The City of Arts and Sciences.

Me gusta!!!

Stunning work! Great colour and light.

muy Buena foto, saludos

To begin our discussion, this image must be viewed large (link) to fully appreciate.

Striking architecture. Lovely reflection. The composition doesn't work well for me though - I'd rather either see the "eye" by itself without the distraction on the right (and the full eye please, cutting off a portion on the left is unforgivable). Or a wide view - the above image lacks space both on the right and the left.

Can't say if this was a panorama created from more than one image (in which case the question again arises as to why cut it so close left and right) or from a wide-angle shot (my guess would be 28mm at the most) and then heavily cropped top and bottom. So in summary - go wider or narrower.

Dieter; your point is well taken. Still, the view on the right is cut-off by a row of tall cypress trees. On the left, there is building structure only a bit outside the frame. Could this be near the best to be expected from this POV?

David, I have seen quite a few images of this place (many seem to be taken from the other side) - though I have never been there in person. I don't think the building on the right adds much to the image at all - the "eye"catching part is what counts. Going wider was only one of my considerations - which, as you point out, may not be possible due to constraints imposed by the location. Zooming in closer certainly is an option though. Doing so makes it mandatory to not cut off that section on the left.

One issue with critiquing an image of a location one hasn't visited oneself and can only get a feel for from other photographs is that one doesn't know whether it is possible to move a few steps to either side, closer or a bit farther away.

It seems to me that Pedro chose his POV quite carefully, hiding most of the four buildings in the background behind the structure. From this image, which seems to be taken quite close from where Pedro took his (farther to the left), there doesn't appear to be anything on the left that would prevent proper framing (of course, moving right, there could be another building coming into view from the left): https://www.flickr.com/photos/albireo2006/8504152492/in/photolist-faaYes-6Dzn6G-p6MfnC-5v77HP-eapB2-i8j9DV-aD6sUK-5wiQqF-jWjuon-65kjBQ-wmHQ5W-cJqogo-dXu1fQ-cZ6uEG-9ZKbXU-Bo1Hnb-6yvvh2-7am4bV-rhqHD8-pHXJjp-9qaiep-dPeRiz-5DKqtf-p2Jfab-fpqa4m-rgmAX1-dVUqL7-71Tn4t-byhnY8-8nirPb-amuSEC-BM1pfg-6t1Fc6-bYL7MQ-7547cx-4qMpgZ-aLGPkn-gB7r5c-62KgWh-814yry-cXq4ib-7d7Ega-oqzTZD-65fQ1t-anXfhc-aDw26L-891ESi-a7u6Sg-dC7wyd-fAfJDN
Doesn't appear to be any building on the left that would interfere with Pedro framing a bit more on the left: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jorgetorre2/4388427758/in/photolist-7peTRW-ubaH5-8x5C5c-6sd4BY-c8cchW-jgSLnM-rwuaS1-bXt6sC-iPbpA2-91gWm2-5V7Znj-ceCJ8A-Dkuq-5RQeqY-5tWYTY-pqPLQ4-iPbpJP-GjUdd-8qwxqL-7uFf5z-f9NA7-8rsvE7-7FMQFy-e1717A-3i3cwM-48ec6t-B6qt71-7dAH7y-94jKvk-5FWdPS-g2aL7C-8fkhZd-P91N1-3VL2ag-2V1Gfy-47kdkW-5gRegf-27GnQu-5RNYYY-6SeUkN-8PsMS8-7MPPhF-e9aTNy-hJy2eW-5udJJv-8chbeW-cuv4hQ-5oWyyv-pQpRKd-cXPMDj
From this side, the structure seems to be photographed more obliquely usually - which brings the background building in more and makes a more compelling composition. The issue then is some of the buildings in the left background become more visible - how inconsiderate to build there at all!

Dieter; I have not been there, though I hope to go. I have found google earth to be a tremendous tool in understanding other's images, and in planning my own. As always, your comments are thoughtful and well considered. This does seem to be a tightly constrained site. There likely is space to add on the left edge, but not a tremendous amount. Doing so would force a crop on the right side, in order to not shear through the Reina Sofia Auditorium. It would appear that Pedro's intent was to establish a clear visual relationship between the Auditorium and the Hemisphere. If he was at his maximum useful field of view, then he had little choice. That does not make it a better image, but it might inform our questions regarding alternate perspectives. From what I can see the walls around the pools are not terribly photogenic, which Pedro appears to have addressed effectively by using darkness as a camouflage. I think Pedro's treatment of the water as a pure reflecting surface, using what appears to be a long exposure, is very effective, more so than in most of the reference images. There is a lot happening on this site, and I'm wondering how I might set up better, or if I even could. Pedro's image is certainly not a cliche.

It is an interesting building, but otherwise I wonder why this is special picture? It's a reasonable documentary shot, but there is not, at least to me, much of the photographer's input in the image. I think the shot would also have been more aesthetically pleasing if taken at dusk, so the sky has some color. This one is great for the "I've been there and taken the shot", but otherwise I don't find it particularly appealing.

I'll leave the technical discussion to those more expert at such matters. From the standpoint of the image's impact on me, I find that the colors, contrast, and geometry are visually stunning. But I have difficulty connecting with it.

A very fine example of architectural image with a fine technical make .

Just wondering the sky got one shining star .

lovin it