Awalk around the outside of Coventry Cathedral

[lesno1]

1


2


3

4

[Shadowman]

Nice series.

[JohnRostron]

A nice set. My wife comes from that part of the world but it is a long time since I wandered around the Cathedral precincts. I must try and visit next time we are up there.

In #2 you still have the residual white border after straightening.

John

[Wavelength]

I like the third image, best. Regarding the first image, the name plate seen in the foreground distracts, inviting me to read it. I am a bit doubtful about its inclusion

[lesno1]

Thanks guys i just fixed them

[joebranko]

Nice set. In #2 ; Love the colours of the stone work. Pity the top of the arc above the doorway touches the frame of the shot. Did you crop it like that, if so can you expand the crop to allow some space between the top of the arc and the frame.

[Manfred M]

Les - just to add to the comments others have already made.

The difference between an image that is "okay" and one that is really good is often how the photographer pays attention to details. While more advanced photographers can and do correct some errors in post-production, the generally try to avoid making them in camera, saving themselves work later on.

One of the most important lessons I learned many years ago was to pay attention to what was happening at or near the edge of the frame. Things that are too close to the edge or run over the edge can result in an image being weaker than it could be. Recognizing that when you frame the shot and then adjust accordingly will often make a great deal of difference here.

Image 1 - the tree on the right hand side takes up around 20% of the image, but really does not contribute anything useful to it. So why is so much of it included in the image?

Image 2 - The crop at the top of the arch is very tight and it crosses the top of the shot. A bit of space there could open up the shot a more.

Image 3 - Similar issue as in #2 - the crop along the top is very tight and the top of the arch breaks across the edge of the frame.

Image 4 - Again, the tops of the small spires cross the top edge of the frame. There is a lot of perspective distortion and a significant part of the image show the road, which does not add all that much interest to the shot.

[JohnRostron]

Les - just to add to the comments others
Image 1 - the tree on the right hand side takes up around 20% of the image, but really does not contribute anything useful to it. So why is so much of it included in the image?

Image 2 - The crop at the top of the arch is very tight and it crosses the top of the shot. A bit of space there could open up the shot a more.

Image 3 - Similar issue as in #2 - the crop along the top is very tight and the top of the arch breaks across the edge of the frame.

Image 4 - Again, the tops of the small spires cross the top edge of the frame. There is a lot of perspective distortion and a significant part of the image show the road, which does not add all that much interest to the shot.

I would disagree about your comment on #1. I see the tree as an integral part of the image. I would agree with what you say about #4.

John

[Manfred M]

I would disagree about your comment on #1. I see the tree as an integral part of the image. I would agree with what you say about #4.

John

Feel free to disagree with me any time!

I'm not suggesting eliminating the tree, but just reducing the amount shown. You are right, it is an integral part of the image and provides a place to keep the viewer's eyes in the image. My issue isn't the tree, but rather how it affects the balance in the image and is taking up so much room in the frame that it calls to much attention to it, rather than the rest of the image.

I'm thinking along these lines.