But it turned out flat. What is it in the background, is it blue?

Slid
I did not really like the conflict of textures. The mountains and your overlaid background are somehow not very well combined. Maybe try to make this treatment to some still life?

vorken
no comment. A lot of black.

vorken, raw work. There is no idea, meaning, etc.

otherwise it was not possible to take off at c60

Maybe in such a situation, conditions and do not take off at all. Come next time and take a high-quality shot. Even in the line of lights should be the point. You are trying to do something very difficult - to convey your mood at that moment in time. But just shoot the lights - this is not enough. As in a joke:
-Take a photo of me.
- But you hid around the corner and not visible.
-I will send mom, she will say: "Where is my son, darling." And I come out from around the corner: "Here I am, MOM !!

When you take a photo, focus on this: will it please others. Then you will get high-quality images.
The night view of the St. Petersburg bridges is very beautiful, but you have turned into darkness with some fireflies smeared out (did you shoot something off your hands?).
The second photo - the bridge over the Fontanka or what? Why so skewed the horizon? Only spoiled. And, you know. missing something. Human figures. If I had placed him running across the bridge towards us, then such a bias would have appeared.

why you need to navigate for someone? I take pictures for myself ...
You probably do not understand a few situation. there you can’t take a normal night shot from your hands, at 4 o'clock at night, so that there are no people at all. no tripod, and for such a fotik it is IMHO not needed.

with an improvised tripod in the form of a handrail on the embankment. and I repeat once again that in such a crown it is impossible to get norms for photos. current with flash.
Is the horizon skewed? the lantern stands straight ... just because the bridge's perspective is curved.

don't you look at your photos under the pillow alone? yes anyone show have a desire?

I put the camera on the parapet, under the lens put the boxes out of the film. Here is a tripod turned out. A flash for the night landscape is not needed at all. The maximum effect of the built-in flash 1.5 - 2 meters. at the same time the diaphragm closes so much that darkness arises behind the light. shooting mode (duration of exposure) is chosen empirically at the maximum closed aperture.
Here's a shot at 2 am without a tripod (in the full sense of the word)

In my opinion, there is an error in choosing a shooting point: the glance rushes left up along the line of houses, but the plot center remains to the right and below (people looking at griffins). Judging by the sharpness removed from the hands, without a tripod?

Of course without a tripod This is the only more or less high-quality frame of those that I took from this place.

Lena, the first picture is incorrectly arranged: a part filled to your left and completely empty to the right. It was good to show the horizon line, it would give completeness of the composition (there must be a point of reference, some sort of reference). High sun (guessed?) Flattened pattern of the rock. Such pictures are best done before 10 am and after 16 pm. And, of course, pick a point for shooting.
The second shot also compositionally beads the central location of the cleft. because of this, a division into two halves occurs, thereby destroying its integrity. It seems to me that it was preferable to use a vertical frame position.

larger size, up to 640 * 480.

Several small (typical) disadvantages. Because of the desire to show the clouds in the background horizon line it was in the middle of the frame, which deteriorates the perception of the image. Lame composition: all the important facilities are located in the right half of the image, leaving the left completely empty. Handheld resulted in background smearing, causing tsenralnoy element reeds are photographs, taken with an auxiliary frame in order "podcheknut" space depth. And why would not "beat" so good to get ripples and coinciding in the drawing with them the cloud from a different angle, with drugm lens focal length.

The same applies to the second picture, where it was appropriate to position the trail from the sun in the middle of the frame. And, of course, remove this story at different exposures, taking into account the color distortions that arise.

beautiful, but eerily banal. The central location of the sun and the "track" - this is nothing. Empty frame.

The picture seemed gloomy to me, moreover, without reason. I would try to build it a little more tightly, getting rid of these lead clouds in PWU and darkness in the HL. Perhaps, it was necessary to play with a zoom ... maybe, a step to the left to make ...

It is not clear - in such a situation, it was necessary to take a little more broadly so that the “piece” of the sea fell into the frame with the shoreline.

Underdevelopment led to a violation of the color mapping.

The case where fisheye would help. The head and legs of the tower are cut off - will not work. In general, the shooting of objects of architecture is a separate discipline requiring special technology. Remove a conventional lens from close range - we get the collapse of the building, the tower due to the discrepancy between the planes of the object and film (matrix).

In my opinion, this is the maximum that could be squeezed out of the shooting because of the glass of the car. In order to avoid reflections from the glass, you need to use a polarizing filter. Although not to place the horizon line in the middle and remove its obliquity, it was possible at the time of shooting.

It turned out from the series "Vasya was here." For "light and shadow" there is little shadow: only in the lower left corner. Here it was more appropriate to try to position the border strictly in the middle.

a winter fairy tale, in my opinion, it was necessary to either turn a little to the left or slightly to the right, I think it would be nicer ... The sunsets are beautiful, but it is the sunsets ... was it really possible to photograph them without the architectural structures that are below in the frame? And, unfortunately, the quality suffers greatly ... Has it deteriorated so much after compression?

Here are just strict symmetry, IMHO, out of place