File: crop.jpg (3.5 MB)

>>4512280
I don't post here. Not really a photograper either:
>JUST SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
Cropping is not a sin in creative editing, photography is a subtraction game.
There's clearly a main subject that plays along with an ironic or counterpoint theme against another subject, in this case the homeless under a developed object-structure.
To railroad viewers into your intention, if it was the contrast between subjects' status, you can crop your way in to take out distractions, in theory this compositional play should be done on field but sometimes you can't for whatever reason so cropping is an expected step.
I did two tries, perhaps these are closer to what you wanted to show, or maybe you just wanted a pretty shot of the building and these niggers got in the way.

File: two seater 2.jpg (1.0 MB)

>>4512280
If you're taking pictures you're a photographer bud, everything else is just gearfagging or window dressing

>Say something
The blue on the left is blown to an unnatural color and your subjects are tiny with nothing to draw the eye to them or contrast against them. You're looking and seeing but you need to think a bit more about your composition. Imagine if this was a more vertical shot from the industrial building going down to the waterline with just a hint of the green in the bottom and some tourists or otherwise normies looking over the edge above the hobos below. Of course, I'm projecting what I think you probably wanted the image to convey. But that's part of it - seeing something more than just the scene, but what the scene could be

>>4512280
From a technical perspective, your image is too low quality to observe those people by the waters which I assume are main subjects of this photograph. It's not only underexposure but also lack of raw resolution. So your photo falls flat. Overall, colors and contrasts are flat and uninteresting. But At least I can see you were going for something.

From a "art" perspective, you're one more that believe their photo is so good it can be shown alone and without any context. You're wrong. Photos are weak. Only masterpieces are good outside of a series and a context. Makes series.

>>4512280
> Post one (1) snapshit
> PLEEEASE SAY SOMETHING ABOUT MY SINGULAR PHOTO PLEEEASE
> Anons write constructive paragraphs about the unique mediocre image
> OP leaves the thread and never answers
kek

>>4512280
clouds are overexposed
there are no shadows nor much contrast
I would like to see the men along the bank up close but this is obviously not possible with the lens you have
it seems like you took this photo with your phone

>>4512306
>From a technical perspective, your image is too low quality to observe those people by the waters
They are clearly there and their postures obvious, so your argument is wrong.

File: Screenshot_20260603_153842.jpg (51.2 KB)

>>4512578
...

File: [email protected] (177.0 KB)

>>4512579
Yeah, he's Broly squatting, so what it's not illegal
Point still stands, the subjects and their thematic contrast are clearly visible, and will be even if shown in a semi-detailed exhibition format of 8x10 seen at a 50cm distance which is 20ish inches in muttric system.
Attached is an image sized 7x10 if you are seeing it at 96PPI, 960px vertical side, 768 horizontal side would make it 8in but in this case due to crop ratio it is 672ish, so a 7in.
The example inside of a so-called broly squat, black framed, is a normal exhibition size of 5x7 if seen at 96PPI, that might be a bit too small but OP might print it at 8x10 anyways as it is doable at 300DPI, he's just 20 to 25 pixels shy of the 2400x3000 pixels needed if he opts for the cropped version provided before.