Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Blue439" data-source="post: 829350" data-attributes="member: 53455">Assuming that “CC” intends to mean “constructive criticism”, here goes:. Photos #1 and 4 are the same. It is a very commonplace snapshot that is not very sharp anywhere and seems to have been taken as you were walking by, without particular inspiration nor intent in the composition. The buildings’ verticals are diverging, which reinforces the impression of “I wasn’t paying much attention”. The exposure is OK, but the EXIF have been partly stripped (as far as I can tell), so there is not much more I can say.. Photo #2 is much better, and the best of the lot. There has been some thinking in terms of composition and the grayscale is good. However, once again the photo is not sharp at all and the EXIF are missing, so that there is not much more I can say as to why.. Photo #3: totally blurry, overexposed, very bad white balance, best forget right away it ever existed.That’s my honest opinion!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Blue439, post: 829350, member: 53455"] Assuming that “CC” intends to mean “constructive criticism”, here goes: . Photos #1 and 4 are the same. It is a very commonplace snapshot that is not very sharp anywhere and seems to have been taken as you were walking by, without particular inspiration nor intent in the composition. The buildings’ verticals are diverging, which reinforces the impression of “I wasn’t paying much attention”. The exposure is OK, but the EXIF have been partly stripped (as far as I can tell), so there is not much more I can say. . Photo #2 is much better, and the best of the lot. There has been some thinking in terms of composition and the grayscale is good. However, once again the photo is not sharp at all and the EXIF are missing, so that there is not much more I can say as to why. . Photo #3: totally blurry, overexposed, very bad white balance, best forget right away it ever existed. That’s my honest opinion! [/QUOTE]

Verification