Enjoyable shot!

Roy says more road and less sky.

Thank you for your kind suggestion, but in this instance the sky is very much part of the picture and does not need cropping.

Roy wants to know what's so special about this sky that you need so much of it.
And why crop the bridge when that is an integral part of the picture?
Or has the bridge been added from another location?

Marvelous pair! Stay well!

Admired in: www.ipernity.com/group/tolerance

I assume here that you're referring to the shot,above, in the Comments section.

1. There was nothing special about the sky - in fact it should have been semi-Sheppertoned like the later shot, but either way the sky was incidental and not the subject of the picture. The elements of the picture were arranged to best fill the frame, and that included including the foliage at the top which holds it together.

2. The bridge was not cropped. The picture was taken with the camera set to 1:1 AR and that was the entirety of the frame. The bridge (which IS at that location - this was the bridge toll house) was hidden behind a b****y white van. There's a constant stream of traffic on that bit of road and one has to wait very patiently for a gap. On that occasion (a year ago) I was on an organised walk and (without losing the party, already disappearing far up the road) couldn't wait any longer. I airbrushed out the van as best I could but lost the bridge regardless. That's why, yesterday, I drove to Inglesham via Pangbourne so that I could re-take it. It was the same time of day and month so I knew the lighting and shadows would be similar.

The 2022 version with the bridge looks much better, as that gives context to the house being there, but you really don't need that excess sky at the top, or the foliage.

We'll really have to agree to differ on how much sky, in a picture, is "needed". There may be a dichotomy between where the eye is drawn and composition per se - where and how the subject fits in the frame and is balanced within it. Which is more important is a matter of artistic judgement. Roy's suggestion above looks, to me, rather truncated and utilitarian.

That's how Roy feels about most of yours.

Why did you want to "truncate" this one?
www.ipernity.com/doc/isisbridge/51311772

hanks for posting your wonderful picture to

www.ipernity.com/group/buildings

To humour Roy. But you (not he) took the picture and published it in its full, untruncated glory, and that's a credit to your artistic judgement.

Don't get you. Roy LIKES a lot of lead in.

But only, it seems, if that lead in is upwards, starting at the bottom. Perhaps that's a difference between his eye and mine, I looking at pictures in a top-to-bottom direction.

I recently bought a print of Constable's Dedham Vale (my all-time favourite picture) and noticed that of the many prints of his work for sale, quite often the replicas are cropped versions of the originals. What might that say about modern-day, mass-market judgement and taste?

How can you look at a picture in top-to-bottom direction if it's taken from ground level?

I could be wrong.