Can someone please critique this photo and explain how, and where

>>3033282
The thumbnail actually looks pretty nice. If this wasn't taken with a phone, it would be pretty good. The flare and almost sepia colouring give it a really nostalgic tone.

The camera really kills it, though. Go get a cheap DSLR and shoot more, man. If your other shots are this good, then it looks like you have an eye for this!

File: B79AFFFD-ACFF-4FD1-801E-01E30A32062E-2836-00000372016C350B_tmp.jpg (2MB, 3264x1824px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1824px

>>3033284
Love it. Darkened and tinted the shadows a little.

Also this >>3033284

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	HTC Desire 610
Camera Software	Snapseed 2.15.144832640
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.4
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:03:27 07:38:20
Exposure Time	1/170 sec
F-Number	f/2.4
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.4
Brightness	4.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Other
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	3.10 mm
Image Width	3264
Image Height	1824
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard

>>3033287
And fucked up your sky with a load of banding. Sorry.

Here's something to try - when you're out shooting, just take some different shots from different angles; experiment. Then when you're back home, you can compare and analyze them and learn what you can do to improve first hand.

Could take it at a lower angle using the gate as a subject in the foreground

>>3033297
But then you don't get the path and the river. I prefer it like this - the gate kinda frames the whole image. Plus, y'know, it's supposed to be a landscape, not a gate.

>>3033284
Thank you! I'll be sure to get a decent camera and practice more when I have a little more money.
>>3033287
Thanks. I don't know exactly what you did but I think it improves the photo immensely.
>>3033291
I hadn't thought of that actually, I'll definitely try it next time I go for a shoot.

Wow I didn't realise how professional and friendly this board was, I think I'll spend more time here instead of the less pleasant boards (I'm sure you can guess which ones I'm talking about) on this site.

>>3033297
I was actually trying to get the body of water, sky and grass more when I took the picture. But I'm open to suggestions, can you explain what you mean though? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by lowering it, unless you're talking about making the gate the salient image in the frame.

>>3033300
>professional and friendly
Keep in mind that this not only fluctuates immensely from thread to thread but more importantly depends largely on the attitude of the OP. If you expect others do do your work, don't accept answers you don't want to hear, and act overall entitled and unreasonably, you're gonna get unfriendly replies.

>>3033284
what exactly makes you think that this shot would have been better with a DSLR vs. a phone? Like what aspect exactly would a DSLR improve?

>>3033300
>download Snapseed onto your phone
>test all options, especially curves
>you can edit the presets

>>3033317
The sky is completely blown out. The photo is so soft that it looks like there's motion blur, even though it's clearly not that.

>>3033850
Sharpness isnt the be all and end all. Phones have low dynamic range, sure, but you know what else does? Film. The sky here could very easily be made much less obnoxious with a simple curves adjustment.

That's discounting the fact that hes shooting towards the sun here, a dslr would be extremely hard pressed to not blow out the sky and also retain detail in the shadows. Which, again, isn't the be all and end all unless you are an obnoxious gearfag

>>3033852
It's very, very soft and digital looking. It would without a doubt look far, far better on a large sensor.

>>3033853
Not a reason to discount phone cameras. Best cams the one in your hand

ITT: autists fail to engage with images on an emotional level, and mistake mist for motion blur.

File: IMG_20161103_165114CC~3.jpg (2MB, 2560x1196px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1196px

>>3033852
not all phones have low dynamic range nowdays and plus some phones HDR is actually very decent like google's HDR+

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	Nexus 5X
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4032
Image Height	3024
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	2017:03:05 18:50:15
Exposure Time	533/1000000 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	61
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Brightness	8.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	Infinity
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.67 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2560
Image Height	1196
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Distant View
Unique Image ID	2798e7638bfa25170000000000000000

>>3033871
the only autist is you, many people commented on the good subject, here the biggest problem is indeed the camera.

mist? yes, there is mist, and there is the fact that not a single element in this picture looks sharp. I find it especially bothering on the gate.

>>3033282
I think some of the other anons are right, your phone camera is really struggling with the light here. Shooting into the sun is a hard thing to get right. Until you gain in confidence, maybe avoid shooting directly at the sun and just look for great side light instead. In this photo, the reeds and shit over to the right look awesome, maybe if you'd walked down to the water's edge and tried to get their reflection that might have been less of a challenge to the camera? I like the photo though, it's a lovely looking location.

>>3033282
Dude, this looks so surreal and I love it. Wallpapered

>>3034195
I pity people who live in cities and think this is surreal.

>>3034755
Yeah, for us, village folk, it's just a turd field next to a river of cowpiss, nothing unusual.

>>3034755
>>3034764
I am lowly city folk and I don't pity my childlike wonder

>>3034755
I was talking about the look, lighting, color, etc.

>>3034792
It's shit. I've shot pics very much like this and deleted them in camera. Very surprised anyone actually likes this crap. Even "city slickers"

>>3034795
You're hardcore

File: DSCN0034.jpg (718KB, 750x1000px) Image search: [Google]

718KB, 750x1000px

>>3034798
No I'm not, but I have some standards.
I'm sure the scene was lovely but the exposure is fucked and the composition is dead boring. The colours? There barely is any colour in this at all.
I could go out on any Summer morning and produce crap like this and some days I do but it's not good and you shouldn't encourage OP to be content with this.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON
Camera Model	COOLPIX S203
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.1
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	35 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3648
Image Height	2736
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2013:05:14 15:34:41
Exposure Time	10/5359 sec
F-Number	f/4.6
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	80
Lens Aperture	f/4.6
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Cloudy Weather
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	6.30 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	750
Image Height	1000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3034803
Well, shit. I like yours AND OP's.
What's wrong with me..

>>3034805
You just lack any good taste.

>>3034805
They're not awful in the same way that the painting of a cottage your grandmother has over the sofa isn't awful. It's just "pretty" rather than "good" and we should set the bar higher for ourselves.
Thanks, though.