Framing, DOF and pose are fine. Let's talk about subject distance / focal length, and about lighting.

To those of you who developed during the age of the selfie, this might not be so apparent, but to me, these shots are taken from far too close to the subject. This gives a view that a boxer would love: the jaw and nose are nice and big; the ears are small and far away. (OK, so maybe Mike Tyson wouldn't be a fan.) If you are looking for a somewhat aggressive, "comin' at ya" sort of effect, I guess this works. Otherwise, I'd suggest stepping back and using a longer focal length to maintain the same framing.

I'm guessing that you shot these from about 1m away. I'd rather shoot the first guy from 4 m at 200mm, and the second guy from 2.67m at 135mm. You probably don't have a lens that has such a wide aperture at those focal lengths. But try your Sigma at 135mm f/4.8, shooting from 2.67m (about 9 feet) away.

What were you using for lighting? Was it a window to subject's right front and the camera's built-in flash? Nice catchlights, but I think there's too much glare on the face. If using on-camera flash, I'd dial it down a bit, or try to diffuse it.

Invest in some lighting. What's your current setup?

In the second photo there is a really hard shadow on his eye. You should probably use a second off camera flash with some diffuser umbrellas. You can also experiment with some mechanic spotlights, just make sure you get led bulbs that produce temperature close to sunlight.

this is the lighting set-up I used. As you can see in the picture I just put two extension cords on the side of the box, with three bulbs on each side. All 6 were on when I shot both pictures. And yes DTM, I was about a metre away, maybe slightly closer ( which is freaking close)

I broke out my 300mm lens for one shot but I didn't like the effect but I will try again. The reason I like using the 50mm because it's the sharpest lens I have, significantly sharper than the 300mm.

I do agree that the shadows look crummy on the face so I will use a flash an off-camera flash and umbrella, which I have. Although I think I need to pay more attention to shadows because I think if I angle it just right there won't be too harsh.

Thanks for the replies.

I like your DIY lighting solution, although I do agree that it appears a bit harsh in these pictures. Maybe it just needs a little refinement? Not sure if you were using the box as a "shoot-through" umbrella or a "reflector" umbrella (if that makes sense - basically, was the opening of the box pointed away from, or towards, your subject?), but maybe if you could find a box with the right amount of translucency it would work as a shoot-through. Alternatively, you could buy enough material to cover the front of the box which might soften it up a little as well. Another thought would be to see whether you could install some kind of dimmer switch in line with each of the extension cords to give you more control over the output. I think I'm going to have a go at building one of these myself...

As for the shadows, you might not even need a flash to open up the shadow on the left hand side of your subject's face (right hand side of the frame) - a simple reflector, like a big sheet of white card angled correctly, might be enough. Should be easy to check position/effect quickly as well, since you're using a continuous light source - just stick the camera in live view and have your assistant (definitely get one of these) move it around until you like the effect. One thing which you ALWAYS see people do with reflectors, but never see them do with off camera flash, is put the reflector low down, pointing back up at the subject - this tends to be a pretty unflattering angle from which to light someone, which is why you basically never see people do it with off camera flash. Keep the reflector higher up, level with or even slightly above your subject, and the results will likely be better.

Thanks Voyeurism — on 2nd thought I think a reflector would be best. There's so much light spraying everywhere with that set-up, might as well bounce some into the subject. And way easier than flash set-up.

I used to put plastic grocery bags over the lights but I was afraid of it catching on fire so I stopped...think I'll rummage through the dollar store to find a solution. Thx

So I've been practicing B&W conversions, critique is very welcome.






With the mountain pic, how do I darken the sky (I have no polarizing filter yet) while avoiding the halo effect in Lightroom?

If I use the adjustment brush with auto mask, the clouds have too much variance and it leaves single pixels and whole areas uncovered. If I try to fix it with a small enough brush to paint single pixels over the edge of the mountain, it'll still leave a fake looking transition with an extra very thin light or dark line right at the edge. And if I try auto mask on the mountain itself to cover the bottom part of the picture and then invert, the result is still not good. I just ended up using a feathered brush without auto mask, but it's only slightly better than a gradient filter.

Any tips? Or is this a job for Photoshop?

