Houses

[MrB]

I find this geometric progression quite interesting. Any comments?



Philip

[rob marshall]

Nice shot.

[jiro]

I agree, this is a really good shot. While looking at it, I am tempted to recommend cropping at the bottom where the last 2 strong horizontal lines on the right are. In that way, the shadows would look like it is still continiously going down. Good composition and capture, Philip.

[manthos]

Really nice shot. I like the lines.

[MrB]

Thank you for all your nice comments.

Jiro - I see what you mean, but I quite like the geometric progression that is also present in the bricked sections, together with the progression from light to dark - white to shadow to brick - what do you think?

I didn't write much in the original post, to see what others might say, but I am finding it difficult to decide whether the tree should be in the crop. As no one has mentioned it, can I assume it is OK for it to be there?

Philip

[manthos]

I didn't write much in the original post, to see what others might say, but I am finding it difficult to decide whether the tree should be in the crop. As no one has mentioned it, can I assume it is OK for it to be there?

Hi Philip.

In my eyes the trees give your shot a more natural look.

Maybe you could crop as Jiro suggested and also crop the trees to make a totally different image. Just a thought, I'm no expert in this.

[jambin]

Very impressive. I like when people see dynamism in something uncomplicated

[Wirefox]

I agreed with Jiro's cropping suggestion this time

but I am finding it difficult to decide whether the tree should be in the crop. As no one has mentioned it, can I assume it is OK for it to be there?

Philip. its up to you but personally I would lose the tree's altogether either by cropping or extending the sky downward. From an aesthetic point of view I think the simpler the better with this sort of image. Well spotted and an all round good shot

[Geoff F]

A simple scene which works well. But I think I would 'zap' that aircraft; and the dust spot close to it could also be cloned out.

[MrB]

Thank you to everyone for all the useful comments. This is a combination of your suggestions -



Philip

[rob marshall]

Thank you to everyone for all the useful comments. This is a combination of your suggestions -



Philip

I think this is better. You have removed the distracting detail that didn't really add to the shot. There is no need for 'context' here, as we can work out what the shot is of, and keeping the content and lines very simple works better. It's worth keeping an eye out for scenes like this - there are more than you might think. I was driving through the business quarter of Swansea yesterday and saw what I thought would make a good architecture shot - a three storey office building with three matching doors, one on each level and two sets of stairs. I had the camera with my, but unfortunately also the MIL.

[dje]

Philip

I know I'm amongst some illustrious company here but I actually prefer your original image.

Cheers Dave

[MrB]

I had the camera with me, but unfortunately also the MIL.

Their covert powers seem quite unnerving.

Philip

[JohnC]

The MIL..That is so funny - given me a real lift .

Love the photo and the cropping hones it in nicely. Since I came on here, just weeks ago, I really look twice at my photos now and realise how much more they can be improved in edit - better still, all this cc helps get them as best as I can in the first place which is even better.

[Pandrion]

I think this is a very interesting point that's emerging here. We are making comparisons between Philip's original shot and conception, and the more purely geometric version which was the result of input from others.

Both versions are excellent but they are each saying something different, not better or worse. One puts the symmetry of the buildings into context, which I do think is valid, and the other becomes a more abstract pattern of light and shade.
I personally loved the contrast in the first pic between the man made repetition of the building against the natural texture of the tree.
My crop choice would have been to have left the tree in but cut out the brick work at the bottom.

It just shows that with something as basic and simple as cropping can substantially change almost any picture we take.

[ucci]

okay, now for some non expert input please., i.e. input from me. The issue of cropping. Have been thinking on it for some time. Was almost going to post a thread on it. As in this post and one of mine recently the comments on cropping come up. Some cropping almost always is needed, no argument. The controversy is how much? For me cropping back and removing the tree leaves what may well be a technically perfectly framed shot, as well as having lost most of its natural character and intertest. I have been playing around with this with some of my shots and without boring you with posts I have found that too much cropping can totally kill the 'vivacity' ( for want of a better word) of the picture. Having said this I will now sit back and wait to be severely refuted, chastised and given a hard time by my betters.

[dje]

okay, now for some non expert input please., i.e. input from me. The issue of cropping. Have been thinking on it for some time. Was almost going to post a thread on it. As in this post and one of mine recently the comments on cropping come up. Some cropping almost always is needed, no argument. The controversy is how much? For me cropping back and removing the tree leaves what may well be a technically perfectly framed shot, as well as having lost most of its natural character and intertest. I have been playing around with this with some of my shots and without boring you with posts I have found that too much cropping can totally kill the 'vivacity' ( for want of a better word) of the picture. Having said this I will now sit back and wait to be severely refuted, chastised and given a hard time by my betters.

Can I join you Ken. You know, safety in numbers.

Dave

[ucci]

Can I join you Ken. You know, safety in numbers.

Dave

Thank you for your support Dave. I was going to post a couple of shots to prove my point. But I will hang fire and see what the responses to my kicking over a controversial stone are.

[MrB]

Some cropping almost always is needed, no argument. The controversy is how much? For me cropping back and removing the tree leaves what may well be a technically perfectly framed shot, as well as having lost most of its natural character and interest. I have been playing around with this with some of my shots and without boring you with posts I have found that too much cropping can totally kill the 'vivacity' ( for want of a better word) of the picture.

There is no doubt that cropping can change the character of the image, as shown above.

To produce the image in my first post, the original photograph was simply cropped 2:3, just to remove some parked cars from the bottom of the frame and a long strip of white wall from the next house on the right. These were included in the framing of the shot so that the perspective of the row of houses would be close to correct. That was probably enough cropping for me - although I do like the simplified version, it is a very different image.

I am tending to agree with Ken (and others) and prefer the life in the first image, and not just the biological life of the tree! I suppose it must also be due to the personal element to this - it is now clearer to me that it just "feels" more like the experience of the scene at the time.

This exercise (i.e. posting my image here) has been very helpful, and I am grateful for all the comments - which make one think more carefully about photography.

Philip

[manthos]

too much cropping can totally kill the 'vivacity' ( for want of a better word) of the picture.

I think this is true, but all is a matter of taste and what works with the viewer. I prefer to see or feel some human or natural (the green in this case) presence in a picture because without them it feels "sterile" (is this the right word?). Although this is not always the case, like Steve's "Upward", pure geometry still doesn't amaze me as much. I hope I make sense.