Here are some pictures I took in Arkansas. All of these were

File: img131.jpg (140KB, 1024x757px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1024x757px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5355
Image Height	3957
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format

File: img143.jpg (123KB, 1024x757px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1024x757px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5355
Image Height	3957
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format

File: img151.jpg (130KB, 1024x757px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1024x757px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5355
Image Height	3957
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format

File: img156.jpg (101KB, 1024x757px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1024x757px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5355
Image Height	3957
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format

I don't really like any of them but it's not like I could do any better

>>2727039

most honest critique on /p/ i've read

>>2727020
the sky is distractingly dark blue, the color in the trees are lovely

>>2727021
drab colors, sorta depressing, you should brighten the colors on the trees

>>2727024
weird composition, branches in the way, the water's color gradient is good though

>>2727026
why so blue?

>>2727027
this one comes off as a really amateurish shot, just a lot of things in the wrong place that coulda been fixed

also what is with the image quality, does the camera you have create gigantic JPEG artifacts, or did you downsize the pictures then upscale them in post?

>>2727064
I probably went overboard on the resizing, as I didn't want people on this board bitching at me about filesize or resolution. Velvia has no JPEG artifacts, obviously.

>>2727026
This picture is blue because the entire area was in shade. We had to keep moving so that was the best I could do.

>>2727068
>I probably went overboard on the resizing, as I didn't want people on this board bitching at me about filesize or resolution

as long as it's under 1mb it's fine

File: img136.jpg (1MB, 2707x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2707x2000px

I compressed this one less

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5355
Image Height	3957
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format

File: 1450809771823.jpg (604KB, 800x591px) Image search: [Google]

604KB, 800x591px

>>2727068
nothing a little color balance cant fix

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5355
Image Height	3957
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	4800 dpi
Vertical Resolution	4800 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:12:22 12:53:28
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	800
Image Height	591

>>2727020
>>2727021
>>2727024
>>2727026
>>2727027
Fuck I hate how purple Velvia is.
Also holy shit that blocking and banding. Lrn 2 resize.
These photos are classic examples of why you should never let a bitch dictate the pace when you go out taking photos in the nature.
They're snapshits taken from on the path.
The compositions are clumsy and cluttered.
You haven't stopped down sufficiently in most of them.
I'd love to see how bad the rest of the shots on the roll are, given how indifferent you clearly are about these "keepers".

>>2727075
This is good, but dishonest.

>>2727077
how fixing the colors to their natural state dishonest?

>>2727079
Because it really did look that blue in real life. There was no sunshine or orange on it at that time, and it looks just as blue and weird on the slide.

>fixing the colors to their natural state

yeah, sure buddy

>>2727076
>You didn't stop down sufficiently in them

Can you give me an example of this?

>>2727082
>Because it really did look that blue in real life.
No, it didn't. Your eye corrects for color tones in real life, while film can not.

>>2727082
so the trees were light blue and the ground was violet?

>>2727084
The very first photo dude.
Your depth of field doesn't cover the foreground and the vignetting has crushed your sky.
>>2727072
This is much better, at least as far as camera placement and exposure settings go, but the composition is still weak. I would have taken it portrait orientation, turned to the right to eliminate that tuft of grass and trash covered branch, and angled down a little to get more of that eddie in the shot. I also would have focused at about 1.5m, rather than 5 or so. Foreground OOF is much more distracting than background blur, 1000% of the time.

All garbage.

>>2727214
In what way are they garbage, and what would you do differently?

>>2727267
i'm not that guy but i think you're just working with really boring and bland compositions

>>2727020
vignetting doesn't fit the photo and there are no strong elements to draw me into anything. no strong contrasting colors, no strong contrasting focus, the background trees aren't really bokehed well they're just there and blurry. the image quality itself is pretty poor which doesn't help of course. in addition to fixing the technical issues i would try to make the river more interesting, since it's a natural leading line and fits the feeling i think you're trying to convey of, it's a beautiful day in the woods. i'd try to shoot much closer to the river itself and have it lead you deeper into the forest. i think that'll make the rock look better too.

