>>4400364
Bruce gilden's first 5 pictures of people, but they seem to purposefully ignore all consideration into composition, meaning, and aesthetic. You could call these all creepshots and get little disagreement.

I would be embarrassed to show these images to anyone online or in person, and honestly, I truly believe that your thread is just a weak attempt at bait.

>>4400521
nah blud that's cap, the first one has plenty composition, meaning and aesthetic., u just jelly

>>4400525
Elaborate

>>4400525
bruh theres a fucking pole sticking outta her head
standing on one corner of a street for 30 minutes shooting basically the same composition over and over again... just, bruh

>>4400542
Center framing, boring/bland light, busy meaningless background, zero contextualization, uninteresting subject. The list goes on...

The guy couldn't even make shit up about how his public nuisance photography is compelling in any way.

>>4400544
What did they do to you?????

>>4400545
First Lady looks swaggy, like she's walking out with a certain prideful face.
Second looks pissed off.
third couple looks joyful.

All types walk the streets. These are great pictures. Not listening to any nophotos.

I like it OP

New York is way overdone by Trevor wisecup types and their 3k film cameras

Go to Bradford, glasgow or derry and document modern Britain

>>4400594
I can post photos in your bait thread if you want. Your reasoning for why they're good is nearly as bad as the images themselves.

>>4400616
go for it man, lemme see your TALENT

>>4400619
Nah. This thread is so obviously bait that I will not be contributing to it anymore. I gain literally nothing from proving to your dumbass that I take pictures.

To answer your question you are not a talented photographer, and these pictures are intentionally bad or a purposeful selection of bad photographs you took.

Cheers

No you are not, and your shit attitude will keep you right where you belong.

>>4400364
gilf hunter

>muh pole, muh composition, muh yada yada
OP has potential. my style is to shoot in a way I won't have to crop and ai erase shit, but you do you, with a thicc sensor you could make it work

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4400620
>>4400657
OP here, and if anything I am the one with the good attitude, even if my pictures have flaws, and thee are those with the craven and negative "misery loves company" finger-pointing attitude. Stop taking yourselves so seriously.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DMC-G80
Camera Software	Ver.1.3
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	66 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	180 dpi
Vertical Resolution	180 dpi
Image Created	2022:05:14 18:07:08
Exposure Time	1/2500 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Fine Weather
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	32.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3232
Image Height	2160
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4400364
No not really.
These are all generic as fuck, and the subjects are entirely uninteresting.
Good photos could have been made with better subjects, or better/any composition but you chose to include neither.
You are actually taking photos though, so you're better than 80% of the board, and will actually become a better photographer.