which one do you think the best

[StephenBatey]

Originally Posted by ianpinion

Personally, it does for me, but of course everyone is entitled to their own subjective opinion. It would be boring if we all shared the same point of view.

Respectfully, I don't think that you've thought it through - or you have a vastly different idea to me on the nature of photography that I personally think is too limited. But I'm not getting in a debate over this - I just want people to think about it.

[markgozz]

For me the composition of the fourth shot works the best but it's a real shame the sky has been over processed .

Mark

[OldBoy]

Originally Posted by StephenBatey

Does the subject have to appear in the photograph?

If the subject doesn't appear in the photo then it can't be the subject?

[kyenyen]

very nice pic....

[JonnyM]

Originally Posted by OldBoy

If the subject doesn't appear in the photo then it can't be the subject?

The viaduct may just be a device to help tell the story, there doesn't have to be a literal subject in the image, does there?

[Jediboy]

Like so many aspects of photography, isn't this a matter of personal choice? There is no right or wrong. Just a thought.

[StephenBatey]

Originally Posted by Jediboy

Like so many aspects of photography, isn't this a matter of personal choice? There is no right or wrong. Just a thought.

I'll have to disagree with you one that.

It may be a matter of personal choice whether or not the subject of the photograph appears in it, but to say that the subject must always appear in the photograph must be either correct or incorrect. The first is a matter of choice; the second is a statement that photography must be done this way. And whether you agree or disagree with the statement, you can't have it both ways. Unless you don't agree with Aristotle on the excluded middle of course.

This is so far off the original post that I'm not continuing with it.

On the original topic, I am disappointed that what I see as the main point at issue has been studiously ignored by most of the replies in the thread.

[Jediboy]

Originally Posted by StephenBatey

I'll have to disagree with you one that.

It may be a matter of personal choice whether or not the subject of the photograph appears in it, but to say that the subject must always appear in the photograph must be either correct or incorrect. The first is a matter of choice; the second is a statement that photography must be done this way. And whether you agree or disagree with the statement, you can't have it both ways. Unless you don't agree with Aristotle on the excluded middle of course.

This is so far off the original post that I'm not continuing with it.

On the original topic, I am disappointed that what I see as the main point at issue has been studiously ignored by most of the replies in the thread.

I thought you might disagree.
But I do agree with you. You have taken this a long way off the original post, and quite a bizarre way.

[StephenBatey]

The question re whether the subject must always appear in the image is somewhat off topic, but only because virtually everyone who has participated in this thread has directed it away from what seems to me an important point, and the reason why I preferred (as I still do) the first image.

I will agree though that according to the forum categories, what I consider the main point at issue belongs in the section discussing artistic photography, and not here. I find it bizarre that artistry falls outside photo critique, but that's really because I approach photography as an art form.

I don't disagree because I want to be argumentative; I just saw that almost everyone missed what seemed to me to be a most important point; one that, if grasped could help their photography. It's because I don't like seeing people not reaching their full potential that I ask (at times) awkward questions, to try to make people think. Usually I fail...

On that note, I bow out.

[Edmack]

The first is 2 pictures.
4th, with a bit less contrast, and work on the sky, would improve, bit lost on the subject bit. . Ed.