Bench at Ashland

[KevinCollins]

Tonight I visited Ashland, the home of Henry Clay. In the back yard of this estate, I saw this bench under a tree.

I'm looking for a critique on the shot overall - mainly for composition - but I'm also looking for anything that could have made the shot better.

The shot is straight from the camera except that in Lightroom, I told it to use "Auto" White Balance during the developing of the RAW file and then Flickr did the resizing.



Exif data
Camera Canon EOS 20D with 18-55mm kit lens (non IS)
Exposure 0.02 sec (1/50)
Aperture f/4.5
Focal Length 31 mm
ISO Speed 400
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Flash Off, Did not fire

[KevinCollins]

So I wasn't really happy with the depth of field in the original post - it was too deep in my opinion. And since no one has offered any advice as to the original, I'll post another shot of the same subject.

I did three things differently:

• First I used a different lens. I used the EF 70-200 f/4 L USM on the Canon 20D.
• Second I went at a different time of day which allowed me to get more light.
• Finally, I did a bit more post processing, tweaking the white balance, exposure and recovery in Lightroom to get this image:

Exif data
Camera Canon EOS 20D
Exposure 0.003 sec (1/400)
Aperture f/5.0
Focal Length 180 mm
ISO Speed 800
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Flash Off, Did not fire



I like the colors better in this one, as well as the shallower depth of field. I'm not sure if the sunlight in the back actually distracts or not, but overall I like the second image better.

As I stated orignially, I'd like for you to critique the shot overall. Could I have picked a better composition, done more in post processing, etc. Basically anything that would have made the shot better.

Be honest because I really am trying to get better.

[KUlmer]

Compostition wise, I liked the first one better. The bench is too centered in the second one. I do like the coloring in the second one better, it is a little warmer and I like how the background has sunlight peeking through. I also like the shallower depth of field in the second one.