Canal Bridge

[Ryewolf]

One from a walk along the Leeds to Liverpool canal today.

 

[CanonChrissy]

B&W worksworks well but composition lacks something for me. More foreground interest perhaps? Hope you don't mind this comment Geoff.

[Ryewolf]

No, of course not. To be honest I was more interested in the light patterns on the water, rather than the bridge, the orignal was much darker and you could n't see the bridge, I'd also played around with the aeb and took it down 2 clicks so it was deliberatey underexposed.

[colinb]

I think a 'nearly there picture' I don't mind the lack of foreground as the dark curved reflection fits in with the arch but I do wonder if it needed the full arch curve at the top of the picture and either more or less of the tow path just peeking in? 

[Ryewolf]

Thanks Colin and Judy, yes I think a crop and making it more abstract is the way to go - initially my original idea, think I'll revisit the original image and reprocess.

[ChrisLumix]

I love it (the original I mean) - the abstract pattern of ripples leads the eye naturally to the bridge arch. You have a strong compositional element of the top arch being 'reflected' in the bottom curve of ripples.

For me, the only weak part is between the arch and the ripples (background) which a wider aperture might have thrown more out of focus?

[Clicker]

I like this RW... there's something about the contrast between what is obvious to discern, ie the bridge and towpath element, and the rippled water which on its own is not as obvious to see what it is , if taken in isolation. I think both elements are needed to make this image work... So I agree with Chris to a certain extent.....but it's just my opinion. 

[Ryewolf]

Thanks Cgris and Clicker, I wasn't sure myself about this one, as it wasn't my original idea I had when looking through the viewfinder, I'd planned to crop out the bridge and just leave the water reflections - you're right on their own it's not obvious what it is.

My original idea - Water

 

[ChrisLumix]

I think both are valid in different ways - the second as an abstract, the first as an eyecatching composition where the eye is drawn upwards to the arch.

[Clicker]

As I said ... Its an opinion ... If an abstract  is what you are looking for ...  the crop ...is abstract.. well in as much as it isn't readily recognisable as water ... But for me it doesn't make me look twice at it or interest me as it's the relationship with the bridge that makes me appreciate  the  way the water looks ...I mostly make images to please me , not anyone else so ...you   maybe have to decide what you want from the image ....Is  it something that is pleasing to you? Whether it affects anyone else in the process may or may not be important at all to you . Only you know what it is that you want  from an image ... I can only tell  you  how it affects me ....   For me to be interested in abstract it has to have dynamic impact in either colour or shape ... On it's own the crop doesn't do it for me ... interesting discussion though..

[Ryewolf]

Thanks everyone for your comments and thoughts.Apologies for the too large image, the forum used to resize to something smaller to display in the posts, It is very subjective about what you want or get from an image. I saw this as the cropped image, but thought I'd explore what else I could get from this image. I was shooting directly into the sun and keeping the bridge in was a way to stop it being over exposed.

[Clicker]

Hey   it  stimulated a healthy discussion RW .... That  has to be  positive whether the image " works" for one or not ...and as Judy says ..." We all have a different aesthetic"

[Phil]

I love these debates, there's always going to be a difference of opinion. And for what it's worth, here's mine

Lose the tow path and the empty space at the bottom. The only real negative for me is that detail has been lost in the shadows.