The Ferris Wheel

[Justan]

Thanks for looking.

[Alexandre da Veiga]

Am I the only one the cannot see the Ferris wheel?

I believe the this image should be without the foreground.
First, if you are going to use the foreground, which give depth to landscapes, it should be focused, but in this case to have the foreground focus, you would need a longer exposure, and the would blow the lights. Second, I feel that the image is not balanced, you have a whole lot of water and a two little pieces of foreground and sky.

I would rather see more sky and no foreground and less water.

[LeeIs]

I agree with Alexandre, the foreground is distracting here. A crop would make this a lot better. Also, Justan, do you have photoshop? I think the water needs to be smoothed out more. Select the water, go to, filter -> Blur -> Motion blur, make sure the angle is 0º and try a high number in the distance.

The city lights and cityscape are all very nice here. I think the only thing that needs improving is the water.

[MotorToad]

Hrm, I like it better as is.

[AgingEyes]

To me, this image looks flat in the sense that everything looks like they fall on the same plane, the sense of depth is not obvious. The water looks like it's frozen. Maybe post-processed a bit too much?

[arne saknussen]

I like the reflection, sorta Monet-ish. On the right center, is that the moon. Seems like it could be the moon, but not distinctly. And where is the ferris wheel?

[Justan]

Hi all,

Thanks for the many thoughtful comments. I'm gonna quote with a > character and reply.

>Am I the only one the cannot see the Ferris wheel?

Seriously? It's the brightest element in the composition. Well maybe the implied point is that it should be obvious to even the imagination challenged (not to suggest that you are), or that I should change the title. Either way, point taken. I found a vantage point a little further south that reveals the wheel as an oval rather than an "I" shape. My alternate title was "Crains" as they are used as book ends for this composition. I thought about that briefly but then expected someone would say "I can’t see any birds...."

>if you are going to use the foreground, which give depth to landscapes, it should be focused,

WRT being in focus, not always. I do believe this one looks crappy but wanted - and received - confirmation of that.

> but in this case to have the foreground focus, you would need a longer exposure, and the would blow the lights

Not at all true. It would require a longer exposure but that would not of necessity blow the highlights. Aperture and shutter speed work hand in hand, but thanks for the observation all the same.

>Second, I feel that the image is not balanced, you have a whole lot of water and a two little pieces of foreground and sky

A reasonable observation but I rather like the elements as shown, except that I'm not thrilled with the foreground. Of course the reason for these posts is to solicit thoughtful feedback, which you and others provided.

>Also, Justan, do you have photoshop? I think the water needs to be smoothed out more. Select the water, go to, filter -> Blur -> Motion blur, make sure the angle is 0º and try a high number in the distance.

Photoshop? Is that the little booths where they used to sell film? Seriously, I rather like the water. It is deliberately the main part of the composition.

>Hrm, I like it better as is.

Thanks!

>To me, this image looks flat in the sense that everything looks like they fall on the same plane, the sense of depth is not obvious. The water looks like it's frozen. Maybe post-processed a bit too much?

Interesting. I'll ponder this a bit.

>like the reflection, sorta Monet-ish.

That or rather impressionism was one of the goals.

> On the right center, is that the moon.

Yes. I take it you would like to see more pop there? I didn’t want it to be brighter than the remainder of the composition.

Thanks again!

[arne saknussen]

i am trying desperately to find the ferris wheel. Is there an actual Ferris Wheel? Or does something in this shot remind you of a Ferris Wheel. Just right center is a bright white structure, but it could be anything, i.e., i see no wheel that would define that structure as a Ferris Wheel. is the moon supposed to be the wheel?
Unless you are being allegorical, in which case, I still do not see it.

[AgingEyes]

i am trying desperately to find the ferris wheel...

I'm guessing for that Ferris Wheel to look like a wheel, this photo has to be taken from a different angle.

[GB1]

This one has good elements Justan, but I think it's flaws prevent it from being a good shot. First off, I think a shot like this is more effective when the buildings and light reflections are well defined in the water. This requires very calm water however (and a short exposure). The out of focus rocks etc in the foreground are distracting to me - if they were sharp I think I would like them better. On my monitor here, the buildings seem too bright and almost blown out. I agree that its very very flat, though I also know there's little one can do about it. Perhaps waiting till a boat is anchored in the scene would provide depth. Is that a hint of a moon there on the right side? Not sure what it adds here.

For the good elements, I think the color of the water is interesting, and that the pictures creates the feeling of a 'big' city. The flatness also creates an unusual allure in its own way.

GB

[geraldb]

I'm afraid the only thing looks good to me in this image is the cityscape. The water looks too blue and blurred, and what is the circle in the sky?, the moon will never be that size compared to the buildings, and that low unless it is about to hit the earth. Overly done images could very well have opposite impact if not being careful and things make sense. If you meant it to be a creative art, that is perfectly fine but you should presented accordingly.

[Justan]

Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I’ve replaced the foreground with something less hideous and toned down some of the PP a bit.

And then a few days later found a slightly better vantage point.