Church facade

[John R]

A section of church just off the highway where I took photo of phlox. The church is unfinished and has no name. The outside is modern design combined with some, almost feudalist achitectecture, as it has moat and castle like features at the top. The top is not shown, as I preferred the interesting symmetry and placement of the flower beds in the middle of the church yard- very different.

JMR

[shutterpup]

A section of church just off the highway where I took photo of phlox. The church is unfinished and has no name. The outside is modern design combined with some, almost feudalist achitectecture, as it has moat and castle like features at the top. The top is not shown, as I preferred the interesting symmetry and placement of the flower beds in the middle of the church yard- very different.

JMR

I too like the symmetry of the facade and the lines of the flower beds leads the eye to the front of the church.

[JeffKohn]

The composition has potential; very graphic design, with strong symmetry. But when a shot like this isn't squared up and perfectly symmetrical, it shows. Our eyes intuitively pick up that something isn't quite right.  It looks like you weren't standing at the precise center point of the composition, and the camera is slightly off level.

[jani]

This reminds me of a picture I took once, of two beautiful cars facing eachother in front of a symmetrical facade. When I showed it to a photographer, I immediately got the comment "too perfect". The critique stung, yet I understood exactly what he meant.

The same is the problem here. There is only the (slightly flawed) symmetry, but what else are we supposed to be looking at?

I wonder what it was that was so bad with the rest of the church facade that you had to squeeze the center arch so close to the image top.

I also have problems with the light here, it appears too flat to my tastes, and the flower beds almost seem two-dimensional - maybe there's something wrong with the contrast.

My suggestion here would be to find a different angle, or a different subject.

(John: Will this image also be deleted after a while, or will it stand to allow these critiques to have value?)

[shutterpup]

This reminds me of a picture I took once, of two beautiful cars facing eachother in front of a symmetrical facade. When I showed it to a photographer, I immediately got the comment "too perfect". The critique stung, yet I understood exactly what he meant.

The same is the problem here. There is only the (slightly flawed) symmetry, but what else are we supposed to be looking at?

I wonder what it was that was so bad with the rest of the church facade that you had to squeeze the center arch so close to the image top.

I also have problems with the light here, it appears too flat to my tastes, and the flower beds almost seem two-dimensional - maybe there's something wrong with the contrast.

My suggestion here would be to find a different angle, or a different subject.

(John: Will this image also be deleted after a while, or will it stand to allow these critiques to have value?)

Having read the critiques, I have something else I'd like to add. This photo makes me think of graphic art. The high contrast of the tan and charcoal of the bricks, the small and large bricks, the clear grain of the wooden doors, the accent color of the frames. I agree the light is flat, but for some reason, I don't object to that. And it comes to me, this could have been computer-generated for a quilt, which is something else I'm interested in. From that point of view, I still like it.

[dalethorn]

A great work of art
It may or may not be
But it's pleasing to the eye
And best of all it's free

[John R]

This reminds me of a picture I took once, of two beautiful cars facing eachother in front of a symmetrical facade. When I showed it to a photographer, I immediately got the comment "too perfect". The critique stung, yet I understood exactly what he meant.

The same is the problem here. There is only the (slightly flawed) symmetry, but what else are we supposed to be looking at?

I wonder what it was that was so bad with the rest of the church facade that you had to squeeze the center arch so close to the image top.

I also have problems with the light here, it appears too flat to my tastes, and the flower beds almost seem two-dimensional - maybe there's something wrong with the contrast.

My suggestion here would be to find a different angle, or a different subject.

(John: Will this image also be deleted after a while, or will it stand to allow these critiques to have value?)

I will try to address some of the comments with this post. I was drawn to the symmetry because that is what immediately caught my eye and what my mind abstracted- that's it. The light is not quite flat, as you may notice the shadow of the hydro pole near the centre, which I tried to avoid. Perhaps a little more contrast would make the foreground elements a little more lively, but my recollection is the direct sun was too overwhelming so I waited for the sun to go behind the clouds. I deliberately went slightly off centre because some elements, including the levelness of the stairs, would not line up as nicely as this set-up, which I simply liked. I usually shoot asymmetrical, but this looked too appealing to me. When I shoot such images, I usually wait for a passerby to add a dynamic element to the photo but none came by.

As to deleting past images, I see little point in leaving them on the list when they get dated. I am sorry this bothers some people. I have concerns about copyright after having had problems in the past with such issues. After all, there are so many images on this board that I doubt many will go back to see them all. But I can leave them as lower quality images if that helps.

JMR