# Washington Monument in Early Morning



## Trblmkr (Feb 18, 2013)

I shot this early morning this weekend on a very cloudy over cast night.

ISO 100
F 5.6
15Sec exposure


----------



## Photographiend (Feb 20, 2013)

This pic could benefit a recrop utilizing the rule of thirds... That said... I would still have no clue what I was looking at... What is that?

At any rate. Happy photoing... and Welcome to the forum.


----------



## spacefuzz (Feb 20, 2013)

reflections can usually be split down the middle comp wise, but this subject is so skinny I dont think it works as well that way. Also if your going to leave it like this, I would content aware fill in photoshop that tree out. Then you would have horizontal and vertical symmetry. Thats just how I would approach it.


----------



## eswebster (Feb 20, 2013)

spacefuzz said:


> reflections can usually be split down the middle comp wise, but this subject is so skinny I dont think it works as well that way. Also if your going to leave it like this, I would content aware fill in photoshop that tree out. Then you would have horizontal and vertical symmetry. Thats just how I would approach it.



Agree.  The limb is distracting.  Great shot though.


----------



## Trblmkr (Feb 20, 2013)

Photographiend said:


> This pic could benefit a recrop utilizing the rule of thirds... That said... I would still have no clue what I was looking at... What is that?
> 
> At any rate. Happy photoing... and Welcome to the forum.



I'd love to see how you'd crop it.

Thanks for the pointers, I actually wanted the tree in there to show some distance between where I was and where the monument was.  I do have other shots of the monument that are full frame and done veritcally vs. horizontally.


----------



## eswebster (Feb 20, 2013)

My attempt at a crop.  






Nice picture, super sharp.


----------



## Laylaluke (Feb 21, 2013)

I didn&#8217;t knew Washington could be so beautiful in early morning and it&#8217;s perfect shot to be exposed.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 21, 2013)

Photographiend said:


> That said... I would still have no clue what I was looking at... What is that?



ummmmmm... it's the Washington Monument?  wtf? 


To the OP...

1. You had an awesome sky.
2. You chose a really bad composition.
3. You chose a pretty bad place to shoot from.

You may not have been able to control 3, but 2 is unfortunate.  New crop is better but something tells me there must have been SOMETHING around there you could have taken advantage of to make this a better shot.

Still, nice exposure and such.


----------



## Photographiend (Feb 21, 2013)

manaheim said:


> ummmmmm... it's the Washington Monument?  wtf?



I didn't realize we had a glowing monument.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 21, 2013)

Photographiend said:


> I didn't realize we had a glowing monument.



I would reckon you're right, you had no idea that the monument was lit by a number of lights. If you're an American though, it's pretty obvious what we are looking at IMO. You can't really say that you'd understand immediately what this is if it was a black silhouette.

I suggest you google "Washington monument at night."

OP, the composition is lacking but you have a great subject. I would love to see more if you're in close proximity to the monument.


----------



## Photographiend (Feb 21, 2013)

You know the bigger looming question here is why, on this forum, when someone has a question it is met with the tone of "You are a blithering Idiot!" ? 

I don't know why I bother trying to come back here after my last tangle with the "Rabbit". 

If there is a Mod here *Please remove my account and my threads. 
*
Thank you for your time.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 21, 2013)

Photographiend said:


> You know the bigger looming question here is why, on this forum, when someone has a question it is met with the tone of "You are a blithering Idiot!" ?
> 
> I don't know why I bother trying to come back here after my last tangle with the "Rabbit".
> 
> ...



I don't think anyone was suggesting you are a blithering idiot. I certainly wasn't. I was simply agreeing with you that you didn't realize the monument was lit by a number of lights, and that by googling "Washington monument" at night, you'd see several similar photos.

I did find it quite odd that you didn't know what you were looking at, judging by the thread title and how iconic the monument is. But I did not think you were an idiot by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## amolitor (Feb 21, 2013)

manaheim, you bully. If you keep driving people off with your vicious attacks, there won't be anyone left here pretty soon.

Photographiend, since you didn't recognize the Washington Monument, I am gonna take a guess that maybe you don't live in the USA, and maybe even english isn't your first language? In any case, I though manaheim's tone was a little rude, but mostly trying to joke around with you a little. Sometimes these things backfire and the other guy just sees an insult, especially if there's a language barrier, but sometimes when there is not.


