Feedback wanted on exposure and composition

[ASTMedic]

My first post but I've been lurking and reading for a while now. (Love the place)

What do people think about the exposure/composition (or anything else)? I kept the aperture tighter to maintain focus through out. It was shot it in the mid-day sun so not the best lighting but I just wanted to get out and shoot while the weather was good. Some PP done in Lightroom.



Camera: Nikon D90 with Nikon 18-200mm and UV filter
Exposure: 0.01 sec (1/100)
Aperture: f/11.0
Focal Length: 26 mm
ISO Speed: 200
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Flash: No Flash

[kgb224]

Outstanding capture.

[Nicole]

It has this really interesting geometry to the shadow / bridge area. The shadow follows just the right line to create that diagonal dark / light separation. That along with the repetition looks good composition-wise.

I think you did well with what light you had. I think increasing the exposure probably would have lost a lot more detail, but parts definitely seem to border on underexposed to me as well. So it seems like a very difficult lighting situation.

That being said, although the light is really interesting I'm not really drawn in by it. I'm not sure if it's the tones (they're quite similar throughout the photo) or the lack of texture in what's probably quite a gritty area. Hope that makes some sense

Oh, and welcome to the forums!

[LeeR]

This is a very symmetrical composition which by definition means it is balanced. Balanced is pleasing, 'correct' in a technical sense...and boring. Nothing quite takes the steam out of an image like having perfect balance. You will find your images are a lot more interesting if you avoid perfect balance and shoot instead for a slight but healthy imbalance.

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by LeeR

This is a very symmetrical composition which by definition means it is balanced. Balanced is pleasing, 'correct' in a technical sense...and boring. Nothing quite takes the steam out of an image like having perfect balance. You will find your images are a lot more interesting if you avoid perfect balance and shoot instead for a slight but healthy imbalance.

Lee, I like the way you think..spoken like a true artist. I think your artistic training and comments add a lot to those of us here

Vince

[ASTMedic]

Originally Posted by LeeR

This is a very symmetrical composition which by definition means it is balanced. Balanced is pleasing, 'correct' in a technical sense...and boring. Nothing quite takes the steam out of an image like having perfect balance. You will find your images are a lot more interesting if you avoid perfect balance and shoot instead for a slight but healthy imbalance.

Good point. I can't think of a way that I could have composed it but I that's why I'm here learning.

Originally Posted by Nicole

It has this really interesting geometry to the shadow / bridge area. The shadow follows just the right line to create that diagonal dark / light separation. That along with the repetition looks good composition-wise.

I think you did well with what light you had. I think increasing the exposure probably would have lost a lot more detail, but parts definitely seem to border on underexposed to me as well. So it seems like a very difficult lighting situation.

That being said, although the light is really interesting I'm not really drawn in by it. I'm not sure if it's the tones (they're quite similar throughout the photo) or the lack of texture in what's probably quite a gritty area. Hope that makes some sense

Oh, and welcome to the forums!

Thank you. Can I post a second pic in this thread to see if it was a better composition choice?