Pliaj fotoj

Maybe it is best to think of "pli" as a wordlet which can only modify certain parts of speech directly.

As such, it requires either another wordlet (da) or some suffixes (-a, -j) in order to modify a noun.

Mi vojiraĝis al novan urbon.

I gave you the most common phrasing above, but I want to clarify that there would be nothing wrong with expressing it as:

Mi vojiris novan urbon.

Vojiri is an uncommon word, but it's formed according to principles of "bonlingvismo." This means that even tho it is uncommon, everyone easily understands what it means.

There's a lot of words in Esperanto which were coined for use in poetry, scientific words, or just have a very narrow meaning. In normal conversation, I think these words should be avoided because almost certainly someone in the discussion will need a dictionary to understand them.

However, words such as vojiri formed by compounding are an exception, allowing us to convey very specific things without using difficult language.

So if you prefer vojiri, I say use it. It will not negatively impact comprehension and it also evokes a more specific image than "vojaĝi"

Mi volis foti pliaj plantojn tien.

-n can mark a number of things... within the above phrase it turns "there" into "to there."

Pli da fotoj

Mi vojiris al novan urbon.

Oni ne uzas -n kun "al" ĉar "al" ĉiam jam indikas moviĝon. (We don't use -n with "al" because "al" always already indicates motion.) Mi persone uzus "vojaĝi" anstataŭ "vojiri" por tiu frazo, eĉ se la urbo ne estas tre for. (I personally would use "vojaĝi" instead of "vojiri" for this sentence, even if the city isn't very far away.)

Mi volis foti pli da plantojn tien.

Mi vidis verdajn plantojn kaj blankoajn fungojn.

Tri grandajn plantojn estas en la ĝardeno, sed mi fotis sole la sovaĝajn plantojn.

Mi dirus "nur" anstataŭ "sole," sed mi ne pensas ke tiu uzado de "sole" estas malĝusta.