DTM and Voyeur,

Thanks for the insightful responses! And yes, the 70-300mm lens I was considering was the L version. After weighing the options I think the 70-200mm L with IS is probably my best option. Then I could buy the extender to gain some extra focal length if needed. Even though it sucks that my lens got stolen, I guess its an opportunity to improve my current setup a little bit. I'm leaning towards buying slightly used off craigslist, I'll post when I decide. It will be soon though, because seeing so many photo opportunities in that focal range when I only have a maximum focal range of 50mm is basically killing me inside.

Silken sutra:

Branches: Center frame for better composition, Try to achieve mirror effect. I would elliminate some trash, it is seen mainly on upper side. Not sure if I like color of the water.
Not amazed about this photo overall.

Church: I see why u put it there. Unfortunately u can't see main cross there and see relationship between shadow and cross itself. Also I dislike composition a lot. It cropped in a lot of points where it shouldnt be, also I dont like that there is view from some angle from the bottom. I guess with tele lens and long distance you would achieve even better effect. Some chaos now.

Clouds: It looks OK. Mauybe you should play with shadows/lights, curve etc to achieve better lights and darks balance.

Young trees/bushes - ny favorite of those four.

In general you want to play with color mixer and shadows/darks.
Check anything here: https://www.google.lt/webhp?sourceid...lightroom%20BW

Is this the best place to ask for camera-buying advice?

No, but it is the best place to ask on 2+2. What do you want to know?

Ooh, I'm surprised you don't like this one, since I felt it's the best of the four! There was an angle where the branches created three circles with their reflections, but I didn't feel like symmetry in general worked that well in a picture basically about death.

I cloned out over 100 bits of trash from the water and it was getting hard to decide what's garbage and what should stay. You're right, looks like I missed some. I also went back to reshoot the same tree skeleton yesterday, should be able to make a better version now.

What do you mean by better lights and darks balance, though? Playing around with those things is how I got there in the first place, but I don't know how to analyse the balance beyond "this is what I felt looks good". The sky of course is unrealistically dark in the upper left corner, but the goal was more dramatic than realistic here.

Either way, I'll watch some vids and do some reading and redo the processing for these from scratch (except the monastery, which I'll dump), and see if things improve.

Thank you for your thoughts, Ninja. =)

I'm looking for a good, reasonably priced, compact digital camera for street photography and personal use. I don't want to spend more than $2000. I'm open to any brand and have done a bit of research although admittedly, I don't know much. I'd like to hear people's opinions about:

Fujifilm X100S/T

Fujifilm X-T1

Sony A6000 body + Zeiss lens

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10

or any other similar cameras that would fulfill my needs.

Thanks.

Sony a7?

I think one of the biggest questions you need to ask yourself is "do I want interchangeable lenses, and if so what range of focal lengths do I want them to cover?" - no point in us recommending you put the whole $2k into a mirrorless body and one prime lens, if you actually need a combination which covers a wide range of focal lengths.

Well At first it is quite possible that we even see different pictures (Lightining, color calibration etc). Also iti s more likely that you are still watching at bigger picture too, so that could influence feel. In addition I would say, that you are more likely to be not that subjective. so if you would take a look at that picture after couple of months it would be much more objective look.

Another thing is that you made that shot and I guess such type shots for you are not common, so you are amazed by that. I dont want to offend you, but I guess I saw much more such type of shots in the past, so now this one looks like one of many and it is not that extraordinary.

I always suggest people browsing other photos, to get some experience, ideas and understanding what separates you from master. It is very similar for me- I shot so many pictures, that I dont like myself, and If I like one, then it is more likely that I like it because subjective look - that I shot it myself. Not because that it is really good

I recommend u to browse, for example 500px.com for photos. Also you could post there too. Maybe comments are not valuable there, but you would get more accurate estimation how well you can shot

I mean everything depends on your goals, so if you want to achieve some mastery- then it is great way to do so, if you don't- just enjoy what you do and fk others!

In theory even before shooting you should have a vision what you want to achieve. After taking that shot, you continue working to finish your vision. If you was doing that- great, unfortunately it didnt hook me

But... If you have a problem like me, who shoots photos without a vision, with idea "making something nice", then you will get to the point, where you will be experimenting and trying various stuff. So what I would do with that photo- I would like to get it a little less contrasty, maybe a little bit more HDR look. But maybe that is personal preference.

