>> |
Anonymous
>>257914 >Can someone please give this guy an accurate crit of his work? Righty-o.
The main problem with them is that they're just not particularly interesting pictures. The secondary problem with them is that he apparently subscribes to the "Bukkake" theory of photoshop--i.e., that it should be coated on thick and in a very in-your-face style.
Also: Posting to a board like this in PNG format is fail for a few reason. Most obvious reason is that it takes a lot of extra size (which makes the shots slower to view and raeps 4chan's bandwidth to no good effect) for no visible extra quality. Less immediately obvious, it means we get no EXIF data because PNG doesn't have an equivalent.
Specific pictures:
>>257605 ZOMFGVIGNETTING.
The vignetting doesn't add to this shot. In fact, it distracts from it, and it's already a pretty poor shot to begin with. When you're doing a silhouette, you're emphasizing form over detail, and this is (a) an extremely boring form and (b) filled with distractions from that already-boring form (like the I-assume-light over it, the weird angled signpost, the trees in the background, the wires, etc). And really, pictures of streetsigns are just boring. I've taken a lot of pictures of streetsigns, and they've all been boring. I don't recall ever seeing someone else's picture of a street sign that wasn't boring, either. Anyone got one?
>>257607 Again, boring subject, presented in a boring manner (composition isn't particularly compelling), with the contrast turned up to 11. You've taken a bad base picture and made it worse with postprocessing.
|