Two pictures of Birnau church - which is better?

[Peter S.]

Dear fellow photographers,

I got two photographs of a baroque church I drive by each day.
The first one is taken using a 4/150mm Sonnar on my 500c/m.



The second one was taken with a wide angle (50 or 60mm, I don't
remember). I did however crop something off the frame, as it looked
a bit empty. Thus it should give the view of a normal lens.



The second shot was taken about three weeks after the first one.
But this did not result in much difference.

Which one do You find better?

Best regards (& Thank You for telling me Your opinion)
Peter

[PeterW]

I prefer the second shot, Peter, but I find the grass and the nearest fence poles in the foreground a little distracting, and there's a little too much empty sky.

I think possibly if you cropped the bottom, say to the top of the grass on the left, and then cropped about half the empty sky from the top it would focus attention more on the church. This would make the picture a little long for the height, but you could then crop the left hand side, say to the edge of the dark clump of trees, and possibly just a little off the right hand side? Try it on a 'save as' and see what you think.

Alternatively, perhaps you could repeat the shot with the camera, or at least the lens, just inside the outer fence.You should still be OK with a 50mm lens, or maybe even the standard 80mm. The second shot is beautifully crisp. I can't remember, is it the 50mm Flektogon you've got? Whatever it is, it's a very nice lens with a good flat field, and lighting (early to mid morning?) is just right to bring out the varied colour tones in the church building.


PeterW

[kiev4a]

Peter:

I much prefer the first shot. To me the seond shot is just a photo of a chuch. The first shot has more character.

[Peter S.]

Dear Peter W.,

Thank You for Your detailed comment! I will give it a third try. I need however to bring a small
collabsible ladder to the location. The offending poles are about 2m in height. I stood on the
side of the major road which gave me about 1m in height compared to the level of the vineyard.
I am sure the additional height of the ladder will give me a better result. Stepping inside the
vineyard is no option, since the plants are too high (even for me at 1.95m height...).

I will use the 80mm Planar next time. The possible lenses used are both Carl Zeiss Oberkochen
Distagons, 50 (most likely) or 60mm.

sidnote: Thanks to the Bay of Evil I got now 40, 50, 60, 80, 100, 150, and 250mm, where the 50,
80, and 150mm lenses got the T* coating. All are C lenses (i.e. they range from 1965 to 1980).
I don't think the T* coating is worth the additional money (those sell at least 30% more expensive
compared to their older cousins). Btw I will post a sample picture taken with that 1965 5.6/250mm
C-Sonnar. It is a hell of a sharp lens without the use of any fancy APO/ED/LD glass.


Dear Ron,

Thank You for Your comment. Yes, it is a vineyard. And I will have the next try maybe
tomorrow (I don't got the camera with me today, which is a pity since the weather
is excellent today with a change towards the worse tomorrow).

Dear Wayne,

Thank You for adding a contradicting vote ;-) - when I got the ladder (and the right light) I will
redo both approaches. I also think, that the second version has more of a formal treatment.
And finally the photograph I took first was the one with the longer lens...

Best regards (to all of You)
Peter

[camerastoomany]

I'm with Wayne. Looking first at picture one, I didn't recognise the messy (sorry!!) greenery in the foreground. A glance at the second pic. is all that's needed to see the plants as grape vines. This adds to the story, making picture two much more than just a picture of a church.

[herron]

I like both shots...but agree a little cropping would make the second one even better...just not to the extent already suggested.

I would crop in a little at the bottom, so the picture began at that first gray support pole (second one in from the left crop)...and I would leave the sky just as it is.

Aren't differences of opinion wonderful things? ;D

[mickeyobe]

I like the first shot best.
It is warmer and more intimate and the foreground posts are far less obtrusive.
They tend to merge with the grape vine supports.

Mickey

[Peter S.]

Dear Geoff, dear Ron, dear Mickey,

Thank You for Your comments!

When taking the pictures I was aware of the problems those poles would do - I just was not
able to overcome them. They are less prominent in the first picture - but cropping the lower
half of the poles in the second would even increase the problem. Next time I will try a ladder
to get an extra meter of height.

A longer telephoto is also no option, since there are trees along the road, which would block the
view on the church. Thus only the ladder (plus the eye level finder on the camera) could do
the trick.

Your comments confirm my vague feeling that made me start this thread. I will go out once I get
smooth evening light (maybe 1 hour before sunset plus a bit of spare time), sunlight from west
and a few clouds in the south east to fill the empty sky. A bit of that happened on both my
shots irrespective of the fact, that there was a three weeks timespan between the pictures.

Best regards
Peter