Lonnnnnng garage

[Petraio Prime]

Isn't this an interesting structure? I shot it with my 560mm Telyt-R about 4 years ago. It's been torn down since. It was probably f/16 or f/22.

 

[LaFoto]

The "Photographic Discussions" are text only threads. So I moved this one to the General Gallery.

My point of critisism for this photo is: you zoomed in too much. It would have been better with SOME more context around. The element of repetition is a good one in photography. The wavey roof adds interest - but it all get's cut off with the frame with comes too soon top and right.

 

[Petraio Prime]

The "Photographic Discussions" are text only threads. So I moved this one to the General Gallery.

My point of critisism for this photo is: you zoomed in too much. It would have been better with SOME more context around. The element of repetition is a good one in photography. The wavey roof adds interest - but it all get's cut off with the frame with comes too soon top and right.

Could not get any farther away (I was in a garage across the street), and a shorter lens would not have worked as well. At the time I owned nothing between 180mm and 560mm. Now I have a 350mm, but the thing's gone.

 

[LaFoto]

So I'm afraid you were forced to take a photo that is sub-par... a pity.

 

[Petraio Prime]

So I'm afraid you were forced to take a photo that is sub-par... a pity.

Ehhh...I think it's an interesting one nonetheless. The real interest to me at least is the waviness of the roof line. That's what I was trying to capture, and the waviness is more pronounced on the closer part..

 

[LaFoto]

There's nothing wrong with you finding this photo interesting, the structure IS interesting, no doubt about that. But you cropped out part of the wavey roof, you say you had no choice, but you do have the choice on which photos of yours to make public for discussion. You chose this one, I'm telling you it has some major compositional flaws, and while I can appreciate what it is that made you want to take this photo in the first place, I cannot help but also tell you that it isn't sound compositionally.

 

[Petraio Prime]

There's nothing wrong with you finding this photo interesting, the structure IS interesting, no doubt about that. But you cropped out part of the wavey roof, you say you had no choice, but you do have the choice on which photos of yours to make public for discussion. You chose this one, I'm telling you it has some major compositional flaws, and while I can appreciate what it is that made you want to take this photo in the first place, I cannot help but also tell you that it isn't sound compositionally.

Given the length of the structure, it really could not be done differently. Inevitably, the foreground is going to be bigger. I was not interested in the top of the roof, I should add, but the wavy white line. I also wanted as much of the poles as possible to be retained.

It really just could not be done much differently than what I have here. I shot a couple rolls and this is what I thought was the best one. It would require a lens of 10x this focal length to do anything approaching what you ask, and there is no such thing; anyway, I was as far back as I could go as it was.

The problem is simply the length of the thing.....and I'm not looking for a critique of the photo, not at all...just want to show this interesting structure.

A shorter lens would not have filled the frame with the structure, unfortunately.

 

[abraxas]

... that it isn't sound compositionally.

... it really could not be done differently. Inevitably, ....

I suppose one could say there's an 'art' to it.

-

 

[DirtyDFeckers]

So I'm afraid you were forced to take a photo that is sub-par... a pity.

Wow... you sound like a very kind person... congratulations.

 

[Arch]

So I'm afraid you were forced to take a photo that is sub-par... a pity.

Wow... you sound like a very kind person... congratulations.

Wow you sound like you don't realise your on an international forum. Although not her first language, Lafoto wouldn't mean anything insulting by this. She is a mod for a start. Also lets just say tho OP has VERY thick skin.

ooops the OP is banned, my bad

 

[DirtyDFeckers]

So I'm afraid you were forced to take a photo that is sub-par... a pity.

Wow... you sound like a very kind person... congratulations.

Wow you sound like you don't realise your on an international forum. Although not her first language, Lafoto wouldn't mean anything insulting by this. She is a mod for a start. Also lets just say tho OP has VERY thick skin.

ooops the OP is banned, my bad

My apologies... The fact that this is an international forum never entered my mind.

 

[IcyVeins]

Are rules of composition universally agreed upon? Or are there different "schools"? How much can be objectively called right and wrong and how much is left to personal taste?

 

[white]

None of the rules are objectively right and wrong, but most people agree certain techniques make images "look better", and that may be the result of years of conditioning, but using techniques like the rule of thirds, color contrast, line, shape, form help beginners improve the quality of their work almost immediately.

 

[kundalini]

There are always choices in making a composition. In this case, a less than 5° turn clockwise would have gotten the end of the roofline in frame and probably reduced if not removed the near wall which is superfluous, thus leaving only the supporting poles. A much better result methinks.

 

[KmH]

There are no real 'rules' of composition.

However, in the thousands of years that visual art has been done it has become recognised that there are compositional guidelines/ideologies that work more effectively than others, and the concept of visual image strength emerged.

Some images simply have more visual impact than others, though often a slight change in the composition and framing for an image can have a big impact on how strong, or weak the final image turns out to be.