2016 Project 52, Second Quarter by Joe/ Joebranko

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Joe,

I have now added a link to this 2nd Quarter thread from the 2016 P52 Index page, along with a couple of other member's ones I had missed.

OK, going back to the Washington Monument, I am in complete agreement with Judith; good job on sky, but I feel it is too 'centred' (left-right).

With the pedestrian walkway shot, I find the bit of canal gates we see as a distraction and I'd crop that off, just leaving the trees and the curved wall - this places the walkway in a better position within the frame I feel.

In the last shot, of the gates, that's fairly OK, although it is a shame we cannot see the end of the gate beam on the right hand side, however, I accept that including that might have brought something far worse in to view.


Moving on to the latest picture post; I'd be happier with the wider view if the woman was just a bit further left in the composition - unfortunately, I suspect this was something you couldn't improve even by moving a bit further to your right (if that were even possible) and still retain the framing of those trees.

On the closer composition; again, I'd like her a bit closer to the left edge of frame. I'm also not a huge vignette fan and find the whiteness over the rocks mid-left edge is off-putting. I can fix both issues to my satisfaction by simply cropping at the lowest point of the V-shape formed by the rocks and water, but not everyone will agree with me and that's fine.

I quite like the idea of shooting with a view to finding another crop within the frame, it is kind of reminiscent of taking the scene as you first see it, then showing the final image after 'all things have been considered'.

HTH, Dave

[joebranko]

Thanks Dave for all these suggestions. Much appreciated!

OK, going back to the Washington Monument, I am in complete agreement with Judith; good job on sky, but I feel it is too 'centred' (left-right).

JS: I plan to crop a little on the left;

With the pedestrian walkway shot, I find the bit of canal gates we see as a distraction and I'd crop that off, just leaving the trees and the curved wall - this places the walkway in a better position within the frame I feel.

JS: I agree. Here is what that looks like:

In the last shot, of the gates, that's fairly OK, although it is a shame we cannot see the end of the gate beam on the right hand side, however, I accept that including that might have brought something far worse in to view.

JS: I wanted to remove modern building on the right.

Moving on to the latest picture post; I'd be happier with the wider view if the woman was just a bit further left in the composition - unfortunately, I suspect this was something you couldn't improve even by moving a bit further to your right (if that were even possible) and still retain the framing of those trees.

JS: I don't think I could have maintained the framing; and I could not ask her to move while she was framing her shot...

On the closer composition; again, I'd like her a bit closer to the left edge of frame. I'm also not a huge vignette fan and find the whiteness over the rocks mid-left edge is off-putting. I can fix both issues to my satisfaction by simply cropping at the lowest point of the V-shape formed by the rocks and water, but not everyone will agree with me and that's fine.

JS: I am experimenting with vignetting. I think the crop you suggest will improve the shot.

[joebranko]

This is a shot I took while in Budapest. It was not taken within the past week, but I was recently looking back and had not done any PP on the shot so I decided to do so and submit it for C&C.

This is a shot of the River Danube at the Chain Bridge with Budapest in the background taken from the top of the Castle Hill Funicular.

[Urbanflyer]

What a challenging shot for composition practice. As it stands it is very symmetrical--The foreground is symmetrical, the area on the other side of the river is symmetrical, the near upright of the bridge is very nearly right in the middle of the photo. The depth of the sky top to bottom is very nearly the same as the depth of the buildings top to bottom. My eye stops at the bridge upright and is not drawn anywhere else. The horizontal lines of the banks of the river conflict with the directional lines of the bridge and the possible vertical feel of the cupola. There are not leading lines that move me in any particular direction. So, what to do another time and what to do with this shot? Another time I would suggest trying to get a slightly different vantage point that would put the bridge at more of an angle so that the bridge itself would lead the eye to the cupola of the building which stands out on the horizon. That might mean getting the near part of the bridge into the lower left corner of the photo.

I have posted a version of this shot that crops the trees away from the left and re-positions the bridge in the photo. Left at that the composition is not much improved. So I have also extended the sky upward to give the whole piece a more vertical feel without losing as many of the buildings that you might need to crop if you just cropped the original as a vertical. I do not know what the protocol is about posting such revisions so forgive me if I err. However it is the easiest way I know to explain what it is you might work toward improving your composition. I applaud your quest.

[Geoff F]

I did wonder if the bridge was a little too central and 'square on', Joe; but I think it really depends on whether the bridge is intended to be the main subject or part of the wider city scene.

If you want a wide scene with a fairly symmetrical foreground which forms something of a framing guide into the central scene then I think you have done well.

