critique

File: pool.jpg (1MB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x667px

>>2800887
2

File: elmorro.jpg (704KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

704KB, 1000x667px

>>2800887
3

Where did you take these beautiful pics?

File: tatts.jpg (796KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

796KB, 667x1000px

>>2800887

>>2800892
first two were on a cruise to st.john this summer and the next few are from my trip out to new mexico!

File: monument-valley.jpg (342KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1000x667px

>>2800887
5

File: doge.jpg (344KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 1000x667px

>>2800887
6

File: crackhippy.jpg (444KB, 1000x726px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 1000x726px

>>2800887
7

File: allgrownup.jpg (486KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 667x1000px

>>2800887

These are REALLY good!

>>2800904
thanks man I appreciate it.

>>2800894
dont like the way this one is framed. cuts off too tight around the person. the rest are all very good

>>2800908
thanks for the feedback man

>>2800908
Horses for courses, I see what you mean, but I thought that one was outstanding. Just an amazing shot. I maybe agree with you about the framing, but it's a minor point and the image is still very powerful.

>>2800917
dude thanks so much!

>>2800888

This is pretty strong don't know why no one has commented

>>2800947
word thanks man

bbbb

File: Screenshot (24).png (2KB, 110x68px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 110x68px

>>2800887
Ease up on the samefagging there, OP.

>>2800991
I think OP is being pretty transparent about which posts are his: all the photos (duh) and his in-character responses. I was >>2800892, >>2800904, and >>2800917. That implies that >>2800908, >>2800947, and you make up the other three posters. It's not samefagging if you're making it clear that you're the same person, wth responses like "thanks man".

>>2800887
Framing is sound in that you centred the subject properly but the signage in the bottom right of the picture is very distracting and initially I thought it was an obnoxious watermark.

This one is fine but I would love to see it in colour, the monochrome works but I isn't adding anything.

>>2800888
Colours are very striking, the image is rich with colour but nothing else is standing out. Did you just take the one picture or were you waiting for something to happen? I find myself looking for something across the whole frame, there's nothing interesting going on but the composition would lead you to believe you should be looking in the middle and bottom of the image.

>>2800890
It's a picture of a flower, not sure what you want here. It's a poor compromise between a landscape and still life, this comes across primarily from the poor choice of focus/depth of field but also the positioning of the flower.

>>2800894
This has good depth, you've managed to get two separate pictures into the one frame, decent landscape on the top and a boring urbanesque scene with someones back. The blown highlights on her pants show some laziness with the post

>>2800898
It's a picture of some sheds, again you've compromised between two things here. You have what could be an abstract colour/form study (the sheds) being thrown into a landscape picture. Then you pull the colour out of it? I'm getting the feeling you don't know when to use colour and when to use monochrome processing

>>2800899
Again, monochrome for no good reason. You're blessed the dog is jet black otherwise they would just blend in with the car

>>2800900
It's nice, the lighting is pushing my eyes towards the people in the background (As is the focus) but they're not really doing anything too dynamic. You did the best you could with this scene by the looks of it but it's still pretty boring. Monochrome works here though, this looks like the typical street shooter aesthetic but the addition of blurry and sharp subjects adds more depth

>>2800902
If this is supposed to be some sort of study of form then it's failing miserably by having the vast majority of the frame populated by literally nothing to look at. You expect people to be interested in looking at some hangers?

>>2800904
What the fuck are you smoking
Normally when a thread like this comes along it tanks with no replies or critique. OP don't believe anyone that says these "are great!!!" because they aren't even close to good photographs. Some of them show potential but that is literally it.

>>2800995
i appreciate the critique man, ill take some of those things into account next time.

>>2800995
i dont know about the pool photo. the subject was clearly the couple near the top center piggy backing. they stood out because their profile and height contrasted the others in the pool.

I would have like to see those two a bit lower in the photo though

>>2800894
Please, OP, i need full res of this one! Nice as fuck, will use it as wp on my phone.

>>2801272
I get that they are the subject but my eyes keep getting drawn to the bottom of the pool for some reason, it feels like the comp that's doing it