Black n white photography is more suitable, imho, when you want to go for lines, figures, curves or when you can't handle colors. BW is great for architecture photography! Blah, My mind is not consistent :| Some virus affects its, so I will stop writting nonsences

Some photo, taken 5 years ago, when my first child was born.

Photoshopped a bit, to get ligh key effect:

Sorry, not light, but high key

I'm far from an expert on photography, I don't know anything about it at all actually.

I really, really, like the bottom photograph though, a lot. I've made it my desktop background.

Just wanted to chime in and say (an admittedly unsophisticated) "Thanks".

Hmm, you've got quite a range of types and prices there, plus some interesting omissions. Some more information from you might let us help a bit more.

Rank the importance of the following:

• still image quality
• video quality
• large number of user-controllable settings
• simplicity of use
• easy access to controls while holding camera to the eye
• small size
• low weight

What will you be doing with the images you take? Do you expect to print many of them at large sizes? Will they mostly be shared electronically and viewed on a screen?

What cameras do you own or have you used? How much do you know about photography and how seriously do you intend to approach photography?

When you say you want to use the camera for "street photography", do you mean streetscapes, which would require a somewhat wide angle lens, or long-distance candids of individuals, which would need a longer than average focal length? Does "Personal use" include photography of subjects in rapid motion, such as sports or birds and small wildlife or children? Will your personal use include shooting outside at night or anytim indoors?

Two of the five listed cameras support interchangeable lenses. Two have a fixed prime lens and the other a fixed zoom lens. Would you prefer to never have to change lenses (even if your camera was capable of changing lenses)? Or are you open to buying and using multiple lenses to cover different focal length ranges?

Which Zeiss lens for the A6000? The 16-70mm f/4 or the 16-35mm f/4? Are you aware that true Zeiss lenses do not autofocus (Zeiss-branded Sony lenses do autofocus)? You have to focus them manually. In many situations focusing manually takes longer, which can be a drawback in some forms of street photography. Is this a problem for you?

Four of the listed cameras have APS-C sized sensors, but one has a much smaller "1 inch" sensor type. Have you considered the in-between Micro Four Thirds (MFT) sensor size? Have you ruled out the larger full frame size?

You say you want a "compact" camera. By "compact" I take it you mean small, as opposed to the class of cameras (compact as opposed to superzoom, MILC or dSLR). Yet two of the four cameras you list (X-T1 and RX10 are larger and/or heavier than some Canon or Nikon dSLRs when you include their kit lens. What is important to you about compactness? Weight for carrying around? Size for packing? Or unobtrusiveness when in use?

Why did you not include any dSLRs in your list (e.g. Canon SL1 or 700D/T5i, Nikon D5300)? Why not any MFT cameras (E.g. Olympus EM-5 or EM-10, Panasonic GH4 or GM5)?

If you are willing to consider a 1" compact zoom like the RX10, how about the Panasonic FZ1000 or a 1" MILC like the Nikon 1 system?

A few words on each of your 5 listed cameras:

Fujifilm X100S $1,150
The Fujifilm X100S is the second iteration of Fujifilm's retro rangefinder-styled fixed lens camera. It incorporates a number of significant improvements over the original X100. At its heart is a 16MP XTrans sensor, which features a more complicated Colour Filter Array (CFA) than the Bayer filter found on most other digital cameras. The sensor produces remarkably low noise levels, and high image quality. The more complex CFA allows the camera design to avoid using an anti-aliasing filter, thus resulting in a higher achieved resolution per pixel count, similar to that of a traditional 20MP sensor with AA filter. Because of the unusual CFA, you might get better RAW processing results using Fuji's own RAW conversion software rather than 3rd-party products like Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw. The non-standard CFA also means that DXOMark cannot test Fujifilm sensors.

There is some controversy about Fuji's in-body image processing. We know that Fuji does in-body processing to correct distortion. Such correction must necessarily reduce effective resolution. Some claim that Fuji's RAW files actually have undergone a significant amount of other in-body processing to reduce noise and correct colour. It is said that this comes at the price of over-smoothing of the pixels, leading to a plastic-y look. Others claim this speculation is nonsense, based on jealousy over the high quality results achieved by the Fuji sensor and lenses. Others suggest that the demosaicing process needed for the more complex CFA naturally leads to the observed results. Perhaps because of the different CFA, which has a higher proportion of green filters, Fujis are said to produce mushy looking foliage, but more vibrant non-greens. What can be said objectively is that the Fujifilm cameras have lower resolution than the Sony cameras on your list, though whether the higher resolution of the other cameras is visible in images will depend on lenses used. The Fuji's lower resolution should not be a problem if you are only going to display photos on screens, avoid significant cropping, or print uncropped photos at no larger than 14"x11".

