I'm surprised you advocate removal of the cone, Terry. I find it adds interest to the upper left and I like the way its shadow parallels the one lower down. I always learn from your views, though: why would removing it be a good idea?
Jeremy
Hi Jeremy,
I appreciate you asking "why". We don't do that enough!
From my perspective, the cone is more of a distracting influence, than it is a focal point. My eye keeps being pulled away from the lovely lines of shadows by this feature which, to me, seems incongruous with the rest of the image. The interest it adds is that of a space-filler, rather than letting the negative space do its work of balancing the rest of the photograph.
I'm finding, more and more, that my decisions along these lines are being driven by the artistic design of the work, rather than trying to be photographically accurate. "That's the way it is/was in nature" is no longer a strong enough argument for me to keep a feature (providing I'm not recreating nature in an unnatural way). I often ask myself, "If I was painting this scene, would I leave this feature in?" With film, we didn't have the same options as we do now with digital media. Personally, I'd rather take advantage of those to strengthen the message/design/concept of the work.
Sorry, for rambling!