lmcinnis37

Nice record image. What's the primary point of interest?

Distractions are: border mergers all around; "hot" petals; insufficient frontal light.

Good color impact, but it is lost in the distractions.

These columns are in Pisa, Italy, I presume. The starboard list is small, but obvious, and it's difficult to hide when the border is so close to the left column. If it's any comfort, most of us do the same thing, particularly those of us who wear glasses and can't get close to the viewfinder. Still, you should be able to crop the image to eliminate most errors. Good luck next time. I would try to get more of an angle to the columns, if possible, and try a vertical frame.

The view is okay except for the wire mesh in the photo and the soft focus. And, there's no action. Try to get close to the fence and still use a telephoto lens so the wire will be so out of focus it won't be visible, or, open the aperture to wide open and use the reduction in DOF and the increase in stopping speed to solve both problems....maybe. Of course, everything is relative to what you did the first time, where you were, and if you were full-panning or still shooting. Just some suggestions, but you either hold the camera steady and accept some movement by the subject, or you pan and hope to get a steady racer and a blurred background. Anything else, and, theoretically, you blur both.

A good idea which doesn't come across at all. The 7-11 totally blows out the daffodils. If you hadn't told us, hardly anyone would recognize it. I suggest getting even lower to the ground, and using a wide angle lens on the flowers. The 7-11 I would use for refreshments only.

Background (pickets, brick, and house) are unnecessary to subject. And, why leave blades of grass in front of the subject. It's not illegal to trim the grass. Improved composition might be a vertical frame. Good exposure.

Technically well done, but what's the subject?

Is this bad photography, camera failure, or intentional? I like the color impact, but it's too non-descript in my opinion.

Detail lost in the stonework.

Pleasant venue and intent stares from dogs, but whites are blown out in this image. I hope the original shows more detail in these areas

The figure in the window is striking and eyecatching, but seems out of context with the structure. What is the subject? There seems to be enough scenery here to accommodate both the building and the model while giving to billing to one or the other, but not both, as here. Also, I find the convergence and the white "tower"(?) a bit distracting. But, what a gorgeous day to be out with a camera, a model, and such intriguing scenery!!!

See comments in the maker's gallery. Basically it's a good and well-persented copy of another's literary work. What's the point? If you copy another's photographs and show it, can you call it your work? Other than for documentation or illustration within a book about the literary author and his work, this has no photographic originality or credibility, in my humble opinion. If this is wrong, enlighten me.

It's good copy work and that's it. The creativity stops with the angled cropping and a bold red border. I don't consider copying somebody's literary efforts a valid photographic subject except for documentation, and it seems the book did that already. Is there a point to be made here? If so, I miss it.

Your pride and joy, I'm sure, but why not use a flash to bring out the details lost in the blacks?