The X100S has less dynamic range than the other cameras in your list.

The X100S's lens is a very sharp fixed 23mm focal length. This gives a full frame equivalent of 35mm, which is good for streetscapes, environmental portraits and photos of groups of people. One can buy a wide-angle adapter that screws on in front to give a 28mm FOV for moderately wide landscapes or indoors shots. The adapter produces some distortion, but if you tell the camera the adapter is attached (there's no auto-sensing), it will do distortion control in-camera at the expense of a slight loss of sharpness. The fixed near-normal lens allows this camera to be the smallest on your list. The focal length is a lot less useful for individual portraiture, sports, events and wildlife.

The viewfinder is a unique and innovative hybrid optical and electronic type. Because it is offset from the lens axis, the optical viewfinder has some parallax error, but the camera helpfully overlays electronic framing lines to show the central ~90% of the image. The electronic components of the hybrid view can be hard to read in bright light, and optical elements hard to see in low light. The rear LCD screen is smaller and has less resolution than other cameras in this class.

Focusing is only moderately good. Like most of the cameras on your list this one has trouble tracking rapidly moving subjects. Speed of focus with stationary subjects depends on light levels and how contrasty the subject is. The are a couple of good manual focus aides built in, such as focus-peaking and digital split-image. All the mirrorless cameras on your lists tend to have more accurate focus than most dSLRs, once they actually achieve focus. This matters more, though, with higher-resolution sensors.

The X100S uses film-era style control dials for shutter speed and exposure compensation, and a traditional ring around the lens to control aperture. Unfortunately these shutter and aperture control are only adjustable by full stops. You need to use a separate control to make 1/3 stop adjustments. There is no dedicated control for ISO. You either have to menu-dive or assign it to the Fn button. The dials on top of the body are easy to read when the camera is not at your eye, but difficult to adjust while looking though the viewfinder. There are a number of other control and menus design quirks, though not as many on its notoriously weird predecessor. Exposure compensation is not available in manual mode or with Auto-ISO.

The tripod socket is not well placed: off the lens axis, and close to the battery door. As with all the cameras on your list, battery life between charges is relatively short. Awkward grip. Built-in ND filter is useful because minimum native ISO is 200. Wimpy built-in flash. High flash sync speed, but varies with aperture. Very fast optional fully electronic shutter.

The X100S is not very good at video. Poor controls and lots of moire.

Fujifilm X100T $1,300
This new camera is essentially an incrementally improved X100S. It has the same lens and sensor. Substantial improvements include:
Direct 1/3 stop control of aperture
Exposure compensation now available with Auto-ISO
Face detection and spot metering at autofocus point added.
Improved EVF, more readable in extreme lighting conditions
Larger and higher resolution back LCD screen.
More, better and more customizeable controls.

IMO (pending performance reviews), well worth the extra $150 compared to the X100S.

Fujifilm X-T1 $1,700 with XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 OIS kit lens
This is probably Fujifilm's most capable camera. It is a Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera (MILC) based on a 16MP X-Trans sensor very similar to the one in the X100T. The image quality is similar. Same base ISO of 200, but no ND filter. Fujifilm overstates achieved ISO sensitivity on this camera by about 1/2 stop.

Fujinon lenses seem to have a higher minimum standard than other makers'. The kit lens is a stop faster than typical kit lenses, and sharper too. In price and capability it sits between Nikon's 18-55mm kit lenses and the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8. The complete Fujinon lens lineup is more limited than Canon's or Nikons. It compares approximately in quality and selection to a half sampling of the top two-thirds of those makers' lineups.

Autofocus for stationary subjects is similar to the X100S. Adequate but not outstanding. Autofocus for moving subjects is better than the X100S and most other mirrorless cameras, but not quite up to the standards of most dSLRs or even the Sony A6000. Face detection is present, but less capable than in most other makers' cameras. The X-T1 has the same useful manual focus aids as the X100T.

