>>4318693Personally I’d say composition seemed almost entirely absent. Harsh criticism to follow, I’ve never been a believer in positive encouragement.
>>4318639No subject. Looks like a random accidental photo.
>>4318640It’s a bridge. So what? The eye travels around and settles on the janitor’s marker.
>>4318641Beautiful area, but you don’t capture the beauty. Unbalanced, unfocused, again the composition seems accidental
>>4318643I assume this was taken when you sat on your camera.
>>4318645You took a poor photo of someone else’s boring art. Why?
>>4318647The first one with ok composition, but indistinguishable from any other cemetery photo ever taken.
>>4318648Fine, but ridiculously boring. The classic student’s shot of a bridge. Why are we looking at this?
>>4318649The same as above. Twenty, maybe sixty years ago it would pass as a generic photo for a student portfolio. Why did you take it? What are we supposed to see?
>>4318650Again, no focus, no subject. Looks like a google maps capture.
>>4318652What?
>>4318654Don’t ever do that again. Even if the foreground was beautiful and expertly composed, those sorts of gags almost always look retarded. You need to be making a real statement and be well beyond the basics before attempting that shit, and still, the most you can hope for is banksy level banality.
>>4318655Almost passable for a photo to sit in the buildings lobby and be ignored/give people vertigo
>>4318921Almost good if you’d cropped out the stuffed animals.
>>4318950Nice, but a tourist snapshot. If you wanted the photo to mean something you needed to get a better angle.
>>4318953A random photo, points for inspiring nostalgia, but all points removed for zero composition.
Get an art book and start studying composition. You need to learn the rules before you break them.
