Huge empty sky - what to do?

[joanium]

I took this photo to take advantage of the curve of the building. However, I feel like the sky is too white, too empty. The photo might also benefit from being cropped to panorama. Could I have some suggestions about what to do or aim for? Happy for you to edit the photo and repost to this thread.

Joan

Link to larger version of photo

[jiminyClickit]

joanium,

Sort of the same issue as the bridge: what is your goal? If it's all about showing the curve, certainly Panorama would solve the sky excess and the extra bottom 1/4 which adds little interest. Could keep similar aspect ratio by losing some of left side as well, to the first dark tree.

Well-chosen position to show perspective. Do you need an edit?

[wulf]

To me it looks like the whole image is leaning slightly towards the left, so I would want to correct that and make the uprights upright.

As far as the sky goes, I don't think it is a problem in the photo: there is a lot of other detail so the fact the sky is a simple gradient gives some useful space (it is simple, not washed out). If you really don't like it, how about cropping the picture to a wider format - for example, 16:9 (movie letterbox)?

Wulf

[joanium]

Thanks for the suggestions. My goal is to make an interesting photo about the curved building. I'd like to give the photo to the building owners so that they can use it on their website or hang a photo of it on a wall or something. I'm not sure how important the landscape\background elements would be, then. I guess they should only be in the photo to the extent that they add a sense of place, but they shouldn't distract.

I've cropped two versions of the photo to get rid of some of the sky and grass, as well as the first dark tree, as jiminyClickit suggested. One (-4.jpg) is a more extreme crop than the other (-6.jpg). Which one do you prefer?

P1241214-4.jpg

P1241214-6.jpg

Just for fun, I've added a greenish sky to the third one (-5.jpg). How does it look on your monitors? I suspect it might look too bright green.

P1241214-5.jpg

Wulf, I know what you mean about the slight lean but I'm not sure what vertical I should get straight. The original photo was straight according to the wall furthest away from the viewer. I've straightened two more versions, one which makes the nearest wall strictly vertical (-7.jpg), and the last one is corrected for somewhere in between (-8.jpg). Which one is the most comfortable to look at?

P1241214-7.jpg

P1241214-8.jpg

Thanks all for your help

[wulf]

I'm undecided if I like the tighter crop - the pattern in the lower right corner, where the lines hang over the dark green is interesting and I would lean towards keeping it.

I didn't expect to but found myself liking the greenish sky, although I would be inclined to tone it down a bit.

Regarding the rotation, I prefer (-8): the church spire is an isolated vertical near the centre. Pin it straight there and the rest becomes quite a welcome lens effect, adding to the sweep of the picture (although it would be interesting to compare a version doctored with software to correct lens distortion).

Wulf

[jiminyClickit]

joanium (and wulf),

I didn't look at your edits first, so I'm not sure if I've just done the same.
The one pleasant discovery was the color available in the sky, pulled out with a high-contrast layer. If your edit program has a Distort function, you can get all verticals close to accurate. It's as if your photo were pizza dough, you can pull one corner at a time to eliminate lens distortion. Larger version does not appear quite as dark. Now I'll look at thumbnails . . .

[jiminyClickit]

joanium,

You see I changed my mind about left crop, since it does continue the curve and buildings. That's why I asked about your goal: since you say it may be presented to the owners, maybe leave it, if you get the sky as you want it.

Hope they like it; have you taken another with bright sunlight?

(Broken steeple and drainpipes is a quirk in my software; using Distort always leaves my straight lines jagged.)