Went for a Moon, Ended up as Usual :)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Went for a full moon tonight... too cloudy. Ended up with an architectural detail of sunset reflections

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Much more interesting than another full moon photo, IMHO.

[Farmer]

Really nice colours. The bottom wedges (for want of a better term), though, trouble me because it makes it look like perspective distortion even though I know it isn't.  Does add interest, though, even if it sort of makes me mentally squirm.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Really nice colours. The bottom wedges (for want of a better term), though, trouble me because it makes it look like perspective distortion even though I know it isn't.  Does add interest, though, even if it sort of makes me mentally squirm.

That's exactly what I thought. And I agree with Eric: while it must have been disappointing to miss the moon (as, surprise surprise, we did in Manchester), you made the most of it, Slobodan.

Jeremy

[Rob C]

Not having it in my computer, without a grid overlay I don't know how much to the anti-clockwise it could rotate to make more horizontal the base "wedge" as it has become known, before compromising the body of the building. But it's great as it is, and just for the hell of it, I think I would rotate a little and clone in a bit of base to retain the weight there already is.

After all, perfectly parallel sides (seen from low positions) look as "wrong" as do space-travel, vanishing upper floors derived from super-wides.

This is mental stuff for winter, not for the heat of the day down in... Chuck, baby, back to rest.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Just to clarify, what’s in the foreground is a detail of a different building, the one I was on, separated from the building in the background by a four-lane street. The “offending” ledge is not parallel to the background building, but angled by design.

[32BT]

While i totally see the Slobodan appeal, the image does not seem to convince me to look beyond  its deficiencies, the lower part of the composition being one but the jpg artifacts in the sky being another. Cell-phone pic?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...Cell-phone pic?

I thought personal insults are not allowed around here?

Jeremy!?

EDIT: That was a joke. The camera was a 50 Mpx Canon 5Ds at ISO 100, on tripod, leveled. No noise. What you probably see are faint dark clouds in the distant background.

[James Clark]

Great palette of colors in this one.   I can clearly see the cloud differentiation in the sky, btw.   Might be screen-dependent.

[stamper]

Crop the bottom? Possibly improve what is a potentially fine image.

[James Clark]

I don't mind the bottom.  It provides a bit of framing and balance with the right side of the image.

[stamper]

I don't mind the bottom.  It provides a bit of framing and balance with the right side of the image.

Then leveling it out in PS would possibly give the image a less awkward look?

[32BT]

I thought personal insults are not allowed around here?

Jeremy!?

EDIT: That was a joke. The camera was a 50 Mpx Canon 5Ds at ISO 100, on tripod, leveled. No noise. What you probably see are faint dark clouds in the distant background.

Yeah, kindergarten humor, we know you by now... ;-)

I still see lots of artifacts, around the balustrades but, more telling, also around your name. Perhaps the site does additional compression of images? Or perhaps my android thingy uses datasaving even though it is turned off. I have no idea. Will take a look on the apple later.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Then leveling it out in PS would possibly give the image a less awkward look?

Rob and you are correct.

It was my bad. I asked Lightroom to correct verticals, and did not notice it changed horizontals (previously level) too. I now use Guided adjustments and it looks much better. I also kinda start liking the full, un-cropped, version.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I still see lots of artifacts, around the balustrades but, more telling, also around your name. Perhaps the site does additional compression of images?...

There is something to it. Strangely, although the file clearly says 800 px, when enlarged, it becomes 880 px, hence the blurring or artifacts.

[Rob C]

Rob and you are correct.

It was my bad. I asked Lightroom to correct verticals, and did not notice it changed horizontals (previously level) too. I now use Guided adjustments and it looks much better. I also kinda start liking the full, un-cropped, version.

This version is more "planted" than the first, and I think it looks the stronger for it.

Rob

[Ivophoto]

Just wondering, did you rent a plain to put that huge signature in the sky?

[Farmer]

This version is more "planted" than the first, and I think it looks the stronger for it.

+1

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Cell-phone pic?

Now, this is a cell-phone pic, digital zoom. Posting it here to demonstrate how different lighting conditions can change an object:

[Farmer]

Dramatic difference!