The X-T1 uses the same sort of shutter speed and exposure compensation dials as the X100T, and adds another top panel dial for ISO. These have the same advantages of reading and disadvantages of changing. Adjustment of shutter speed in 1/3 stop increments needs a separate dial. Aperture is controlled by a back panel dial. Cramped top-panel controls. Sparse but well-customizeable rear panel controls which are hard to locate by feel. Can't use exposure compensation with Auto ISO.

Large, fast-refreshing Electronic Viewfinder. Tilting LCD. Environmentally sealed body (but not kit lens). Tripod socket off-axis and close to battery door. Better grip than X100T, but poor relative to most similarly sized cameras. No built-in flash, comes with separate, barely adequate flash that attaches to hot shoe. Slow 1/180 flash sync speed. Flash compensation buried deep in menu system. Relatively fast 8 fps continuous shot mode. As with other Fujis, not very good at video.

Sony A6000 $1,600 with "Zeiss" 16-70mm f/4 lens
$750 with 16-50mm f/3.5-f.6PZ kit lens.

The Alpha 6000 is a capable APS-C mirrorless camera based on a new version of Sony's 24MP Exmor sensor, with a substantial increase in the number of Phase-Detection points on the sensor. These additional PD autofocus points and the fast 11FPS continuous shooting rate make the A6000 the camera on your list most capable of tracking moving subjects, but the A6000s EVF is decidedly inferior, which makes it harder for the photographer to track those moving subjects. The sensor gives very good low ISO noise performance, and has excellent dynamic range. The 24MP resolution should also yield the sharpest images, provided you mount a lens that is up to the task. However, while lenses are one of Fujifilm's strengths, they are one of Sony's weaknesses.

You seem to have noticed that the kit zoom is not very good. It has enormous distortion and vignetting. Centre sharpness is good, but edge and corner sharpness are well below that of its competitors. About the only good thing to be said about it is that it is quite small when turned off. Based on preliminary reviews (my two most trusted sources haven't reviewed the lens yet) the Zeiss-branded (but built in Thailand by Sony) 16-70mm f/4 lens is considerably sharper than the kit zoom, but still noticeably soft at the edges, as well as wide open in the longer half of its focal length range. Sony seems to lack any lenses to compare to the sharpest lenses available to resolve onto the similar sensors in Nikon dSLRs. As a result there may not be much difference in achieved sharpness between this Sony and the Fujis above. The "Zeiss" does have a longer focal length range than the Fujinon kit lens, but its constant maximum aperture is one stop slower than the Fujinon kit at the wide end. Sony also seems to have a shortage of fast zooms.

I find the controls on the A6000 easier to reach than those on the X-T1 , and the grip more comfortable, though still not as good as on a bigger body. The controls are more modern dSLR-style button/dial combinations, which makes settings easier to adjust and harder to read. There is a fair degree of customization available - more than on the X-T1. The Auto-ISO function is more useful than that on the X-T1, but not as good as on Nikon dSLRS. On the whole, with customization set, this camera should be eaiser to control while shooting than the X-T1.

The A6000 has the widest ISO range in your listed cameras, with the lowest base (100) and highest native value. The A6000's built-in flash is even weaker than the add-on flash for the X-T1, and flash sync speed slightly slower. Exposure compensation and bracketing have more latitude than on the X-T1. The A6000 has a tilting LCD panel similar to the X-T1's, but with a 16:9 aspect ratio, and it blocks tripod mounting. The eye sensor for the EVF is overly sensitive and prone to switching the LCD off at the wrong time. The tripod socket seems to be placed where it should be: on the lens axis and far from the battery compartment.

Video is better on the A6000 than on the Fujis. There is better control of parameters while shooting video. Quality is still not as good as on some video-centric cameras with smaller sensors.

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 $1,300

The RX10 is a compact zoom with a "1 inch" 20MP sensor and a constant f/2.8 8.8-73.3mm lens. On a 1' sensor that gives an FF equivalent of f/7.6 24-200mm. If its lens is sharp enough, and it may well be, it should produce images of similar achieved resolution to the Fujis. Since the sensor is smaller than the APS-C sensors in the other cameras on your list, we would normally expect it to produce noisier images - about 1.5 stops more noisy. However this sensor uses a new technology called Back-Side Illumination (BSI) which increases the efficiency of the sensor in capturing light. This in turn leads to reduced noise, mostly overcoming the disadvantage of the smaller sensor size. It will still be noisier than the Fujis. The RX10 has similar dynamic range to the X-T1 but less than the A6000. Unfortunately, Sony's JPG processing engine isn't great.

