Why I love Rhode Island....

[NEPats37]

what do you think
ok the pics are here....sorry angelfire sucks.

 

[NEPats37]

what yall think?

 

[ShootHoops]

I can't see anything.

 

[LaFoto]

Sorry, NEPats.
We don't get to see the pictures.
Maybe you still have to change some of the settings in Angelfire to make your photos public?

 

[NEPats37]

ok finally it works....what do you all think?

 

[Antarctican]

Is that first one of Newport? (Looks familiar from when I used to go sailing there).

The look of the sunlight on the ocean/beach in the third picture is beautiful, but the horizon needs straigtening (it dips down on the right side of the frame, which is a little jarring to the eyes). It's a very peaceful scene.

 

[NEPats37]

Is that first one of Newport? (Looks familiar from when I used to go sailing there).

yes it is....thanks for the comments im gonna fix the beach picture as well

 

[NEPats37]

i hate bumping but i need feedback on these.
thanks

 

[LaFoto]

Hiya NEPats, welcome to ThePhotoForum, so you want to hear some more about your photos?

Well, you took the first when the light was nice.
However I kind of deplore the shadow on the tree produced by the building behind you, and I clearly moan the fact that the top of the tree got cropped off. Something tells me that your vantage point for taking this photo was not the best (though it may have been the ONLY one, which is what I don't know). If the bridge was to be your subject, you should have sought for a point nearer to it. As it is, all is dominated by the (clipped-off-at-the-top)-tree and the shadows, while the bridge merges with the background even further behind it.

The second photo does not tell me anything at all.
Maybe I would need to know beforehand what the statue is, where it looks and what it is in the distance. But I feel your photo is not telling me that.

The third is definitely the nicest of the series, though the slanted horizon ... but well, that has been mentioned before. I need not repeat it. At 423 pixels wide there is little we can really see. You might consider a size of between 600 and 800 pixels wide for web-presentation.

The last does not really "speak" to me, either, I am not overly fond of the centred horizon and of the sign covering the lower righthand quarter ... a slightly different point of view might have made this a better pic.

 

[NEPats37]

Hiya NEPats, welcome to ThePhotoForum, so you want to hear some more about your photos?

Well, you took the first when the light was nice.
However I kind of deplore the shadow on the tree produced by the building behind you, and I clearly moan the fact that the top of the tree got cropped off. Something tells me that your vantage point for taking this photo was not the best (though it may have been the ONLY one, which is what I don't know). If the bridge was to be your subject, you should have sought for a point nearer to it. As it is, all is dominated by the (clipped-off-at-the-top)-tree and the shadows, while the bridge merges with the background even further behind it.

The second photo does not tell me anything at all.
Maybe I would need to know beforehand what the statue is, where it looks and what it is in the distance. But I feel your photo is not telling me that.

The third is definitely the nicest of the series, though the slanted horizon ... but well, that has been mentioned before. I need not repeat it. At 423 pixels wide there is little we can really see. You might consider a size of between 600 and 800 pixels wide for web-presentation.

The last does not really "speak" to me, either, I am not overly fond of the centred horizon and of the sign covering the lower righthand quarter ... a slightly different point of view might have made this a better pic.

thanks for the comments. yeah teh tree is cut off ehich sucks but i would have had to stand on my car to get the whole thing(the tree was huge) and the shadows did **** me off too.

i fixed the horizon in the other pic(look below)

the statue one well yeah i agree not to good

the sign on the beach was just suspossed to be funny....i liked the sign.