two images from the Christian Science Plaza, Boston

[DanK]

Went down to the Christian Science Plaza last night. Found that much of the area is under construction and blocked by chain link fence, etc., and was then evicted by a security guard who told me that photography is not allowed "with cameras like that". iPhones are apparently OK. But I got two images that might be worth keeping before he threw me out.

C&C welcome, as always.

#1




#2

[Manfred M]

was then evicted by a security guard who told me that photography is not allowed "with cameras like that".

I find that security guards often have an overblown sense of self importance and haven't got the vaguest idea of "the law". The downside is that arguing with them is pointless, because "they know". The one issue that I have been able to trace is that a number of sites do not allow commercial photography so in some people's minds a "large camera" = commercial photography.

Regardless, given the circumstances, you should be relatively happy to walk away with these.

The one place I would have loved to photograph at that site was the "Mapparium"; a large multi-story glass globe of the world that one can walk through. Unfortunately, they had a "no photography" policy there too.

[DanK]

I know the "rule" that it's distracting to have high-contrast material at the edges, but I am still drawn to the original of the first above. I think it is a more interesting set of lines and a less cramped image with the black included on the right. I would be interested in people's opinion about the difference.

[Manfred M]

Dan - I prefer the second version of the image as well.

I think the important part of any rule is to understand the underlying principles, rather than mechanically applying said rule.

Does the black area on the right hand side distract and pull the viewer's eyes out of the frame? If the answer is yes, than this would be a weakness. In this case the high-contrast interface between the the concrete wall and the black on the right provide a firm anchor to keep the viewer's eyes in the frame. The alternating dark and light tones along the bottom of the image are effect and the right side of the image is more balanced than your first version of this shot.

[fatoddsun]

I also prefer the second version, and the "skew" line of shadow also contributes to creating some sort of impossible perspective which adds to the image overall.
The only thing that my OCD me finds annoying is the cut in the arc line on the ceiling...

Both are very nice pictures! The first to me is more appealing because of the interesting geometry.

[lovelife65]

These are both very beautiful images. Nice work.
And... Damiano's comment caused me to go back and look, and he makes a valid point ... about the arc line

[DanK]

Thanks, all.

Interesting point about the arc. To extend the image to include all of the arc would throw the lights, which are a major compositional element, off the line they are on. So that’s not an option, in my opinion. I suppose I could remove the line. Have to think about it more.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[pschlute]

I liked the first image in the thread and like the second iteration of it even more. It’s strength in my view lies in its simplicity. Few tones , few textures, few different objects ...... wall ; lights; darkness; thing at the end 😁

Arches usually work well in most photos and here is no exception

[DanK]

Thanks.

A little confusing now—I updated my Smugmug site and apparently misdirected the first post to the second version. So both posts now have the better one. I’m not at the computer now where I could fix.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[purplehaze]

both posts now have the better one.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Glad to know; I have been switching back and forth trying to see a difference. The arc line bothers me a bit, too and I might be tempted to remove it. Frustrating how often one runs up against those kinds of conflicts.

Both images are very nice; the dome in particular is lovely.