There are probably a few other crop options because you have a bit of spare 'working room' with the sky which could be reduced as part of a crop. For example, to remove the right hand tree and take a balancing amount from the sky.

It all depends, I suppose, if you are a symmetry loving person or someone who prefers a little bit of off central appearance.

There are a number of options here and no definite right or wrong method.

[joebranko]

Another time I would suggest trying to get a slightly different vantage point that would put the bridge at more of an angle so that the bridge itself would lead the eye to the cupola of the building which stands out on the horizon. That might mean getting the near part of the bridge into the lower left corner of the photo.

Thanks Judith for your suggestions. Your version looks very appealing with the bridge at an angle. The lookout area at the top of the hill was limited and I don't think I could have got much of an angle. I will have a look at the SD card for this the pics I took during this visit to see if I got a better angle. I like what you have done to create the angle which must have necessitated adding canvass, a procedure I don't know how to achieve in Lightroom.

[joebranko]

There are a number of options here and no definite right or wrong method.

Thanks Geoff. I do lean toward symmetry, but must open my eyes to other options particularly during the initial composition.

[Shadowman]

This is a shot I took while in Budapest. It was not taken within the past week, but I was recently looking back and had not done any PP on the shot so I decided to do so and submit it for C&C.

This is a shot of the River Danube at the Chain Bridge with Budapest in the background taken from the top of the Castle Hill Funicular.

Nicely captured.

[joebranko]

Thanks John.

[joebranko]

These shots are from one of the bridges crossing from Canada to the US. It is the Peace Bridge from Ft. Erie to Buffalo. In the first shot I was trying to capture as much of the bridge as possible.



Wasn't too thrilled with this shot so I tried various shots before focusing on the picture within the picture and cropped down to this:-



Had I mentally focused on this I could have zoomed in to this area and got a picture with less cropping and noise.

[Geoff F]

Looks like it was a tricky light.

The first one works well. The second was a nice idea but I suspect even if you had used more zoom you would still have struggled due to the distance and reduced clarity from the light conditions.

[Urbanflyer]

While I generally agree with Geoff on the difficulty of getting the 2nd shot to work, if you adjust the white point just a little to the right you might find you like it a bit more.

Also consider checking out the levelness of the horizon at the water line.

Fun to see these pictures. Thanks for sharing!

[IzzieK]

Joe...I like the original shot of the first bridge without the crop as the trees on each side were framing the shot itself. The second bridge is a good overall idea showing the whole bridge (almost!) even if to set the environment of the shot for the second one which is good too...Very difficult shot there...but you did it...

[joebranko]

Looks like it was a tricky light.

The first one works well. The second was a nice idea but I suspect even if you had used more zoom you would still have struggled due to the distance and reduced clarity from the light conditions.

Thanks Geoff.

[joebranko]

While I generally agree with Geoff on the difficulty of getting the 2nd shot to work, if you adjust the white point just a little to the right you might find you like it a bit more.

Also consider checking out the levelness of the horizon at the water line.

Fun to see these pictures. Thanks for sharing!

Thanks Judith. I will look again at the white point. With regards the level, I had some difficulty with this and I made many attempts with it. I think I have it level, but will have another look. Thanks again.

[joebranko]

Joe...I like the original shot of the first bridge without the crop as the trees on each side were framing the shot itself. The second bridge is a good overall idea showing the whole bridge (almost!) even if to set the environment of the shot for the second one which is good too...Very difficult shot there...but you did it...

Thanks Izzie. I always look for your comments; they always encourage me.

[Geoff F]

It is level, Joe; but there are a couple of optical illusions which initially seem a bit odd until you look closely at the image using full screen size.

[joebranko]

It is level, Joe; but there are a couple of optical illusions which initially seem a bit odd until you look closely at the image using full screen size.

Thanks Geoff. I thought the apparent lack of level might have been caused by the slope of the bridge. Thanks.

[joebranko]

Afternoon in the park.

I have taken pictures at this pond in Confederation Park, so I returned expecting really clear reflections of the trees and logs. This time the surface of the pond was covered with a film which substantially reduced reflections but added a different 'complexion' to them. After lots of PP I went with this shot:



As I was leaving the park I noticed this Maple Leaf among the branches. Could not resist.

[Geoff F]

That looks OK, Joe. Sometimes a perfect mirror image reflection can appear unnatural and confusing to a potentially complex scene so a bit of blur may be beneficial.

On occasions I have deliberately blurred or skewed the reflection to make it look obviously like a reflection and slightly different from the 'real life' elements.