Sights of Paris

[LifeIsAVerb]

.

There's certainly a lot of visual interest in these buildings, but it doesn't appear you did much work to maximize the potential here.

Most of these seem somewhat snap-shotty to me. As if you merely stopped while walking around, looked up (or around), raised the camera to something that held some interest to you, snapped a photo, then moved on. There are only a couple that appear to have received more than cursory attention and looking.

Framing is often odd, containing elements that don't add to, or actually detract from, what the intent of the image might be. Many have areas of oddly shaped and/or blown out sky. People are oddly/awkwardly placed. La Tour Eiffel is fighting off an attack from monster trees.

By contrast, the space and elements in No. 6 are much more well considered.

I'd suggest spending more time really looking at everything in the frame before pressing the shutter.

.

I looks like everyone sees something different in a photo. The sky is what it is when you are walking in a continuous drizzle. I have dozens of pictures of the Eifel Tower and the one I showed was the most dramatic in my view. People in my photos are secondary. There are only two photos out of 11 where I have incorporated people on purpose. A lady in leopard clothing with a dog in one and a cyclist in another. So I really don't know which people are awkwardly placed. The two photos with the Gare de Lyon in the background are in my opinion well framed. They could almost be mirror images. The photo you liked (#6) someone else commented that it was muddy. But you are right, framing could be better in many cases and as it happens often, at least to me, once I am home I see what I could have done better. Unfortunately too late since now there is a pond between me and the subject.

Thanks for commenting anyway

--
Joachim
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jowul/

.

Viewers have to assume that everything within the frame is there because you wanted it there. You looked at the scene. You moved the camera to frame a part of reality. You pressed the shutter release at a certain moment. You selected the images. You processed the images. You posted them. Nothing in the image is "secondary." Everything in the image is in the image. It's all there as part of a whole. That you are responsible for.

Heck of a responsibility, eh?

Look at the poor people in No. 8, crammed into the lower left corner. One poor person is cut off at the waist.

VIsualize the cyclist in No. 9 is he were more fully isolated against the white of the roadway.

Keep shooting, keep looking. Really looking.

.

 

[Joachim Wulfers]

Care to show us anything you've done because I couldn't find anything anywhere???

You must not have looked very hard. The link was in the previous post.

If you're going to be this harsh and critical with posts like this...

"Let me suggest this approach. Visit https://1x.com/photos/latest/architecture and carefully examine the tonal range of the B & W images.

Note the differences in tonal range between these images and your own and decide which you prefer."

Then I'd suggest you follow you own advice.

--
An education validates that you know what you're talking about.

Does this mean I can't count on you to order a print ?

You know, looking again through your monochrome collection I believe you use something like Nik collection Silver Effex Pro, probably the Filme Noir option to get the very dark effect. I applied that in this photo of a castle in the Bretagne. I did it for fun and someone asked me if Dracula lived in there:-D

--
Joachim
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jowul/