Arabella Dane
About the Image(s)
I was working on how best to show the structure of the amazing mortarless stone arch bridges we have here in NH. They were built around and before 1800.
Which is the better picture as one doesn’t show the actual keystone of the arch (Main image) and the other (Original 1) has too much extraneous detail? I prefer the former. What do you think?
This round’s discussion is now closed!
8 comments posted
Tom Pickering
Both images are well captured, with good exposure, focus, and tonal adjustments. I must say that I prefer the Original 1 version as it gives more context to the bridge.
Using that, I would suggest cropping out a little from the right and bottom, adding some contrast, some targeted dodging and burning, and a bit of sharpening. Here's my example:   Posted: 12/06/2019 16:10:43
Using that, I would suggest cropping out a little from the right and bottom, adding some contrast, some targeted dodging and burning, and a bit of sharpening. Here's my example:   Posted: 12/06/2019 16:10:43
Arabella Dane
This now actually tells the story! I thank you for the direction you took with it. Much improved.   Posted: 12/08/2019 06:39:19
Miriam Power
Arabella Dane
cool! Thank you   Posted: 12/08/2019 08:18:51
Both versions are strong in different ways. The original, with Tom's changes, really showcases the arch. The closer-in main image has wonderful texture and color contrast.   Posted: 12/13/2019 18:49:13
Arabella Dane
Thanks Brenda. Everyone's suggestions certainly bring out the best in both versions. What a generous group we have!   Posted: 12/14/2019 05:42:46
Rusty Pinckney
I prefer the original. The composition is spot on. In my opinion Tom's version with the river is the most appealing though all have interest.   Posted: 12/23/2019 22:18:39