>> |
ac
!!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>131536 Most of this shot is out of focus. It's interesting architecture, but it's a bad photo of interesting architecture. Just taking a picture of a neat building isn't enough to make it a good picture. And, added bonus, there are people in the frame contributing basically nothing to the shot (they show the scale of the building a bit, but only if you search 'em out. Mostly they're just an example of an overlooked detail in the frame that shouldn't be there).
>>131537 Again, great architecture, boring photo. If you're specifically trying for a job as an architectural photographer--I.e., where your job is to document the building, not trying to make art yourself--this is fine. I think. It's hard to tell when my only options for viewing are pixel-peeping at 100% or crappy browser-resized, both sideways.
>>131552 Everything looks slightly crooked. The power lines, whatever, that thing on the left is, and (to a lesser extent) the trees are distracting and annoying.
>>131556 Sun's clipped all to hell. If you'd waited a few minutes (or gotten there a few minutes earlier, if this is a sunrise), you'd have had a nice halo around the mountains from the low sun. As it is, you just have a bright-ass block of pixels spiked at 0xFF. The plants in the foreground are out of focus, which means you've got little blurry things right dead center in the frame, which is almost never what you want--in-focus plants and out-of-focus mountain would be better, or figure out the hyperfocal distance of your lens, stop way the hell down, and try to get 'em both. Finally, roughly half of the frame is just blank, boring, blue sky. Read up on the Rule of Thirds.
>>131566 Scene has some potential, but not a lot. I find the "<-- Cab" distracting, though, and the lighting is weird. What is that, a strobe hiding behind the frontmost barrel? It almost looks like you're trying to make off-camera flash look like on-camera flash.
|