Minimalism again of sorts?

One of the few things that I found out by trial and error is that if you have a famous object, building, ship, whatever, it's counterproductive usually to put the whole object into the frame.  It gives more depth to a picture if you have a fairly ordinary street scene for instance, so that you look at the street with its cars and houses, and all of a sudden, you say, "Is that a bit of the Sydney Harbour Bridge I can see in the far distance?"  This leads your eye into the picture and (usually) gives it far more impact than a record photo of the SHB with some tourists in front of it.

There is a hill in the Rocks area of old Sydney, called Observatory Hill.  There is a reason that many ports have observatories near their harbours, but now is not to mention why.

Suffice to say that I took a picture of part of the Bridge arch which came out quite well, and while writing this entry made a discovery.  The first photo is the one with am impact, but the second one has less of the Bridge, but bigger, and this seems to have got even more impact.  Although you can see comparatively little of the Bridge, most people would know it was a close up of the "Coat Hanger".

After I had taken this shot, I descended to the shore via several sets of sandstone steps.  When I got to the bottom I found that I had twisted my knee. But I had got my shot!

Call this a bridge?

This is a bridge!

A great example of less is more.