Triumph Arch, Bucharest

[LeoLeo]

Triumph Arch, Bucharest



C&C, wellcome

Leo

[MilT0s]

Is that a UFO of the top left?

I like the composition.

[LeoLeo]

Thanks Miltos,

It is an airplane trail, but you are right, has to be cloned. It was so obvious that I didn't see it

Thanks again,
Leo
PS: UFO are not comming to Romania due to our internal political turmoil and economic instability... to quote our president

[Bobobird]

Yes lose the ufo. Still a darn good shot. Well done.

[Teton Chuck]

Very nice shot. The clarity is outstanding. I am curious about your camera settings and the time of day that it was taken.

[LeoLeo]

Hi Chuck,

You should have EXIF info's in picture if you save locally (there are plug ins to see this on line).

18mm, F5.6, 1/5 sec, ISO 800, Canon 40D, and my really steady hand. Yep, is hend held

Leo

[ktuli]

Leo,

For me personally, I have to disagree with Miltos. I do not like this composition. The crosswalk lines in the front of the image take up a large portion of the space and constantly draw my eye away from the arch. Looking at the scene, I think I would have been tempted to setup shop right by that pillar with the graffiti on the left - it looks like that would open up the arch a bit showing its shape more, plus if you did have pavement in the front of the image, it looks like it would be bare and thus possible less distracting to my eyes.

Additionally, did you use a star filter on this shot? The EXIF says the exposure is f/5.6 for 1/5 second. Normally I don't think you get that dramatic of a starburst effect with such a relatively wide aperture. I personally think if I had wanted the starbursts (I do like them), I would have opted for a small aperture (f/22 maybe) and a longer exposure time (and a lower ISO to reduce noise). The longer exposure would then also turn the cars "invisible" and their lights into trails of lights through your image. In my opinion, I think that would reduce more distractions and focus attention on your subject - the arch.

I think the subject and the surrounding landscape definitely is a worthwhile photo. I think your exposure level here is very pleasing (if you can achieve the same look in terms of brightness/tone with the other changes above, I think it would be spot on).

Are you able to easily revisit this subject? If so, are you open to trying those suggestions and posting here?

- Bill

[LeoLeo]

Hi Bill,

Thanks for your comments, let's get them organised
1. For the "lines", I intend to have a lighter couterpart of the sky. two triangles if you can abstract. graffiti on left ant that "star" on top right I are a sort of "noise".
2. Exif is right. and there is no filter, tripod/monopod involved in this. is made with Canon 40D with 18-55 IS kit lens.
3. Agree for ISO/noise.
4. F22 is way too much, F8 might be more than enough, ( at least imho), because of refraction. picture was made last weekend arroung 17:45 PM, GMT+2(3 if you consider winter hour).
5. I will rework this shoot, but in 2-3 weeks, because I will not be close to my home 'till then
6. There will be no UFO next time :P

thanks for comments,
Leo

[Polar01]

Leo: I am going to have to agree with Bill somewhat on this image. I believe that moving towards the left of that pillar would have given a stronger image. It would have given you a strong lead in, you would have lost that light post that is visible under the arch it adds no light to the arch as it is lite for underneath, and going to portrait instead of landscape would have give you a better focus on the arch itself. Again that is my thoughts and I believe how I may have taken the image.

Cheers:

Allan

[dje]

Hi Leo

I quite like this image and I think you've done well to get it as sharp as it is handheld with 1/5sec. I'd probably clone out the graffiti on the utility cabinet on the left hand side, a minor point I know.

If at all possible, use a tripod when you rework it. This will allow you to drop the ISO to 100 for better noise performance and make the aperture a little smaller for greater depth of field. I'd probably use manual focus on this (Live view enlarged) and focus on the arch itself.

Dave

[LeoLeo]

Thanks Dave,

I don't have a tripod atm, but I allready wrote Santa to bring me one .
Yes, that graffiti is gone for the next attempt.

Thanks for your comment,

Leo

[AB26]

Hi Leo,

Now that is on of the worst ,crappy pictures I have yet seen on CiC. The WB is completely out. Composition is like bland and meaningless. There seems to be no subject in the image. Were you trying to capture fireworks or the Triumph Arch. The car on the right hand is out of focus. Does not work at all. You should go back and try again.

Rude enough? Got you Leo.

How do you want me not to be polite about an image like this? It is beautiful. If it was taken by myself I would have been proud of it. Sorry to be polite, Leo.

Those humbling themselves to not being good at what they do are sometimes the best at what they do.

PS: I would crop a bit on the right - see the glare of the street lamp that is out of the picture.
That ugly box on the left should have been avoided.
Now go back and do it again.

[LeoLeo]

Thanks Andre,

The WB is out. You get this one quite right, but I will not change it :P.

About the crop, I might not be with you, at least not in this format. There will be alot of brightness in sky "witout reason". I do agree that "last light" has to be in picture, to made a balance between extreem left (those car lights) and right side of picture, slightly more than is now.

I will try to rework this with a tripod this time.

Thanks for your comments,
Leo
PS: Even I have a 10MP camera, I have 40MegaLayers Skin :P. Thanks for your post.

[AB26]

The WB is out. You get this one quite right, but I will not change it :P.

No Leo, the bit about the white balance is part of pulling your leg. I think the WB is perfect. See the white paint on the road - it is white.