> Now this crop is MUCH nicer, and I think it makes the image a more more workable one. Thanks ;o) > It fills the frame with interesting elements, in the foreground, as well as the pretty sky. The original was "half-and-half" which classic "rules" of composition often warn against. I didn't go Karl's route (although I tried it first) because once I cropped the plant totally it became much less interesting. The choice of crop location in the sky was determined by the cloud patterns - I look hard to see what small clouds distract (there was one to the right) and where the shapes I leave act within the frame not taking you outside. > Personally, I didn't mind the building (not that I could have done much about it). Check out another very minor edit ... http://www.st-abbs.fsnet.co.uk/tempery/hameed-2b.jpg Actually, I agree, I don't think the building *should* matter per se - the problem for me is that it's original dead centre position enhances it's dominance to the eye. Had it been down more to the left it would not have troubled me so much ... the centre spot of a photo can be very poweful. Oh darn it, I'll move the building to show what I mean ... link as above ;o) If you are taking advertising shots for travel brochure (view from hotel balcony) obviously such manipulations border on fraud. If you claim it is a straight shot just to boost your "status" then you are a fake. If you just want to produce a pretty picture of a "desert scene" to hang on the wall and don't misrepresent it as anything else then actually I don't see any real issues ... Bob