The fixed zoom lens is quite fast compared to others in its class, but still slower than those on the Fujis, when you correct for sensor size. Shutter speeds are comparable to those on the X100T. Autofocus performance is on par for this group, below that of the A6000.

Controls include an ISO speed dial, an exposure compensation dial, an aperture ring and a control dial for shutter speed and program shift. Besides the aperture ring on the lens, there is a combination zoom/focus ring. It is a zoom ring when in autofocus mode, and a focus ring in manual focus mode. Grip comfort and control access are similar to the A6000. Customization is nearly as good. Tripod socket is well-placed.

The EVF is similar to the one on the A6000. The rear LCD has the highest resolution in the group. This is the best camera for video on your list. It offers the greatest control and highest quality output.

The camera is the second biggest in the group, behind the X-T1 with 16-70mm lens. The pop-up flash is one of the better ones in this group, but still not all that impressive. At 10 FPSm the RX10 has the second-fastest continuous shooting speed, but only for JPEGs. Raw is about 6 FPS. The battery has slightly higher capacity than the others in this group, but as with other Sonys there is no external charger included. If you want to charge one battery while shooting with another you need to buy a separate external charger. The camera can be powered with an AC power supply.

Summary of the group:

The three Fujifilm cameras: Best lenses, probably best JPEG image quality, with the X-T1 having the most flexibility and control of the three, and X100T being more advanced than X100S.

Sony A6000: Best handling. RAW image quality challenging the Fujis. Best autofocus system for moving subjects.

Sony RX10: Best for video.

Just a follow-up re Fuji JPEG quality...

I just stumbled upon a series of posts and example ohotos about the Fuji "plastic skin" problem. It seems this is a well-estblished problem in most/all recent Fujis which manifests most strongly in JPEGs taken at high (>=3200) ISO. Fuji really pumps up the noise reduction. This results in a huge amount of smoothing and massive loss of detail. There does not seem to be any way to avoid this effect, even if you turn noise-reduction way down. So I'm revising my conclusion about Fuji having the best JPEGs of the cameras on the list to apply only at low ISO.

Of course, if you find yourself spending a lot of time shooting glamour photos of women with bad skin, you might like the high ISO JPEGs.

There is much less detail lost in RAW files. If you shoot high ISO on a FUJI, either shoot RAW or be prepared to lose a lot of detail.

Thanks Stakman, glad you like it!

A couple of recent shots from the North Wales coastline, critique, as always is welcome!

Talacre Lighthouse by dsdige, on Flickr


Talacre Lighthouse HDR by dsdige, on Flickr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talacre (if anyone is interested)

And finally an image from the recent Blackpool International Firework Competition!

Blackpool Fireworks by dsdige, on Flickr

I'll comment on the two lighthouse images, if I may.

HDR often provokes a negative reaction from me, but you have done a very nice job indeed with the colour in the second shot. This is HDR done right, IMO. The only thing that niggles at me about this photo is that you positioned the lighthouse very near the middle of the frame but not exactly in the middle. If you are going to horizontally centre the only vertical element (often not a good idea, but it works for this treatment) centre it exactly.

In the first photo, the lighthouse again appears close to the centre of the frame. I'd want to move it away from the centre. This time it is not the only vertical element. The tuft of grass in the right foreground is even taller. I'd want to balance these two elements, giving primacy of location selection to the lighthouse because it is essentially the main subject. At the same time, there's nothing interesting going on in the left foreground, though I can see why you want to preserve as much of the sky on the left of the frame as you could. After eyeballing a couple of possible crops, I came up with this:



Checking later, I discovered I'd placed the lighthouse at very close to the golden ratio.

Thanks for the comments DTM, certainly something to think about re composition/cropping. I actually wanted somehow to do exactly what you did and move the lighthouse from being so central but didnt want to crop out the nice warm sky to the left. Your crop works well though!

I really need to start putting more thoughts into composition, any recommended books or links?

Also glad that you approve of the subtle use of HDR as i know you're not usually the biggest fan!