Water under the bridge

[klaesser]

 

[JamesScott86]

Fantastic shot!!! Really nice!

 

[The_Traveler]

Sorry, it is unclear to me what you want the viewer to be looking at.
What is the center of interest?

 

[klaesser]

I guess you can look at whatever you want

 

[The_Traveler]

Did you have a specific center of interest in mind?

 

[tirediron]

I guess you can look at whatever you want

True, but... I think Lew's point is that there's no distinct main subject in the image; while that can work in large landscapes and panoramas, with an image this small (in terms of scope) it doesn't really work. Based on your title, I get your idea (I believe), but I think there might have been a better composition.

If you break this image down, you have five main compositional elements: The overpass, the river itself, the boat, the wharf, and the river banks & background. Remember that the eye is always attracted to light over dark, so... the position of the overpass with respect to the sky is somewhat visually annoying because there's a sliver of bright sky that pulls our eye to it, but then it's so small and featureless that there's nothing to see... and the wide, straight, hard lines of the overpass and its supports create real visual tension in the foreground. Next, you have the two sets of leading lines; the surface texture of the water in the foreground and the river banks in the background.

The water pulls my eye toward the bright handrails of the wharf, but then it's pulled to the side by the boat, then it's pulled again by the lines of the river banks which take me right to that small group of evergreens wit the small orange-ish object (leadmark?) in front of them.

I think there was a nice image here, and without knowing the limitations of the geography, your gear, etc, my thought is this: Had you shifted your position slightly so that you had two of the bridge piers in the frame, and positioned them so that the boat was in the centre, and the water texture took your eye to it, AND you shot in portrait aspect so that you had more sky and more foreground water (vis your title), things would have worked out much better.

 

[klaesser]

Guess I will have to go back to try and get my tuition back for Doctorate of Photgraphy

 

[tirediron]

Guess I will have to go back to try and get my tuition back for Doctorate of Photgraphy

At the end of the day, as the photographer, your happiness with the images is all that matters. That said, all we're trying to do is offer suggestions based on experience, training, and/or plain old opinion as to options which may improve (in this case) your compositional thinking. After all, photography is art, and while many way, "Art has no rules", it does have a lot of established and accepted guidelines.

 

[dennybeall]

I think we all have a photo or so that we really like but not many others do. I'd hope if I displayed one of mine I'd be a bit more gracious about the input from others.
Perhaps C&C was not wanted by the OP?

 

[Didereaux]

"Guess I will have to go back to try and get my tuition back for Doctorate of Photgraphy"

That sliver if sky is definitely wrong...to my eye anyway. And the thing that stands out which says this is an incomplete photo (process wise) is that glaring pixel hot spot on the bridge support. C'mon you can't claim 'professional' and present a shot with such a defect as that.

 

[Photosensitive]

A trained or learned photographer always tend to dissect and analyse; this mostly happens, when the image at the first look did not appeal to him; ...and i think the analyses made here have logic too. They are not just cynical i feel. I am not a trained or much learned photographer; yet i am keen to learn.

I like many elements in this photograph; but as a whole it has some compositional problems too. If this image has sufficient pixel density, the rectangle portion, below the bridge with bridge pillar and upper part as limits, but completely excluding the bridge will be a nice choice.... This is your image and any segment from it also yours only
PS: then the caption would need a change too

 

[Tim Tucker]

A trained or learned photographer always tend to dissect and analyse; this mostly happens, when the image at the first look did not appeal to him; ...and i think the analyses made here have logic too. They are not just cynical i feel. I am not a trained or much learned photographer; yet i am keen to learn.

I like many elements in this photograph; but as a whole it has some compositional problems too. If this image has sufficient pixel density, the rectangle portion, below the bridge with bridge pillar and upper part as limits, but completely excluding the bridge will be a nice choice.... This is your image and any segment from it also yours only
PS: then the caption would need a change too

Step back and see the image as a whole. What is it?

A non-descript steel beam bridge over a river on a fairly dull day with fairly non-descript colours. It's balanced and well presented but of little interest

Photographers too often dissect images and apply a rationalisation to certain elements while failing to see the image in it's entirety, as trained learned photographers and non-photographers alike would see it.

 

[Photosensitive]

Actually the reverse was the case; i observed the image in its entirety and then only thought of another possibility; this does not mean the original was good for nothing.... 'Out of my personal choice of the entire image and the part i mentioned, i preferred the latter.

 

[klaesser]

Like my signature says

I am just a hobbyist having fun

 

[The_Traveler]

If you don't want to hear critique on your pictures, post them in the Just For Fun!