Another composition.
I feel i was watching the composition so heavily i almost missed the dogs.
imho i never had this flaring when i shot canon, or rather i never noticed it.
interesting. my personal take:
- i'd like to see more foreground, the dogs are too far to the bottom. i feel like i'd like to see a crop that comes over the top just above the lightpole and down to touch the curb on the right.
- the sun is overbearing and it's washing out the top right third. it looks like you upped the contrast to compensate but this leaves the left third too dark and heavy. also, there's some lens flare at the top of those bricks.
In terms of composition, it seems complex and not disorganized. The converging lines of the street draw the eye in, but don't lead anywhere interesting. The dogs lead the out of the frame it two diverging directions. The solar lens flare lead the eye up and out, unrelated the the other conflicting flows.
i wanted a big composition. like a city in a street. for large prints.
The main composition was supposed to be the diagonals, the rest based on the eye being drawn from dark to light and moving towards contrasts.
If there is enough going on in a picture, the eye starts looping around moving from part to part and going back to the start, which was my final goal. i will try this again.
I dig images that "loop" and have a strong ability to keep the viewer engaged, without them exiting the frame or getting bored ... one that facilitates "exploration" of nuance even deeper, each time they "go around the loop".
However, that is something that is a bit different from a random/scattered busy/cluttered scene where the viewer is being tugged and pulled in chaotic directions due to a lack of cohesion/harmony of lines, tones and subjects. ... or is in search of something to "latch" on to.
Tones, lines, scale, mass, subject, contrast, etc. ... they can all have "draw the eye" capability. Putting them together in a way that they work in harmony/cohesion with each other is a challenge. Occasionally, they can be challengingly pitted against each other in a juxtaposition that is engaging the viewer in a compare/contrast mental exercise. Otherwise, the less harmonic/cohesive they are ... the more they can become a "hot mess" confusing the viewer. Having "a lot" to look at can be difficult for the viewer, unless you give them a treasure map to follow. Without the map to guide them where you want to take them, it becomes more of a scavenger hunt.
This one has so much "going on" that isn't cohesive (at best) and is conflicting (at worst) ... it just leaves me "lost" at what/where it is that your point/message for me as a viewer really is supposed to be.
Here are some changes ... better/worse/different ... a few of each (some over-exaggeration included), just for comparison at how the changes impact the viewer.
As always, S&P to taste.
BTW ... any idea what that "aberration" that Karen circled is?
... when you say "big composition" ... could you clarify for me what you mean by that
Before you make your decision to "add" foreground, my question would be "What do you hope to gain/change by doing so?" The same would be asked @ tilt/shift ... why?
For me, composition is all about knowing what the message/point that you want to steer your viewer to is ... then using the tools of your choosing to do so. Simply applying a tool without having a specifically intended effect is like dumping salt or pepper (S&P to taste) en mass on a meal, whereas a chef will strive to interplay tastes & textures to create an experience that is more than a biological refueling pit stop ... instead, one that you want to savor as you linger and enjoy it's crafted flavors and nuance.
Meat or mush, stew or steak ... it's all about how things are seasoned, textured and combined, so it is with the composition of words, food, music, pics, etc. ... how you compose the pieces of the puzzle to push/pull your finished product where you want it.
... when you say "big composition" ... could you clarify for me what you mean by that 
