[fionaB]

i was bowled over with the facade here....... hopefully i captured the atmosphere of the place...?

[nichpr]

This photo has impact. Nice tonal range and you did a good job controling perspective distortion.
I wonder - did you step on the contrast slider pretty hard or did it come from the camera with this much contrast? Might be cool to PS in some clouds to give the sky added interest. I like this shot a lot. Congrats.

- Paul

[Angela]

No, I disagree with Paul, I think detail in the sky would make the picture much too cluttered. There's so much detail in the facade that the small amount of sky sets it off nicely! Great shot Fi

[fionaB]

thanx both of you

..... the contrast was upped very slightly but i didint need to do that much as there is a huge amount of contrast in the actual stonework itself......I did think about adding some clouds but as Angela pointed out i was worried it may may the image too "busy" and take away the interest of the building.

I also thought about removing the bit of building that is shown thru the upper left hand window as it is not part of Mars Wark ( its a Church) and is so different architecturally, but again decided to leave as is.

Fi

[Les Meehan]

For me this is a powerful subject that produces a powerful image but I also think the contrast is far too high, even if it came from the camera close to this. The lighting is obviously soft which would normally produce a gentler feel to the image (note the cobblestones on the road and the building thru the window) so there are far too many areas that are so dark/black it looks harsh to my eye. I appreciate that on overcast days the actual contrast of a subject can be high simply due to the inherent contrast of said subject but I really believe this could be improved to produce a better tonal distribution without losing the impact.

It reminds me a lot of the under-exposed/over-developed images that many film based pictures have on the amateur scene due to lack of technical skills. A common problem/misconception amongst mono folk is that a BW picture should have plenty of 'punch' whereas with experience one comes to understand that the beauty of a mono picture is created by subtle tonality and not harshness.

Can we see a version with less contrast to compare? I understand if you don't want to do this since it is your image and one should accept what you present whether or not it is to one's taste (that was posh wan'it!).

[fionaB]

dont mind at all Les....here is a less contrast version.......

[Les Meehan]

Thanx Fi, now I can discern the pattern of the circular design of the gates which I didn't know existed on the other version. This version demonstrates what I was saying, the impact is still there but the tonal range/distribution is far more pleasing to (my) the eye.

I love that row of old wooden doors (now I can see the subtlety in them )!!

I didn't mention the sky in my other post but it looks like the building has been cut-out along the top? I agree with someone else that the sky is just a little too bland. I would put some tonal variation into it (not necessarily change skies) just so it didn't look like a grey paper background.

Sorry to put you thru this!

[silver]

I do prefer the lower contrast version, the first version has a kind of 'brittle' look about it which I would normally associate with over sharpening,. the more muted tones of the 2nd version I think work better,.

did you somehow darken the sky in the 2nd version, for some reason it looks processed and I think actually a lighter - even 'blown' sky may work with the image

Sil

[fionaB]

well i did ask for this by putting it in the critique section..... lol.. The sky....... havent done anything to it i think it got darker when i brought down the contrast.... will have a look at the sky. dont know why the top looks cut out but i did notice that myself...............argh the things we put ourselves thru! lol

Fi

[fionaB]

okies.... 3rd attempt............ ha ve added a little interest to the sky.. kept the lower contrast... tried to get rid of the cut out effect but i am not sure if that was successful or not......... still dont know why it looks like that even in the original. it may be because the eye expects to see something behind it and there isnt anything if that makes sense....

[skipper954]

Hi Fi

I have been following the comments with great interest. Now I think that you are close to gold with the last image, except that you didn't follow up the sky through the windows. And perhaps the sky is just a little too stormy and angry looking.

But, this is a comfortable image now, with great detail.

skip

[fionaB]

Skip i did put the sky thru the windows, it was just unfortunate that the part of the sky there was pretty plain! lol........ have to say i am now at the point that if i keep going back to it im going spoil something that doesnt need touched........ I like it better now tho changing the sky and bringing down the contrast does make a difference
( silver will do for me on this one methinks) lolol

just watch tho someone else will comment on something else and i will have to go right back to the drawing board.. strange thing is i want to get this pic right whereas with most of my other images i think i would have given up by now!

Fi

[Dabhand16]

I like the final one too, Fi. For me, the best thing about the replacement sky is that it brings some white into what was previously a bit tonaly flat. I might have been tempted to dodge the gates a bit to bring out a little more detail, but overall it is a knockout image.