The Arch

I was driving home today and something about this scene caught my eye. It also happens to fit my current self-challenge of aproaching common subject, or those that I have previously photographed from a different viewpoint. Comments/critique/sugg​estions appreciated.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Picture wise, I kind of like it. I visit Seattle quite a bit, and I know how hard it is to find a new way of looking at the Space Needle.

I would have liked a little more of the flagpoles. With the flags so close to the inferior edge, it does seem a bottom heavy. Also, I would have liked a little more whiteness (or brightness) on the Arch itself. It seems to be reflecting a lot of blue from the sky, and (as such) it seems a bit dark.

As far as the post goes, ehhh. I am seeing quite a bit of haloing around the arch and flags. Is that on purpose - or is that jpg artifacting? If it is artifacting, I have a comment -

The full image (picture + artificial frame) is 570x800 or 456,000 pixels.

The actual image (picture only) is 494x700 or 345,800 pixels.

So out of 456k pixels, only 345k was the picture. You used almost 25% if the space of the shot on the artificial frame. Had you trashed the frame, you could have increased the quality of the jpg file, or increased the picture size, giving the board a better looking shot to critique. Seems as though that would have been a better use of bandwidth. Just something to think about for next time.

Rad

Rad- thanks for the coments. I too would have like to see more of the flagpoles in the frame to help anchor the shot, but there is no way to get that angle and have more of the flagpoles. The shot was taken from a level about 6-8 ft below street level and you only gain a very ugly concrete wall by including more of the foreground.

As for the halos- it is not intentional, but they are in fact present in the raw image. As best I can tell, this is related to the harsh, strong lighting today. This shot was taken around 1030, so the sun was relatively high overhead. There is not much of a change from the RAW to the JPEG in this regard. It took a pretty heavy curves adjustment to remove some of the blue reflection in the arch in the processing of the posted shot. I might try a layer mask with a screen overlay to see if I can maybe localy adjust the arch color. As far as the frame goes, usually I'm not much on these type frames, but for some reason I felt the image was lacking something to "finish" it after the resize for web. Although it realy doesn't "fix" whatever is mising for some reason the framed version felt better to me. I know that is a personal preference issue, so I will try and post a version of the image without the frame for comparison. Thanks again for the comments- I need some input from more experienced eyes to learn and improve.

Interesting perspective.
I won't criticize you for tilting your camera upwards to get as much of the arch as you could - provided that you understand that that makes the flagpoles suffer from "converging verticals". OK?

Wow.....So many things to think of when your shooting......

I like the pic myself. I do agree that the Arch could be brighter but it still looks great. I might be a little biased since I live here...

Bob- I was definitely aware of the convergence of the flagpoles. This is the shot that has the least distortion in that respect. I have many other angles from that morning, and it amazing how much perspective changes when you are working with a combination of straight lines and curves which are both above the level at which you are shooting.

Reeforbust wrote:
Wow.....So many things to think of when your shooting......

I like the pic myself. I do agree that the Arch could be brighter but it still looks great. I might be a little biased since I live here...

Thanks. I'll work on the arch some later this weekend- I have a few important deadlines at work in the next few days that must come first.