If you look at the last three works, it seems like you shot a panorama and then decided not to stitch it together. This shot was superfluous in your series, especially in the "architecture, churches" section. ...if you need a justification, I'll write one.
Nikolay Nikitin did shoot panoramas (they'll be coming later), but this shot isn't one of them, although it feels like it's from there. A justification is needed.
The rationale is simple: a temple in architectural photography should be the focal point of the composition, possibly from different angles. Here, it's a "disadvantaged poor relative," and no amount of reflection can save the dull composition. And if you were shooting a river, it would have been even less appropriate to include the temple in the frame, as it is here. A temple isn't a puff of smoke suddenly bursting into the frame, nor is it a gymnast flying off the parallel bars; it's a stronghold, a focal point.
A temple in architectural photography should be the center of the composition
Nikolay Nikitin, this isn't an architectural shoot, but a landscape.
A temple isn't a puff of smoke suddenly bursting into the frame, it's not a gymnast flying off the bars, it's a stronghold, it's the center.
Why not? The importance and significance of a temple is in the mind, but it's an ordinary photographic object. But it's unusual in size and contrast among the other objects in the frame, and, willy-nilly, it draws attention. And the composition of the shot, of course, should have been done with its dominance in mind. The main mistake is that it's on the edge of the frame. It should have been moved to the place of the two birch trees... The left part Voir le recadrage is redundant. IMHO, of course.
A temple in architectural photography should be the center of the composition. Nikolai Nikitin. This isn't an architectural shoot, but a landscape. A temple isn't a puff of smoke suddenly bursting into the frame, it's not a gymnast flying off the bars. It's a stronghold, a center. Why not? The importance and significance of a temple is in the mind, but it's an ordinary photographic subject. It's unusual in size and contrast with the other objects in the frame, and, whether you like it or not, it draws attention. And the composition of the shot, of course, should have been done with its dominance in mind. The main mistake is placing it on the edge of the frame. It should have been moved to the place of the two birch trees... The left side is redundant. IMHO, of course.
ash, I agree, a church can be called a building or simply an object of photography, the essence remains the same. The composition is incorrect, not only according to the rule of thirds, but also because it dominates with its light and tonality. The eye immediately runs there, without even catching the reflections of the birch trees...
Nikolay Nikitin, next time this won't happen again, although sometimes in photography you have to break the rules, because a correctly taken picture is very boring.
Zhenya, I like ash's version better, although it could be squeezed into a "square" shape; that would at least remove the obvious imperfections in the sky Voir le recadrage. But then the "sliced-in-two" horizon is even more noticeable. Also, I think the photo is too dark... well, that's just me?!?!... I'd like to see the panoramas.
Oh yeah, I completely forgot. This applies not only to Zhenya but to other authors as well. When comments are written with errors, that's only half the problem. But let's finally write titles correctly! It's not that hard. Zhenya, I don't think you're a KRIVOTIV who, due to certain circumstances (perhaps he hit his head as a child or someone hit him, or maybe alcohol in adulthood has such an effect that it atrophies brain cells), is allowed to write completely illiterately.
Zhenya Ryzhov, Sorry, Zheka, for making a fuss. You're supposed to be my friend, so I had to stand up for you, and that stone flew to the side (I'm not saying goodbye.) Don't worry, and good luck!
...if you need a justification, I'll write one.
Why not? The importance and significance of a temple is in the mind, but it's an ordinary photographic object. But it's unusual in size and contrast among the other objects in the frame, and, willy-nilly, it draws attention. And the composition of the shot, of course, should have been done with its dominance in mind. The main mistake is that it's on the edge of the frame. It should have been moved to the place of the two birch trees...
The left part Voir le recadrage is redundant.
IMHO, of course.
Also, I think the photo is too dark... well, that's just me?!?!... I'd like to see the panoramas.