>>2695441

Could you post a larger copy?

>>2695441
Brutal honesty: it's shit. It's a picture of nothing. The highlights are blown out and there's nothing interesting to look at. The location is interesting though so I'd encourage you to go back and try again.

Also, why is it in black and white? If the photo wasn't interesting in colour what makes you think it'd be interesting in black and white?

Also 1000px on the longest edge next time, I don't need to pixel peep your smartphone picture to tell that it's shit

>>2695441
What was your focus on in this pic? We can't figure it out. The water? The light from the trees?

Also, something is weird about your b&w...how was it originally?

>>2695463
>It's a picture of nothing.
That's not true. The "waterfall" is interesting, as is the path is comes from.

The composition isn't too bad either, but nevertheless I think it is the weakest point of the image. Showing more of the foreground would be an improvement, as would shifting your perspective about side-to-side. The angle of the foreground rock line would be great to play with. Getting lower to the ground, or even higher that you were, would open up new compositional opportunities. Looks a bit eye level.

The rocks on the bottom left feel a bit distracting and incomplete.

The highlights do indeed look blown out, but desu the white leaves are kind of cool, although odd. don't think it subtracts too much from the image, if anything it supports the high(er) contrast look.

I don't know how good the colors were here, but B&W fits this image, and it would fit it even better with a more solid composition.

There seems to be some weird NR/unsharpness about this image, almost as it were run though some cartoon/celshading filter. It's visible even arm's length away on a standard ~19" desktop monitor.

OP here, the reason for the lighting on everything looking strange is that it had just rained and so you're seeing the leaves and such reflect the light with the water on them. It gives it sorta a shiny look. As for the other stuff I am taking this into account and thank you.

File: 20150614_154938-5.jpg (4 MB, 4160x2340) Image search: [Google]

4 MB, 4160x2340

Here is without the B&W

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	LG-D851
Equipment Make	LG Electronics
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2015:10:31 22:02:54
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Altitude	0.00 m
Color Space Information	sRGB
F-Number	f/2.4
Focal Length	3.97 mm
White Balance	Auto
Image Width	4160
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Image Height	2340
Flash	No Flash
Exposure Bias	0 EV
ISO Speed Rating	50
Exposure Time	1/60 sec

>>2695549
I think it would have been better in color and with the waterfall being a bit more vertically up in the picture to make it a point of focus. Seems too low, making it a picture of nothing.

>>2695551
Yeah...choosing b&w over this was a good idea, but there's no composition. You should have tried to take the waterfall or the tree leaves from different angles.
It's rare that a picture is good if you stand in front of your subject.

>>2695551
You would probably have to tinker a bit with it in post, but something is even possible with color if you know what to do.

>>2695441
>4160x2340


resize to at least 1000px on the long side.