>>4500652
proof that even with an eye for composition phones are bad

it looks crispy, blotchy and harsh. kinda sad ngl. ive shot with nicer phones and went to a cheap shit iphone se because even the best phone cameras look like ken rockwell grabbed a sony PNS and edited his jpegs in luminar neo and perfectly cleaner.

>>4500652
Congratulations, it looks better than 99% of photos on this basket weaving board. No need to improve anything unless you have some specific concept for the photo.

>>4500652
the turn of the road is too centered, should be a bit off to the left I think (rule of third type offset)

the lower elevation area on the left of the road is too visually dominant while being too close to the edge of the picture

the camera is too low (too close to the road, because you were standing at a place that was lower than the road)

>>4500655
>it looks crispy, blotchy and harsh.
it's 800x600

>>4500840
>scan of 35mm film, 800x600
>smooth, detailed, lifelike
>phone photo, 4000x3000
>blotchy, harsh, ken rockwell with less character
why is digital like this

>>4500866
The issue isn't digital (at least not at that resolution) but the AI and shitty oversharpening used in phones. Their sensors are also smaller than micro four turds which makes the issue even worse since all that post-processing does all the heavy lifting.

>>4500652
This is a cool photo. The quality sucks because it is a phone photo. The composition is alright, I think it would look more balanced if you cropped the empty space on the left side of the last tree. The colors are gaudy but it's nice you had a vision as a beginner.

There is nothing else to say about your photo, it is a random photo of a road. It is pointless to spend too much time on it. Instead, study the masters, find concepts you want to explore, and most importantly go take more.

Composition is really nice. You are artist. Histogram shows that there is room to increase brightness and maybe contrast also. Is there forest fire going on? Color temp is 6500, try 4000.

It's an ok photo, but that's all there is to say.
There is nothing that makes this picture interesting. Think of it this way: nowadays people can entretain themselves with a million different things on and off the internet, and sadly don't have the attention span to endure a 30 second video. Why would anyone look twice at a picture of a road? The scene, the composition, the colors are good, but there is nothing that makes this stand out, there is no story being told. What if a deer was crossing the road? A cyclist? What if you framed this through a clearing in the leaves? What if it was taken from an unusual angle?

>what do I look at there's no guy doing a thing
You ever read a post and just know the author is mentally 16 years old?

>>4501115
Based roads autism

>>4500652
i think i like what you were maybe going for, but it's a bit overcooked. something about the sky and the most furthest hills in the background are just fucking the vibe up bad. it's like almost-HDR-but-not

>>4500655
Midwit take.
The phone didnt do this, OP's over editing did.