>>2727021
this is a pretty scene but as was mentioned, the colors are shitty. again, you're going to this place at its most unphotogenic time of the year. not only is everything dead but there's no snow or anything. i'd do whatever i could to lengthen the exposure because the movement of the water is the only thing to be drawn to.

>>2727024
i like this, maybe i'd try to remove negative space at the bottom. bottom line the waterfall is neat and the reflection from the pool above is neat so make those things as strong as you can.

>>2727026
totally ruined by the WB which is too bad because this would be the 2nd best picture

>>2727027
not really drawn to anything. it's a shot that's neither here nor there. it's not wide enough for a landscape shot nor narrow enough to be focused on one thing.

the sheer poor image quality hurts all of these though, that's the bottom line. and, i don't see what medium format brings to the table with these shots.

i think you'd be helped by getting more experimental and picking a single strong focus rather than shooting "the forest" and hoping it's pretty.

good luck keep shooting

Figure out a way to organize the composition in a way that gives the viewer something beyond a snapshot of a forest or waterfall. Orgnizrnit for the viewer so they can see something special in the scene that you noticed. Otherwise these have no interest to me (the viewer).

Also, is this buffalo river?

Waste of perfectly good Velvia

Get closer or get in the water.

>>2727077
>good
are you high

File: _MG_5548.jpg (297KB, 1528x1019px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 1528x1019px

>>2727020
Uninspired

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:

>>2727347
lel that's a bit rich coming from you, considering you posted an out of focus snapshit of fungus with no thought to composition.

beginners shouldn't be giving beginners critique

File: 55431.jpg (1001KB, 1463x976px) Image search: [Google]

1001KB, 1463x976px

>>2727348
imblying I gotta share my inspired pictures with the likes of you m8

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1463
Image Height	976
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:22 19:44:05
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1463
Image Height	976

>>2727351
was this supposed to be impressive?

>>2727348
I think he posted that picture to compare the level of 'uninspiredness' between OP's pictures and the fungus photo. And I agree with his comparison.

OP it looks like you went on a hike with a camera and because you had a camera felt obligated to take photos. If the group you're with is in a rush either lag behind and take thoughtful photos or keep the camera in your bag and enjoy being outdoors. Trying to shoot landscape photos quickly will almost never result in good photos. The differences between good and bad landscape pictures are the subtle compositional decisions that aren't possible without stopping and analyzing the scene for awhile. When I'm shooting landscapes I often spend a couple of minutes at a minimum with each photo, taking a few steps forward/back, left/right, moving the camera higher/lower. Also waiting for clouds to get into the right position, for a bird to fly through the frame, etc. also involves playing the waiting game.

File: _DSC9555-2.jpg (532KB, 1000x668px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 1000x668px

>>2727347 shot some fungus today.(snapshit)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D750
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Macintosh)
Photographer	Jacob Leyhe
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	828
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:22 23:05:05
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	320
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Fine Weather
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	52.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Soft
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: 1373329867248.jpg (56KB, 264x292px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 264x292px

>>2727347
>camera software: Google

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2011:07:04 21:46:46
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	264
Image Height	292

>>2727387
I kind of like this one, but all of your shots are way too dark.

File: 1434597652559.jpg (36KB, 177x174px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 177x174px

>>2727068
>I probably went overboard on the resizing, as I didn't want people on this board bitching at me about filesize or resolution. Velvia has no JPEG artifacts, obviously.

Holy shit. Do you fucking dweebs see what you'e wrought with all of your incessant nanny nagging?

>>2727713

you should direct this at muhmegapixels

>>2727411
I let the google botnet take my information and soul. Ripped the image from my google photos and the compression rate is acceptable per /p/'s standards but wipes the exif obviously.

>>2727713
The photos are 1/10th the size allowed, and it's obvious that compression was done poorly. It's like using a man driving 14mph on the freeway to rail against speed limits.