200 Tech Square

manaheim · Apr 20, 2012

I've never seen such a waste of space as the section between 100 and 200 tech square in Cambridge... but it's neat!

C/C welcome if desired.

==1==

==2==

prodigy2k7 · Apr 20, 2012

oOoOOoO thats cool!

dont know what else to say, first impression lol

manaheim · Apr 21, 2012

hahah... thanks. Glad you like it.

Frequency · Apr 21, 2012

This is not space wasted; this must be the breathing space for the poor building

..and a tribute to your Flag

first image is far excellent than the other; second one is not a compelling composition.....

Regards

manaheim · Apr 21, 2012

Frequency said:
This is not space wasted; this must be the breathing space for the poor building
..and a tribute to your Flag
first image is far excellent than the other; second one is not a compelling composition.....

Regards

Interesting! Thanks for the comments!

KenC · Apr 22, 2012

Nice, especially the first. The second seems a little unbalanced.

mishele · Apr 22, 2012

Lovin #1!! I agree w/ Ken, the second one just doesn't flow like the first one.

pgriz · Apr 22, 2012

Really like your choice of tilt and perspective on the first one. Beautiful study of light, shape and shadow. The only real nit I'd pick is the pillar in the upper left - it seems a little out-of-focus, compared to the sharpness and definition of the rest of the elements in the image, and the shadow area on it appears somewhat muddy. However, I don't know if you could choose a different perspective to minimize that. Perhaps a crop of the 20% vertically off the left side?

manaheim · Apr 22, 2012

Thanks, everyone! I'm surprised by the very consistent lack of excitement over #2, but it's very interesting to see.

pgriz said:
Really like your choice of tilt and perspective on the first one. Beautiful study of light, shape and shadow. The only real nit I'd pick is the pillar in the upper left - it seems a little out-of-focus, compared to the sharpness and definition of the rest of the elements in the image, and the shadow area on it appears somewhat muddy. However, I don't know if you could choose a different perspective to minimize that. Perhaps a crop of the 20% vertically off the left side?

I imagine that's just DOF, or the fact that it's in the outer-ring of the lens. I focused dead-center on one of the lower cross-beams.

I'm not overly worried about it either way, though... I doubt it takes too much away from the picture.

Thanks for the comment, though... I wouldn't have noticed it without you pointing it out.

pgriz · Apr 23, 2012

Went back and thought about why I liked #1 more than #2. It's a challenge to put into words something that is a visceral impression. But let me try.

The structural elements in #1 are not as apparent, and the various horizontal bracing beams make for a visual feast – but one that makes you stop and try to figure how everything is related. #2 has one of the support beams clearly visible, and diminished the "mystery" of #1.

#1 has the windows to the outside visible, giving an airy, open feeling, whereas #2 feels like an enclosed space.

The transition of bright/shadow areas are more subtle in #1 compared to #2, where you see blotches of bright sunlight interspered with the window shadows.

The distribution of elements is more even in #1 compared to #2.

So summing up, #1 has better shadow play, more "mystery", and more feeling of openness, and some better visual balance. But that's just my take. Did that make sense?

manaheim · Apr 23, 2012

pgriz said:
Went back and thought about why I liked #1 more than #2. It's a challenge to put into words something that is a visceral impression. But let me try.

The structural elements in #1 are not as apparent, and the various horizontal bracing beams make for a visual feast – but one that makes you stop and try to figure how everything is related. #2 has one of the support beams clearly visible, and diminished the "mystery" of #1.

#1 has the windows to the outside visible, giving an airy, open feeling, whereas #2 feels like an enclosed space.

The transition of bright/shadow areas are more subtle in #1 compared to #2, where you see blotches of bright sunlight interspered with the window shadows.

The distribution of elements is more even in #1 compared to #2.

So summing up, #1 has better shadow play, more "mystery", and more feeling of openness, and some better visual balance. But that's just my take. Did that make sense?