I wouldn't call that "lifeless," Jennifer, and the compositon in #4 is fascinating.
Just wait until you see the next few sets I have planned. I spend a lot of time taking shots of stuff between shots of people. It's not like a street shot happens every second. Well, um, yeah. You know what I mean.
Numbers 3 and 4 are wonderful - either one on the wall would keep me looking for a long time!
Thanks for that. The idea that anyone could linger over a shot of mine is nice to know.
I love the fourth. The third seems to have haloes around the branches.
I haven't studied the third recently, but I don't remember any artefacts or haloes. I'm not great with detailed colour PP but I'll go back to the original RAW and check it over again.
Like the last one, but not the others. I just don't feel they are about anything.
To buzz an old saw of mine once more, they remind me of my own landscapes which always suffer from the same thing: the obvious - to me - lack of a human model, with the resulting question to myself: why did you do it?
I suspect that we are all, in the end, one-genre creatures.
I don't think I'm a competent much less average still life or landscape shooter. Although there's something to be learned through attempting it and listening to critique. It's a way of gaining insight into my own aesthetic. I expect a blasting on my next few postings. A bunch of inanimate shit. But, if I end up being just a "people" person, I'd be happy. I'll just keep exploring ways to visualise it as long as I can handle a camera.