221bn - Rothenburg o.d. Tauber

Comments and critiques are welcome.

Like this a lot. Very nice tones also. T

Interesting composition

Maurizio - I really like the framing with the foreground roof.

Good depht of field, great tones, extraordinary composition. Superb.

Kind of depressing, I like it, just no idea why...

Superb composition ....!

wonderful tones and play between near and far. i've been tryin to pay attention to foreground-background tensions, so this really stands out for me.

Please note the following:

• 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.
• Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Help & Questions Forum.
• The About Photograph of the Week page tells you more about this feature of photo.net.
• Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having this forum: to help people learn about photography. Visitors have browsed the gallery, found a few striking images and want to know things like why is it a good picture, why does it work? Or, indeed, why doesn't it work, or how could it be improved? Try to answer such questions with your contribution.

what i find interesting is that none of the original comments prior to POW have actually adientified what they like about this image or what makes it a good image.
This images strength is the repetition in triangulation, it is a theme that is repeated throughout the image, from the inverted foreground triangular shapes to the smaller items in the background. The composition helps. the tonal value is also of interest, yet for me it has elements of muddiness, especially in the sky area. It's either well thought out with this objective in mind or just luck, I would like to know if that is what the photographer was seeing.

It is an interesting perspective on a typical Germanic cities. Yes, the triangulation works nicely. But it is the unusual perspective that makes this photograph unique. I have seen views like this when I lived in Germany. This is the backside of grand architecture. My only problem with this image is the sepia cast. It was would be far better in plain black and white.

Echo Alex; the artificial toning is a distraction from the natural strength(s) of the photo. Never have understood why people use it. Oh well, to each his own....

Well, it isn't just all the triangles that make this work for me...it's the combination of all the geometric shapes here. I mean, if you're into geometric shapes, I think there's probably one in this photograph to satisfy everyone. If you stare at it long enough, it might be a bit overwhelming.

I have no problem with the toning at all. I think it's nicely done, and it isn't over done. And I'm not sure why someone would classify the toning as "artificial". As far as that goes, it's a digital capture, so even b&w would be "artificial". And for those of us who've worked in a darkroom, all toning is basically artificial...sepia, platinum, palladium, cyanotype, whatever. There are no films that give you a toned print right out of the box, although I think Polaroid briefly made a sepia instant film. So...artificial toning? No, I don't think so. Just another way of processing an image, whether it's done in PS or in a chemical bath. It's a matter of taste...some like it, some don't.

All in all, I like it, but I wouldn't have minded seeing a bit more contrast...but still, it's a nice scene, and different from the usual street level photography we see so much of.

 

Very nice composition with an unusual perspective. I like the V shape of FG framing the upside down V's of the BG.
I find it as an interesting eye observation.I do agree to the comment about the sepia toning, I think that it would have been better in B/W just as a way to enhance details in general (not as an ''artificial"way...;-)), that said I congratulate Maurizio for a very nice POW work.

I had a completely different take on this photograph, one that Maurizio probably didn't have in mind. What stood out so prominently to my eye when I first saw the photo was the drain pipe, probably because it is prominent in the foreground and is a relatively light color. To my eye, that immediately became the primary object in the photo, and the rest of the elements -- the sloping roofs and particularly the grand buildings in the background -- were only secondary objects that related to the drainage pipe, part of the infrastructure of this assemblage of striking buildings. I'm not normally prone to reading interpretation into a photograph, but the prominence (to my eye) of the little piece of drainpipe added an aspect to the human-derived grand architecture that we seldom see and probably even less often think about (unless you're an architect or civil engineer). Despite the great and historic and cultural architecture of the place, it still has to deal with what are probably perceived as problems when it simply rains. What to do with rain water, runoff, and the chemicals and detritus that such water carries along with it? I see this as a mild commentary on our built environment, asking us to take on a more holistic view of urban environments and our technological achievements. I may be alone in this view, but that drain pipe just happened to catch and hold my eye.

Stephen, reading your impressions, I would like to add that I saw the drain pipe element as an' answer'(color) to the bright parts in the BG, and as an eye leading to the BG in general. Thats why I liked Maurizio camera point in the first place.

I do not admire V shapes and plumber works. Something hangs in the air indeed, but air is brown as in the poor darkroom works in the past.

I like the vantage point used to give this photo the "Vee" perspective it has. Thr tiangulation most always works as an interesting geometric for holding the viewer's attention. It also works well here. At first, I thought it too tight at the bottom; after continued viewing it doesn't bother me. I do think it would be more of an advantage in a straight B&W, rather than the sepia. I think the sepia hurts the already bland, plain sky

I like the vantage point used to give this photo the "Vee" perspective it has. Thr tiangulation most always works as an interesting geometric for holding the viewer's attention. It also works well here. At first, I thought it too tight at the bottom; after continued viewing it doesn't bother me. I do think it would be more of an advantage in a straight B&W, rather than the sepia. I think the sepia hurts the already bland, plain sky

I like the composition. It is very original and capturing the "cityscape" in a triangle works well here. I would like to see it a bit brighter. Also what bothers me a bit is the fact that it is tilted to the left for about one degree. Maybe most people don't see it , but I am quite sensitive in that aspect and it isn't much trouble to correct that.

Excellent composition, V - for Victory, Congratulations!

The framing device is well executed, though this type of framing device doesn't do much for me as it does seem somewhat ubiquitous. The difference here may be in the original triangle's repetition throughout the frame, which makes it that much more a PART of the photo and therefore somewhat less of simply a device.

Among the reasons to tone a black and white photo are personal preference, sometimes added depth and enhancement of lighting, a change in mood . . . It's another aesthetic tool, not good or bad in and of itself but rather good or bad depending on the particular usage.

In this case, I think a black and white with no toning would be less interesting and the sky is more dull without it. Having desaturated this photo, I found it a little bland without the toning. That said, the toning here may be a bit much, a bit thick, and it might be "toned" down to a more subtle effect, but overall I'd say it adds. These old buildings often have a creaminess to their whites and I think the toning is trying to approximate that. I don't read it as sepia, though ideas of what's sepia do seem to vary.

The pipe is a nice feature, doesn't bother me at all. Lech's cropping seems very self conscious to me and it throws the feeling of depth off quite a bit. The suggested re-crop seems quite awkward to me. I don't read anything into the pipe's being there and don't see it as symbolic or part of a greater narrative than what I see presented here. But I do like its inclusion.

This critique is really not about Maurizio's image, but more about Fred's excellent discussion on the image.
I go along with everything he has said. To my mind, if the contrast is a little lower than some would like it, then blame it upon the original scene lighting, not the post processing. This image would appear to have been made in somewhat "dreary" lighting, and has been processed faithfully. The slight colour cast adds to the ambience.

This critique is really not about Maurizio's image, but more about Fred's excellent discussion on the image.
I go along with everything he has said. To my mind, if the contrast is a little lower than some would like it, then blame it upon the original scene lighting, not the post processing. This image would appear to have been made in somewhat "dreary" lighting, and has been processed faithfully. The slight colour cast adds to the ambience.

Seems to me that a judicious amount of overall brightening helps, although maybe I've made the foreground pop a little too much.

See attached.