I don't like HDR, but how's this B&W?

32-bit. Any and all CC welcomed.

I like the concept of it appearing to be a night shot...the tight crop bothers me as well as the "stuff" on the sides of the church. Additionally...it might be interesting to be able to visualize some of the interior through the windows.

Thanks. It was a night shot. I cropped tight because of all the stuff on both sides that really didn't add anything (shrubs and the like), and the building is drab on the sides outside of the framing. There is nothing inside the windows - hallway behind the doors, and frosted glass windows above. I planned the shoot in color, as the steeple window has a golden glow, buy the color of the church (yellow/beige) looked awful.

I dunno, it's sharp, technically nice, but it doesn't tell me anything. What's it supposed to say?

revluke wrote in post #16808600
I dunno, it's sharp, technically nice, but it doesn't tell me anything. What's it supposed to say?

I think it's just supposed to be a pretty image of a church.

Or, at least I think that's what it IS. What it's supposed to say, I don't know.

Anyway, I've always sort of took issue with your approach. Where it's like, "what is this saying?" That's a valid question, absolutely. The problem is that it's not just the viewer asking that question, it's also the photographer. Artists show art in large part because they want to hear what people think about that art. I think there should be a back and forth going on here. As in, you give a little and thn take a little. Rather than just go "what is this suppossed to say," reword the question. Because otherwise you're just saying "give ME information, it's all about ME." I think the better approach is to go, "this image seems to be expressing this or drawing inportance to that. Am I way off-base there? Were you going for something completely different, or am I getting close to interpretting this correctly?"

The benefit here is that it still allows for asking what is supposed to be said, but it also gives the artist the courtesy of actually seeing what people think the image says.

Anyway, I think it looks really good, but I think it may be Just-a-Church. Or not, I don't know. I just saw this image, and I usually need to sit on images for a while before knowing what I think of them. But hell, even if this is Just-a-Church, is ther anything wrong with that? I don't think every image needs to say something profound, it's okay to just photograph pretty stuff. And i think this church looks good.

Granted, the framing is a little bit weird, and I don't like the greenery on the sides of the church. But I think that information is enough to convey certain information. The photographer made the image really tight. The church completely dominates the image, there's no contxtual information to estavlish the church's relationship to other things. The image is all about the church, the church dominates, the image forces the viewer to place their attention on the church. True, the shrubberry on the sides adds nothing, but the darkness in the sky is contrasted with the visual dominance of the church. That says something. I'm not saying that the image is good or bad, but it IS saying something. If we're gonna ask what it's supposed to say, I think it's fair to at least offer up an interpretation of what it says.

Some responses are best ignored as they come from the neophytes that lurk herein.

I'm almost immediately drawn to the tree on the left. I would darken it down a bit along with the brick(?) to the right.

You could even brighten the whites up a bit. Do you view your images on white or black?

chauncey wrote in post #16811739
Some responses are best ignored as they come from the neophytes that lurk herein.

Are you suggesting that he should ignore inquiries as to what his work is supposed to say? How is that in any way beneficial to anyone? The person asking the question gets no insight, the person refusing to discuss his work just ends up looking like someone who either (at best) is a condescending uppity jerk or (at worst) is UNABLE to answer the question and tries to dodge it by avoiding discussion.

Furthermore, what exactly are the criteria for accurately judging someone as a neophyte? How's he/she supposed to know that asking what he intended to say is a question that only a neophyte would ask, when that's ignoring the very real possibility that he simply made a work that is visually incoherent? Even experts make mistakes, and dismissing questions as worthless of a reply because they're coming from neophytes is the same sort of insular thinking that results in people building an empire and then running it into the ground because they ignored all of the comments and suggestions and questions about whether the current direction was viable. I think that people asking what works say should do the courtesy of offering input on what they think it says, but I don't see how it's beneficial for creators to just categorically ignore questions about the work. The fact that people even have questions shows that it isn't clear to someone, and that fact should probably be dealt with in a more careful manner than simply going "pfft, you wouldn't get it, you're just a n00b."

I think it looks great. Love how you captured the lighting on the building. I'd be very happy with this image.

It technically is a great shoot. But for me, as others have mentioned above the composition with the cropping and the tree to the lower left makes the image feel off.

It might be the assymentry that distributes me. Others might have less problem with this.

Yes I am...what conceivable difference would be made by that question...it's either a pretty picture or not. End of story!
C&C the image quality...offer suggestions and comments is a good thing...anything beyond that is totally irrelevant and superfluous.

chauncey wrote in post #16813347
Yes I am...what conceivable difference would be made by that question...it's either a pretty picture or not. End of story!
C&C the image quality...offer suggestions and comments is a good thing...anything beyond that is totally irrelevant and superfluous.

Nothing wrong with someone asking what the intent of the photo is...it can and does make a difference sometimes. In this case, is it something going in the church bulletin, is it an attempt at fine art, is it an experiment in b/w conversion techniques or is it something else?

Technically, the image is level, well exposed and focused. It is cropped way too close for my personal tastes. It looks squeezed. Also, the highlights on the entry doors appear to be crushed, they have taken on a vague grey tone instead of white. Distracting elements on either side of the main subject can be an issue, but sometimes the only issue is the photographer's impression of what is a distraction. Elements can be moved or altered in the editing process to lessen their visual impact.

Ok, I see this got revived, and I've found it interesting where it's going.

As for "What's it supposed to say?", nothing really.

The purpose of this photo was to try out 32-bit HDR, and I decided to use a night shot of the church around the corner from my house. It looks really pretty at night, as the windows have a golden glow, but because the church itself is a yellow-ish beige color, it ended up looking nasty in color, so I tried it in B&W. I sort of liked it.

The framing is tight because outside of the framed area there is nothing that would add to the image - asphalt in front, unattractive continuation of the building to the right, and not-so-healthy shrubbery to the left. But I completely understand the comments regarding this.

The title of the thread is really what the post is all about. I really don't like HDR images, as they either tend to look cartoonish, or have those annoying halos. AdoramaTV had an episode by Gavin Hoey about 'realistic HDR', done in 32 bit, rather than the typical 8 or 16 bit, and I thought it looked good. Here's THE LINK.

So in a nutshell, this is a post processing test image that I wanted to hear how others thought the processing went. I do appreciate all the comments that have been posted so far.

I took a night shot in B&W of a church recently. It wasn't HDR and didn't have the perspective control of your's. I like your HDR better. Here's mine:
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/segedi/1345866​9464/

Commenting strictly on processing... which I think you're looking for... looks good to me. I'd say you got it right.