>>3292106Thats an interesting structure. You had the right idea using it as your subject...
The main issue I have is that I didn't know what I was looking at right off the bat. In fact, my first instinct was that you had tilted the camera sideways. After inspecting the image I can guess that it is the underside of a bridge (the coloured warning thing gave it away)... But thats the issue. I had to figure out what I was looking at before I could enjoy the image. My suggestion is to include a "landmark" in the picture (not a literal landmark, but something thats really easy to identify so people know what they are looking at right off the bat). I assume that the coloured thing had a label with the bridges clearance, yes? Something like that might be a good "landmark."
Also the tiny hint of colour at the very edge of the image is a little distracting. Something like that needs to be either focused on or cropped (in an otherwise colourless image, at least).
Decent subject matter that could have been framed "clearer." Interesting to look at, but a little disorientating at first.
>>3292109Again, interesting structure; very nice building. However, I feel like there are two issues. The first is that the front face of the building is under lit compared to the roof. My instinct when opening the image was to look at the roof, then the sky, then the background building, and then bright grass, water, etc. I get the feeling you wanted me to look at the center building's facade, but it just seemed so drab relative the the rest of the image. I'd also try to center the building a little better, but that can be fixed in post with an image like this...
That said, I bet if you went back to that very same spot on an overcast day and took the exact same picture, that you'd end up with a much more appealing picture. Without the bright sky to steal the viewers attention it'd be really easy to focus of the facade... Maybe even a night picture with those lamps turned on?
