P7047896 (1) edited by Raymond Friedman, on Flickr
pic #2
P7047901 blkwht by Raymond Friedman, on Flickr
pic #3 (not happy with this one)
P7047893 edited by Raymond Friedman, on Flickr
P7047896 (1) edited by Raymond Friedman, on Flickr
pic #2
P7047901 blkwht by Raymond Friedman, on Flickr
pic #3 (not happy with this one)
P7047893 edited by Raymond Friedman, on Flickr
The first image is the best of the set, for me.
For me, all 3 suffer from awkward crops. I agree the first is the best of the set but cutting across the writing and chopping the left and right sides of the church gives the sense that it is being squeezed into too small a space, a slightly wider view would have helped. I also think a couple of steps to the right would have been a better angle so that the steeple would have not have been blocked by the front bell tower. That would also have allowed you to move the bell tower to the left so that it not sit right on the centre vertical. And personally I would have straightened the verticals but that's just me. The black and white I would suggest needs a much tighter crop. Unfortunately the branches have encroached onto the cross on the roof and the tip of the spire. A slightly lower viewpoint would have avoided this. For me the third one just doesn't work as I am not sure what the subject was. It feels like it is a section of a larger picture and with everything cut off it just feels incomplete. I apologise if I have come across as being very negative, that was not my intention but I figured a 'nice shot' comment is of no use to anyone.
In addition to the points on composition made in Post #3, the colour balance (first image in particular) for a shot in broad daylight doesn't seem quite correct. If it was an artistic choice, it's not working for me - I would prefer a shift towards cooler tones. Also in the first, the exposure of the clouds appears correct but that has made the church and foreground rather dark, so I think it would also benefit from lifting out of the gloom in PP.
Philip
I agree about the color cast in the first and about the awkward crop.
Photos of interesting buildings pose the same problem as photos of attractive flowers, which I do a lot: how do you make them into interesting compositions, rather than just a snap of what one would see walking by? The keys are composition and finding unusual perspectives.
In this regard, IMHO, the second is the best of the three. You have used the foliage to frame the window, which is an unusual perspective. But why so much foliage? You don't need much to create a frame, e.g.,
And why B&W? Again just in my opinion, this is a poor candidate for black and white. When reduced to black and white, the strong contrast is between the trees and the sky, while the stone is a gray that just fades into the background. Color would allow the stone and window to stand out.
Just my two cents. I hope these are helpful suggestions.
Philip yes the editing on pic 1 is my choice, inhear you and you relook at this.Thanks
That's a yes from me on pic 1. I like it.
However, I would have liked the church sigh to be complete, without taking off the top, or edit the sign out completely.
My question is why the color cast is there to begin with. The first one is a shot that auto white balance should be able to handle reasonably well, I would have thought. And the third image doesn't have much of a color cast.the colour images have a definite yellow colour cast; basically a white balance issue and they have a somewhat "muddy" look. Both are easy to fix in post.
thank you all for the great suggestions and your views,love the forum.