----------



## texkam (Feb 21, 2013)

I love it when people break the rules and others don't get it and have a fit. I think the photo works just fine as presented. I get the visual importance of the branch and the play on symmetry. eswebster's crop follows the rules to a T, but the result couldn't be more cliche. The play between the strong vertical and horizontal just went away. The branch is such a strong visual arrow emphasizing the obnoxiously obvious focal target which is made even more obvious by splitting the horizon in half emhasizing the uber illumnated subject even more. The monument itself broke rules, a neo-egyptian obelisk standing as the tallest structure on earth. This image simply reinforces that. Yes, I like it.


----------



## Photographiend (Feb 21, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> I don't think anyone was suggesting you are a blithering idiot. I certainly wasn't. I was simply agreeing with you that you didn't realize the monument was lit by a number of lights, and that by googling "Washington monument" at night, you'd see several similar photos.
> 
> I did find it quite odd that you didn't know what you were looking at, judging by the thread title and how iconic the monument is. But I did not think you were an idiot by any stretch of the imagination.



Nothing against you Tyler. Your comment was not the one that got my Goat.  

amolitor - I'm not sure if that was intended to be reassuring, understanding or a cloaked insult... I am both American and English speaking. 

That said, that is the first time I have seen that Monument illuminated. To me the illumination makes it look kind of cheesy. With the two big red dots at the top... (not meant as an insult to the work just seemed odd that it wouldn't be presented in a more flattering way 'cause in my mind "that" couldn't be the "Washington Monument") This is why I asked what it was. Also being an American, I know we have a tendency to make Mock monuments as are seen all over Vegas... I was wondering if this was the case here.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 21, 2013)

Photographiend said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think anyone was suggesting you are a blithering idiot. I certainly wasn't. I was simply agreeing with you that you didn't realize the monument was lit by a number of lights, and that by googling "Washington monument" at night, you'd see several similar photos.
> ...



Red dots = Aircraft warning lights.... 

and the monument is white.. and fairly reflective, hence the "glow"


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 21, 2013)

"Got my goat." That's one I have never heard. I like it!


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 21, 2013)

In this photo I like the contrast of the monument and the coppery color of the sky. I don't think the monument looks any brighter than the lights along the shore, and a long enough exposure was probably used so it enhanced the brightness of the monument and the sky. 

I think the evergreen branch w/the pinecones somewhat frames the shot, but there isn't anything to balance the branch which seems to make for too much space on the right side of the photo. I'd probably try a couple of different crops - the right side maybe just to the right of the small orangish glow in the sky, and another cropping closer to the taller tree along the right side of the skyline. I think I'd like it better with the monument not quite so centered, but it's a beautiful photo that might benefit from some cropping to adjust the balance in the composition.

I haven't been posting on this board very long and already feel like I've read too many threads like this one. I particularly don't understand the way it seems like people new to the board are subjected to a certain amount of derision. I think suggestions or critique can be given in a respectful way but that doesn't necessarily seem to be expected or enforced on here. 

Sharon


----------



## manaheim (Feb 21, 2013)

amolitor said:
			
		

> manaheim, you bully. If you keep driving people off with your vicious attacks, there won't be anyone left here pretty soon.
> 
> Photographiend, since you didn't recognize the Washington Monument, I am gonna take a guess that maybe you don't live in the USA, and maybe even english isn't your first language? In any case, I though manaheim's tone was a little rude, but mostly trying to joke around with you a little. Sometimes these things backfire and the other guy just sees an insult, especially if there's a language barrier, but sometimes when there is not.



I know I'm a monster.  A cute fuzzy monster.

Photofiend... There were several levels to my comment, but I was mostly joking.

That said, this is the Washington Monument, so yeah... Your not being aware of what was is kinda shocking.  Yes, it is a somewhat nondescript obelisk (built intentionally that way, btw) but it is THE somewhat nondescript obelisk.  Not recognizing it is akin to not recognizing the Eiffel Tower.  Kinda bizarre no matter where you live.  Oh and there is also that one little issue of the whole thread being titled WASHINGTON MONUMENT IN EARLY MORNING, which struck me as sort of a dead giveaway. Yeah?  No?  I dunno.  If it was titled ROTTEN CABBAGE HEAD ON THE PLAINS IN SPAIN i could understand the confusion, but... Maybe I'm alone here. 

