The roof of the British Museum casts its shadow on the museums Library

This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest. It is simply an image that the Elves found interesting and worthy of discussion. Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Site Feedback forum.

When including images, please make sure they are relevant to the discussion, not more than 511 pixels wide, sufficiently compressed and make sure to enter a caption when uploading.

Nice tonality, handsome rendition of architecture.

 

I particularly like the windows and their reflections...like eyes.

Crop.

I love this photo. The intersecting lines and tonality immediately caught my attention. The reflections in the windows and the horizontal lines in the bottom right corner add a lot for my taste.

 

I have a quesiton: Every photo of the week elicits a response from many to crop the image. Sometimes I see the point and other times, such as this time, I do not. My question is why a crop would improve this photo from an aesthetic point of view? If you lose the bottom right corner my opinion is that the photo would not benefit. If you lose the bottom left then the building does not balance the dome. Ditto for top corners.

 

I am really asking. As a novice I hope to learn what everyone else is seeing that I have missed.

OK.

 

I was writing my response after Yongbo Jiang's request to crop. (He was cropping while I was writing.)

 

Now that I see the crop, I still don't see the improvement. I believe that if I saw the original image in a very large print I would gasp. I don't see where the crop changes that.

In fact, the crop kills it for me.

 

In the original, the dome extends out of the frame making me feel as though I am inside the dome looking up. The dome obviously continues on and the effect is that it is enormous. I have a definite feeling of place and feel small inside that place.

 

After the crop I imagine I am looking at a building with the really big front porch on it.

Well, I'm against cropping it, and it's a reasonably good picture, but I don't see here the memorable angle and composition I expect from a great architectural shot. Format is awkward too. Camera up, and there you are. Probably not a large choice of angles available anyway. Doesn't fascinate me at all. Nice tones and a bit of shadow are a nice touch, but is that really enough to make my day ? I'm affraid not. A decent but ordinary shot, nothing much imo. Best regards.

The crop definitely worsens the image. It causes the image to lose the sense of depth that

makes it interesting.

At the sight of this photo, I have a questions I would like to discus:

 

I think the architecture is really spectacular.. but, that was the work of an architect.. and I feel, in this particular genre, it is often difficult to make the distinction between what's a great building, and what's a great picture.

 

I'm afraid, giving the amount of pictures I have seen of that roof.. that this one doesnt really stand out in my opinion. That leads me to a second point : what must a picture of a famous subject have more to stand out ? Light and angle are for sure part of the answer.. but here I think they are pretty good, and still, it's not enough for me. What do you think ?

If you want to present the lines and patterns in the ceiling, shadows, and reflections, then get rid of everything that doesn't reinforce them. The top line is indeed too close to the edge of the frame, but I would go further and get rid of the unnecessary base. Minor adjustments to the shadow detail brings out the clouds which add interest to the largest area of the photograph. Now the shadows, which were barely noticeable, can hold their own against both the reflection and, of course, the ceiling. Oh yes, I also removed the orphan letter on the upper left, leaving a clean entry line and clearer reading of "her majesty".

I was sitting too close to my monitor, now I am 6 feet away looking at the original and see the problem with the crop. But how much room should be left on the top and bottom is still my question.

Ordinarily I don't have any reverence for full frames.

 

But in this instance the crops served no purpose, just took away from the image and the architecture.

 

The deeper tone works badly.

 

I like the lightness-feeling of the original, would not touch it.

I tried squashing a little, because like Marc, I'm disturb by the unconventionnal format, and I tried desaturating and whitening it to make it less look like a 'streight out of digital camera sepia' shot..

 

Nevertheless, I think that the best way to improve that picture was before the click. Crops and stuff don't do miracles here.

For whatever reasons, the cropping suggestions are getting progressively weaker. Cutting off

the top, bottom, or either (or both) sides of the images makes the image look too

compressed, i.e., too one-dimensional. The original cropping leaves enough

space on the upper-right of the image to separate the structure from the background. I have

a hunch, but this is really just a guess, that the photographer might have sensed this when

composing the original image.

Nice pic.

 

I'm not being mean, but similar photographs turn up in UK photo mags all the time. There are two - count 'em - in this week's Amateur Photographer (1 Oct 2005) for example. Taken by different photographers.

 

What would be the US equivalent of this cliche?

 

This is no criticism of Amateur Photographer - a fine magazine with a proud history - nor of Darren Green - clearly an accomplished photographer.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean.

