The regularity of the windows is better seen in some of my other images of the place.
Like this one (shot by day and from across the river so with less distortion than an image pointing up):
From what I could see, there was little if any difference between the houses (and their windows) in both ancient quarters on the two sides of the river.
Thanks Mike.
I was just going for the texture and light on the stucco wall and weathered lamp. Didn't "see" the composition until I opened the image in ACR.
Rich
Either way, it's nicely composed and lighted.
Rich
Beautiful light here and rendering of the building. The mountains are also beautiful and I can understand wanting to include them, but they fight with the building for interest. I think isolating the single subject would be compelling.
Remarkable depth of field.
Rich
First picture - NR was done with ACR.
Second picture, I selected the sky in Phtoshop, inverted the selection and turned that to B&W. It has no Exif because I (unwittingly) ticked a button on the image resizer which says 'don't copy exif'.
Minnie, here's a version without the first bollard. Personally, I prefer the original as my eye follows the road better if the image is ling and thin. Bur feel free to comment.
Thank you minniev.
I did originally clone out the oof stick in the background but it then made the scene too flat for me.
The stick in the background gives the scene some depth.
That's why I said the shadows lightened a little looks better.
Thank you for your thoughts.
Lighthouse, thanks for looking.
It's more than lighthouse. Towers, cranes, lines and buildings, colours, different heights, angles. Very cool shot, not in your face but very effective.
Hmmmmm.......I assume you had no choice but why would you put the subject in the background!
The cranes are a distraction and detract from the image for me.
Essentially an abstract composition. I like it. I have several similar.
I would crop out most of the buildings and straighten the verticals a bit.
Nice work.
(For some reason, clicking on the image does not result in the usual larger display image)
Rich
I knew it was a Lou Holland photo before I saw the avatar. That is a wonderful red lighthouse, but what makes the photo special is the balanced array of cranes and riggings. So many V shapes! It borders on the abstract category with its dependence on shape, color, line. Intriguing image with a lot of visual design appeal.
This is an interesting conversation. It really doesn't matter whether you were thinking about any of these things or not. It doesn't matter whether you'd never picked up a camera before or never read a book on composition or visual fluency. Mike explained what is in that picture of the gull. I saw the same things.
In practicing this craft over time, we may develop certain instincts that help us react to and capture good designs without consciously considering those things. Some of us come into photography with art-related training that gave us a strong foundation for this. Maybe some of us are born with a better sense of visual design than others. But regardless of whether we consciously consider design, or subsconciously react to it, or accidentally stumble on it, a good design is still there, and can be recognized by others.
That is all well and good but it wasn't a designed composition. It was a snapshot.
Even I can apply visual lines to an image after the fact to support whatever view I have of it.
That doesn't mean any visual lines I apply to an image must also be applicable or valid to everyone else. They might or might not be.
The lines and shapes Mike mentioned can very realistically not be applicable or have any meaning to many people.
For Mike, you and probably some other people they do.
As Minniev has said, it's an interesting conversation.
I'm responding to what I see in the image and I'm explaining what there is in the image that supports the interpretation. I accept that it might have been a snapshot but that doesn't negate the factors that exist in the image. As I have said elsewhere, by some definitions, Cartier Bresson was a snapshooter. As I understand it, he had no involvement in the processing/printing of his images and that, it could be argued, makes him a snapshooter. I don't regard "snapshooting" as a derogatory term. It then becomes a question of how often the shooter gets lucky. It doesn't matter, what is in the image, it is in the image.
I think we are talking about something else here and it is something that is important to forum discussions in general. I reckon that what is being talked about is previous experience in art. Images are images and they can be looked at as part of a photographic process or as images or as both. In C&C the emphasis is more on the image than the photographic process. "More" but not exclusively. There is an extensive history, multi hundreds of years, of discussion about art and how images are perceived. I suggest that photographers who are familiar with art will respond to photographic images through the lens of that experience.
I also suggest (and I know that many already do it and that it's important in most professional photography courses) should spend some serious time exploring art and art discussion. I'd suggest it can improve everyone's photos and more importantly, the enjoyment they get from looking at photos.
An example. Recent discussions on dprevived about "reality" in images. It's a topic that has been examined intensively over a hundred years ago in the art world. It's a discussion about images and perception and just as relevant to photography.
That's pretty much the same as what you posted earlier but much more verbose and again I thank you for your thoughts.
I just call things as I see them.