So yeah, I was joking, but yeah I was also making fun of you a little.  It wasn't intended in poor spirit, but come on... How can I possibly resist?  

You sort of have to understand me and my upbringing to fully get it.  My family teases one another mercilessly when they do mildly silly things, and what you did was mildly silly.

If you still take offense at it... Meh.  You need to grow a tougher carapace.  What I did was NOTHING compared to some of the abuse I see on the Internet for far lesser crimes.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 21, 2013)

*EVIL BUNNY!*


----------



## manaheim (Feb 21, 2013)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> EVIL BUNNY!



Lol need to redo my avatar as a sith.


----------



## eswebster (Feb 21, 2013)

texkam said:


> I love it when people break the rules and others don't get it and have a fit. I think the photo works just fine as presented. I get the visual importance of the branch and the play on symmetry. eswebster's crop follows the rules to a T, but the result couldn't be more cliche. The play between the strong vertical and horizontal just went away. The branch is such a strong visual arrow emphasizing the obnoxiously obvious focal target which is made even more obvious by splitting the horizon in half emhasizing the uber illumnated subject even more. The monument itself broke rules, a neo-egyptian obelisk standing as the tallest structure on earth. This image simply reinforces that. Yes, I like it.



Still learning, so I was just impressed I was able to use the content aware healing tool to remove the tree.  Lesson I am taking away is that following rules may be a good guideline but not always appropriate.  Thanks for the response and viewpoint texkam.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 21, 2013)

eswebster said:


> texkam said:
> 
> 
> > I love it when people break the rules and others don't get it and have a fit. I think the photo works just fine as presented. I get the visual importance of the branch and the play on symmetry. eswebster's crop follows the rules to a T, but the result couldn't be more cliche. The play between the strong vertical and horizontal just went away. The branch is such a strong visual arrow emphasizing the obnoxiously obvious focal target which is made even more obvious by splitting the horizon in half emhasizing the uber illumnated subject even more. The monument itself broke rules, a neo-egyptian obelisk standing as the tallest structure on earth. This image simply reinforces that. Yes, I like it.
> ...



The "RULES" are only Guidelines to start with!     The trick is knowing when to use them.. and when to break them!  lol!


----------



## ATVrider43 (Feb 21, 2013)

I like this photo a lot.  I don't know what all the fuss is about.... Its a very well done photo at night of the monument.  If I google it, I think your photo is one of the best of the google search, I love the colors and the shadows from the trees and reflections! But this would do it more justice:


----------



## Trblmkr (Feb 21, 2013)

I have thick skin and had read a few of the forums here before I posted.  I take criticism for what it is, someone's opinion.  That being said, I'm still learning (obviously) so I look at what everybody has to say and try to understand it from their point of view.

Eswebster (sorry if I got your handle wrong)... thanks for the recropping.

I could have even touched up the lights on top of the monument so they aren't so friggin bright LOL.

Thank you all for looking and at least having an opinion. I'm not going anywhere, yet.


----------



## Photographiend (Feb 21, 2013)

:love: 

Thanks for that guys... sorry for being such a drama queen.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 21, 2013)

Evil SITH Bunny!   (working with an image this size sucks! lol!)


----------



## manaheim (Feb 21, 2013)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> Evil SITH Bunny!  <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=36921"/> (working with an image this size sucks! lol!)



BAHAHAHAHA!!!


----------



## Photographiend (Feb 21, 2013)

LMAO... Nice


----------



## PropilotBW (Feb 22, 2013)

eswebster said:


> My attempt at a crop.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I have to disagree.  This is a horrible crop.   The branch needed to be removed, but there is such thing as Symmetrical Art.  Not all shots have to use the "rule of thirds".  I like the first shot better.


----------



## sm4him (Feb 22, 2013)

manaheim said:


> So yeah, I was joking, but yeah I was also making fun of you a little.  It wasn't intended in poor spirit, but come on... How can I possibly resist?
> 
> You sort of have to understand me and my upbringing to fully get it.  My family teases one another mercilessly when they do mildly silly things, and what you did was mildly silly.



I'm pretty sure we must be related... :lmao:


----------



## manaheim (Feb 22, 2013)

sm4him said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure we must be related... :lmao:



Lol sweet!!


----------

