Quote (Canadian_Man @ Mar 29 2017 06:46am)

#2: I like it :) Is the horizon just slightly crooked? Well done anyways. Best photo of the bunch.

#3: Boring. But well done. Looks like stock photo material. Nothing wrong with it, but as a stand-alone photo it needs more. Feels like 1/3 to 1/2 of the frame was cutt off on the left side, and this is just one severed frame from a panorama. The lighting is dark, which is fine, but the sky is cloudy. I want to see more stars. Photo #2 at least has some interesting deep blue in the sky, and some interesting colours. For a photo this dark, there should be a reason; there should be an interesting subject with interesting lighting, or at least a really cool sky.

#1: Some things need to be fixed. A photo on an angle conveys motion. Long exposure photography that captures light streams also conveys motion. The two don't work together in this photo, like an overfilled cup. None of the foreground is in focus, but the foreground comprises nearly 50% of the picture, which really hurts the eyes. The pillar with the light at the top and the yellow triangular sign is cut off at the top, would like to see that fit into the frame fully. The story of this photo is the area, but the subject is whatever is producing the lines of light. The photo needs to fit the light streak into the frame better. There are a lot of lines that are all leading in the same direction, but there's nothing at the end. I think with a photo like this, the lightstream could be a secondary subject, and fit in the frame better. You could fit a primary subject in (a person) further into the distance to meet the leading lines toward the midground or even closer into the background. With the whole picture framed normally (not tilted), the slight framing changes, maybe multiple exposures to blend more depth of field into the foreground, and the incorporation of a person/couple, the photo could be really interesting. The only other issue is the photo is super low to the ground, and it feels like it's trying too hard; in contrast, photo #2 isn't trying too hard at all, it stands up well. Even if photo #1 were improved, the low-to-the-ground framing gives off an "I'm new to photography" feel to the photo. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's a framing technique that requires you nail a lot of other things, so as to avoid giving off the "How do you like my photos, I'm fairly new" vibe.

If photo #2 had a more prominent subject (for example, if a heron bird was sitting on the tallest pole thing in the left part of the frame), and a composite starry sky added in (a non-fake looking one), it could be really amazing. As it stands, it's still a pleasing photograph.