Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Harald L on May 25, 2014, 03:51:45 am

Title: Into the sky
Post by: Harald L on May 25, 2014, 03:51:45 am

An unusual perspective on two buildings. C&C welcome

Harald

Title: Re: Into the sky
Post by: walter.sk on May 25, 2014, 10:54:36 am

Just a subjective response:  I find the bottom one has angles that conflict, making the composition seem less pleasing.  The first photo shows the relationship between the angles and lines in a more complementary fashion, and also makes the negative space of the sky part of the statement, in terms of its own interesting geometry.

Title: Re: Into the sky
Post by: louoates on May 25, 2014, 12:24:51 pm

For me #482 is the clear winner. I love the two buildings nearly touching, joining together quite pleasingly, creating two distinct white polygons. Cheers for seeing that negative space!

Title: Re: Into the sky
Post by: Harald L on May 25, 2014, 12:32:37 pm

Quote from: louoates on May 25, 2014, 12:24:51 pm

For me #482 is the clear winner. I love the two buildings nearly touching, joining together quite pleasingly, creating two distinct white polygons. Cheers for seeing that negative space!

Yes, it was the negative space that attracted me. In my blog I've played a little bit with that space by toning the lights and the shadows in almost (!) complementary colors. It's nothing to post here in between the Brethren of St. Anselm ;) If you're interested here (http://harlempix.com/awkward-falkenried-the-towers-of-bolleswilson/) you are.

Harald

Title: Re: Into the sky
Post by: RSL on May 25, 2014, 01:36:58 pm

I agree with Walter. #1 is an interesting perspective. #2 is a failure graphically.

Title: Re: Into the sky
Post by: luxborealis on May 25, 2014, 06:21:33 pm

While the first may be graphically more pleasing, I prefer the the second as it is simply more interesting to look at. There is tension created by the juxtaposition of the two near-touching corners and dissonance brought on by the irregular and conflicting triangles. For these reasons, I would sooner put #2 on my wall than #1 (and I'm much more of a "realist" in my own photography in trying to create graphically harmonious photographs).

Thanks, Harald, for sharing both and for stimulating this conversation (and for reminding me that I really ought to break that harmony from time to time).

Title: Re: Into the sky
Post by: churly on May 25, 2014, 06:51:22 pm

Got to agree with Terry.  #2 is by far the more interesting and dynamic image,
Chuck

Title: Re: Into the sky
Post by: petermfiore on May 25, 2014, 06:57:37 pm

No. 2 is far stronger image. Much stronger design and dynamic. Not the typical view, that's why I like it.

Peter

Title: Re: Into the sky
Post by: francois on May 26, 2014, 04:37:08 am

Photo #2 for me!