File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hey, /p/retentious assholes, what's up?

Here's a few photos I had around, feel free to show off how smart you are by explaining what I did wrong here. I know you want to.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>52646

This photo would be my favorite. Really like the contrasting patterns and textures.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>feel free to show off how smart you are by explaining what I did wrong here
Dammit, I *do* want to, because I love making myself feel like a big man by belittling others, but I really like these shots. The only one I don't love is the black and white one, 'cause it doesn't have much of a subject. But the rest are aces.
>> Anonymous
>>52646
>>52650
These two are my favourites.>>52648would've been great with a shallower depth of field.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
well for starters you should have focused more on your subjects. it seems to me that your depth of field has to be metered better in order to more accurately depict your focal points. in addition, if you had used the rule of thirds to determine where to place your contrasting lines, these photos would be closer to publishable quality.

next time, try to balance your shutter speed and aperture to obtain better aesthetics. the problem with these photos is that you just don't use composition to WHERE DA HOOD WHERE DA HOOD WHERE DA HOOD AT
>> Anonymous
>>52667

i see what you did there.
>> Anonymous
>>52647
>>52648

Love these two, only wish the second had a shallower DoF, as previously said.

The others are just okay, imo.
>> Anonymous
>>52651
At the moment I saw it, I said, oooh! this photo is so liska-ish
You really dig his stuff right? =)
very nice
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>52794

Hey, what's that supposed to mean? :x
And who's "his"? The OP?
>> elf_man
>>52887
Lol, picture in the OP does remind me of your atomic cafe shot.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
anyway.

i don't like the first one. it just seems like a shot htat i would take. i have a lot of difficulty portraying buildings well, and i'm always dissatisfied with my building shots, and this shot makes a lot of sense to me and it's activating my early learning plateau frustration sense. i don't know why. maybe i'd like less sky and more house.

>>52646
bothers me as a thumbnail because i thought there was a cricifix hanging there but it was just a dark spot. very nice though, fukken saved.
>>52650
>>52648
great stuff.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>52647

I think i'm just worried that "Liska-ish" is now a sort of phrase to describe a photo. It's confusing.

>>52647
I also like this one, because of the way the wires fall and so on. It's cool.


>>52644
Is actually my least favorite. It seems to bottom heavy/busy on the bottom and not balanced enough. Sky's nice and filtered.

I also wish>>52646
had a little bit more light variation, but it's still my favorite!
>> ac
>>52913
Would you prefer Liskariffic? Liskalicious? Liskalian?
>> OP
     File :-(, x)
I don't think they are as good as you make them out, but thanks. I'm relatively new to photography and need every encouragement I can get.

>>52652
> it doesn't have much of a subject
Trolley lines! They are the subject. Why aren't you looking at them? I even made it B&W to bring them out more.

>>52662
>>52769
Not sure if I saw it before or just after you pointed out, but I agree on DOF.

>>52903
>>52913
OK, I can agree that the 1st one is unbalanced. Stepping back and including more of the people on the ground and less sky would fix it, yes?


Here, have a crab girl!