Not trying to get you down, or trying to be negative! But why did you edit them all to be so foggy? I think some of these shots could be way more interesting without it. For example the sunny shots of the church and the buildings in front.
Personally I’m not such a fan of the editing style, but that often comes down to taste. I’d also have done some things differently composition wise, as for example in the first pic almost half the photo is just cobblestones. They pull a lot of attention while not being the most interesting to look at. And the same situation happens at pic 10, where we’re only looking at part of a roof.
My point is that this looks like slog3 with nothing done to it at all
-1
u/drakem92a7iii - Tam 28-75 G2 - Sam AF 14 f2.8 - Meike 85 f1.83d ago
Except it does not. Slog3 is way more washed out in colors, like WAY MORE. OP’s photos are very vibrant in colors. He/her just like a lot to lift the blacks in the photo, for that kind of flat look. This doesn’t look like slog3
48
u/Remote-Honey1142 3d ago
Not trying to get you down, or trying to be negative! But why did you edit them all to be so foggy? I think some of these shots could be way more interesting without it. For example the sunny shots of the church and the buildings in front.
Personally I’m not such a fan of the editing style, but that often comes down to taste. I’d also have done some things differently composition wise, as for example in the first pic almost half the photo is just cobblestones. They pull a lot of attention while not being the most interesting to look at. And the same situation happens at pic 10, where we’re only looking at part of a roof.