I quite like it the way it is. The field & homestead are separated by a the "river" of purple flowers, with 3 distinct zones. If anything I would like more of the lower section. If it had been composed as you suggest, then it's just another cliched building in a field shot.
There's no need to justify the composition. The image is the way it is because that's what the photographer wanted. Whether you, me or anyone else approves is immaterial. Cheers, Dave On 9/4/06, Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is a question about composition. I came across the following photo > (not mine): > > http://www.zyeuter.com/bon_baiser_de_valensole/photo107872.html > > There is much about it that I like, but I think that the bottom third is > a mistake. It seems to me that the photographer should have cut off the > bottom third, then extended the composition somewhat to the right (if > possible--maybe there's a cement plant there), placing the building at > the upper-left "golden rectangle" point. > > What do others think? Is there justification for keeping the lower third? > > Joe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