 

(Not above a bit of cliche himself)

Thanks for all your comments guys, it makes a change to see constructive discussion on an image as opposed to the simple ratings people usually give.
I dont know why the Elves select the images they do but in this case Im pleased they did.
I took this photo whils visiting my daughter on a trip to London earlier this summer and she decided she wanted to goto the museum so I took the camera along in case I saw something.
As far as the crop is concerned I always attempt to frame the scene in camera and try to avoid cropping images latter (sometimes a nessicity I know)
It has been interesting to see some of your variations on my shot and to read some of your comments. I know this shot is a touch cliche of this particular building but there wern't that many other possibly angles.
If you have the time I'd apreciate it if youd take a look at the rest of my gallery before making your mind up on just one photo.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=536253
Thank you all again and happy shooting.

Darren, I'm wondering about the intensity of the sunlight and the shadows they produced. Do you recall if this was direct sunlight or was it possibly diffused somewhat by a cloud. For me, and I suspect for you as well, the strength of the image rests on the dominance of the shadow pattern with the reflection serving as a focal point.

Cropped? Chopped? Sliced? Diced?

Regardless its a beautiful photograph!

Thanks for sharing.

 

Ted

So, I was going to stay out of it this week, but Olivier's comment caught me. I think you

may have answered your own question when you remarked about this photo. Great

architectural photography results when a photographer employs all of their skill in the

service of the subject, just like a great landscape photo. It helps to have a great subject,

but the photographer's skill can make something extraordinary out of the ordinary also. I

don't know this building, and I gather it is great architecture and that it wasn't felt that

this photo captured it. Is that the answer?

 

For me, I do find the photo interesting, with its contrasting elements, but I can't say that I

would call it a show stopper. The photo has nice motion to it, but I think the tonal range

is a bit muddy. This, combined with what appears to be the use of a telephoto lens, over

compresses what must be expansive space. I don't think the darker version posted is the

way to go, maybe it needs to be more airy feeling--it seems that that is the way the

photographer was headed. Although I think the frame is well divided, I do find that the

building element in the foreground is a bit disjointed from the other elements and ends up

being a bit obtrusive because of it. It just doesn't have any contextual relavence. I am not

sure that there would be a way to eliminate it effectively however-now or then. Maybe a

wider shot would have told us what role it plays in the scene. It is not its shape or the role

it plays in the composition, it is just that I feel it doesn't have enough context to hold its

own in this kind of photograph.

In the final analysis, for me, I might have made this photograph, or some variation, to

record what appears to be a wonderful place and wonderful elements, but i don't think it

would become a portfolio piece.

great shot. i agree that the extra cropping doesn't do much for the image on the top. but i did like the slight cropping applied to the bottom, taking the extra line out of the bricks. i found that to be a little distracting from the rest of the image.

I took a couple of mins to go through the files and thought I'd share this one from a different angle. By the way the original wa shot with a 20-70 as I recall

This has been my favorite POW for the original intent of POW.

 

As a beginner, I am still in the process of determining for myself what makes or breaks a composition. The biggest question I wrestle with is being duked out right here - when to crop and why.

 

Carl Root boiled it down fantastically when he said that each piece of the photo must be evaluated to determine whether or not it supports the main them of the photo. If not...SNIP SNIP. See Ya.

I never even considered losing the phantom letter to leave "HER MAJESTY" which turned out to be the little detail that actually supports the cropping stance in my opinion.

 

Having said that, while that was a touch of genius in my neophyte mind, I still don't see where it changed my original opinion of the photo. I thought it was good to begin with and still do. I also like several of the variations you all have come up with, but not as much as I like the original.

 

So- second question... When can a photo simply be good because it is strong even if it isn't the most fantastic bit of camera work anyone has ever seen? I think this is a good example. So it's cliche in the UK- so are kidney pies. Here in the US I don't see this image everywhere- so it is enjoyable. Actually, I've been to London and now I'm upset I didn't get this photo myself!

 

I want to thank everyone for being civil and for making this the first POW discussion I actually learned something from.

How different is it from this picture:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=302836

 

The location is one of the most photographed, and photogenic, subjects in London. Is it the photographer of the subject that makes the image?

Agree with Sean on this one. Personally I like the image in Amateur photography a lot better:

http://www.amateurphotographer.com/gallery/album15/2_G

Saying that it'd be interesting to hear what you guys think. Also have to agree that this is a bit more interesting a discussion than usually ensues with POW.

Rather than re-crop I would have stood a bit further back and to the right, used a 28mm lens, and framed it differently to include more of the central building and perhaps allow a glimpe of the central reading rooms roof as well as the new roof on the Great Court itself.

Like this in fact :)

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/172814-md.jpg
On Finding the Sacred Tripod Holes of the Great CourtFrom http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=172814