File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
it is good yes
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeUnknownCamera Model1.3M Digital CAMCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:03:15 23:23:15Exposure Time1/339 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating50Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length7.45 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1362Image Height1017
>> Anonymous
no.
>> Anonymous
>>40043

Yeah if you hadn't scratched it all away with sandpaper or whatever you did.
>> Anonymous
>>40047
If you take a look at the exif, apparently it was taken with a 1.3 MP camera. What else do you expect? We can still critique composition, lighting and such.
>> Anonymous
As a thumbnail it actually looks pretty good, almost as if it came out of a high-rez screen from the new GTA or something. Ah, if only it wasnt taken with the 1.3mp cam
>> ac
>>40049
Lighting: Hilights in the sky are clipped into oblivion. All the light on the non-clipped subjects is pretty dull and uniform.

Composition: It's a building. It's a pretty building, and kudos to the architect, but the composition is pretty dull and uniform as well.
>> Anonymous
>>40063


op here


was it a mistake to include the road in the composition? cause the sky was gray that afternoon i figured the black tar would make a nice contrast

also yes i have shitty camera, i am poor >:(
>> Anonymous
>>40063
>>40116

No, it wasn't a mistake to include the road, nor is the composition bad because the road is in there. I didn't think, looking at it, that the subject was "the building." I thought it was just the overall general scene, which included the building, the road, etc.