sake
One reason why lots of those pictures are flat is because all of them have the same depth of field
If the focus were on the dog and the doors and the other parts were blurred it could be a better picture
>cont 
