200 year old church

[theantiquetiger]

This is in St Gabriel, LA, about 5 minutes from my house

Please critique one or the other (or both )



I really like this one with the sun flare. It was not an accident,I did accidentally discover it before shooting, but shot it with the flare on purpose. I posted it on another site, and it was not liked. It was my favorite shot today.

[Mad Aussie]

I like both compositions, in fact you seem to have a good eye for that part of photography at least, which is important.

The flare doesn't do anything for me, and I do appreciate a good flare shot myself. However, in this case I find it without form and all it's done is create a big distraction that has washed out the photo and doesn't add to the photo itself. Hint ... the higher the f-stop (smaller the aperture), the more likely the flare will take on some shape, like lights at night looking like stars.

I like the top photo for it's exposure and shadows as well.

[Richard]

I can't really add to what MA has already said. shot 1 for me is the stronger shot.

[NorthStone]

Nice composition. I agree with Mad Aussie and Richard about shot 1. Shot 1 is definitely stronger and not just because of the absence of the sun flare but because of the depth of the image. The trees either side work well with the church which is the prime subject and the shadows too emphasise the depth. Shot 2 lacks this.

On the sunflare I'm not a big fan of these and try to get rid of or avoid them altogether in my photos. I take MA's point about flares but I'd rather avoid them.

BW,
NorthStone

[Marko]

I have to agree with the others on the flare. It's not adding to the image at all, it's only detracting from it.
Curious, why do you like it, what do u think it adds?

[theantiquetiger]

I have to agree with the others on the flare. It's not adding to the image at all, it's only detracting from it.
Curious, why do you like it, what do u think it adds?

I am not super religious, but to me, it adds kind of a God-like presence to the image. I do agree the First image is 1000x sharper with very clean lines and the 2nd with the flare is washed out in the sky and side of the steeple. Maybe I could try a smaller aperture and get a star flare instead of a wash.

Over all, I think the flare adds character to the image. It is more than just an image of a church.

Does this make sense?

[Marko]

Makes sense to me AT, I'm just not seeing what you are seeing/feeling.

I sort of know what you were going for, but in that case, to me, the flare should be much more on the church as opposed to the tree. It should also "look" like it is there on purpose imo. IMO this looks accidental.
I say this to MANY members though. Your shot you da boss.