I snapped these photos 70 years ago, but I've never managed to make up my mind which angle is the better of the two. So I thought I'd submit them to the Hog herd and get your opinions.
RichardQ
Number 1 because of the sculpture and the sky treatment. Where is the church located?
RichardQ wrote:
I snapped these photos 70 years ago, but I've never managed to make up my mind which angle is the better of the two. So I thought I'd submit them to the Hog herd and get your opinions.
RichardQ
I like #1 better. It shows more of the environment; that is my preference. :)
#1 has - better overall detail and composition with good framing with foreground, middle ground, and background with interest in all. Nice juxtaposition of the sculpture with the architecture.
rjaywallace wrote:
Number 1 because of the sculpture and the sky treatment. Where is the church located?
Thank you for your feedback, Ralph. The church is located near the center of Fürstenfeldbruck, about 20 miles from Munich in the state of Bavaria, Germany. Their web page shows they've really spiffed the town up since I spent a year there in 1946. Lots of red roofs.
waegwan wrote:
I like #1 better. It shows more of the environment; that is my preference. :)
Many thanks for your opinion. Waegwan.
mallen1330 wrote:
#1 has - better overall detail and composition with good framing with foreground, middle ground, and background with interest in all. Nice juxtaposition of the sculpture with the architecture.
Thank you for your compliments, Mallen.
I like Number 1. More subject matter makes it more interesting.
trc
Loc: Logan, OH
RichardQ wrote:
I snapped these photos 70 years ago, but I've never managed to make up my mind which angle is the better of the two. So I thought I'd submit them to the Hog herd and get your opinions.
RichardQ
Richard,
It looks like #1 is the winner among everyone, including myself. I find it much more interesting since the lighting and the shadows enhance the scene and the textures of the buildings, statue, and foreground. The water in the second one really doesn't add anything to the image nor the deteriorated wall. It may if you had been there, but not to people who have not and are just looking at the shot as a picture.
I have a son who has lived in Munich going on 4 years now. I have never been at the city you mentioned, but he may be familiar with it. Thanks for posting, and I hope people's opinions have persuaded you to know which is better or has helped you make up your mind. 70 years is quite some time to be pondering as to which one you like better. Thanks again.
Best Regards,
Tom
Richard, if you are presenting the photo of the church, the second image does that quite nicely. If you are more interested in the surrounding area along with the church, then the first would be it. I'm not sure the sculpture is part of the church, or just in the proximity of the church. If it isn't part of the church proper, I'd go with the second for sure.
--Bob
RichardQ wrote:
I snapped these photos 70 years ago, but I've never managed to make up my mind which angle is the better of the two. So I thought I'd submit them to the Hog herd and get your opinions.
RichardQ
The first one is better, it has depth and realism; the second one seems to be static and two-dimensional.
WayneT wrote:
I like Number 1. More subject matter makes it more interesting.
Thank you for your opinion, Wayne. I really appreciate it.
trc wrote:
Richard,
It looks like #1 is the winner among everyone, including myself. I find it much more interesting since the lighting and the shadows enhance the scene and the textures of the buildings, statue, and foreground. The water in the second one really doesn't add anything to the image nor the deteriorated wall. It may if you had been there, but not to people who have not and are just looking at the shot as a picture.
I have a son who has lived in Munich going on 4 years now. I have never been at the city you mentioned, but he may be familiar with it. Thanks for posting, and I hope people's opinions have persuaded you to know which is better or has helped you make up your mind. 70 years is quite some time to be pondering as to which one you like better. Thanks again.
Best Regards,
Tom
Richard, br It looks like #1 is the winner among e... (
show quote)
Many thanks for your input and comments, Tom. The biggest problem I have with the first image is the fact that half the facade is blocked by the bridge pier supporting the statue, but when I moved more to photo right, the composition fell apart. I wanted the statue included because it introduced a human form to counter the church's stern architecture. When I went back on another day, the different sun angle revealed more of the facade's and the tower's surfaces, which I wanted to capture. I like both of the images for different reasons -- No. 1 as a scenic image, No. 2 as an architectural image.
Fürstenfeldbruck was on TV screens around the world in 1972 when Israel's Olympic wrestling team was taken hostage in Munich by Palestinian terrorists and died in a shootout on "Fursty's" military airfield. I was stationed there in 1946 with the U.S. Army Air Force when I photographed this church.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.