# Church "presence", C & C is welcome



## seakritter (Aug 22, 2012)

I know some will not like this but type of effect, it was just something that I was playing around with, since this forum is called just for fun, well what the heck. I did a shoot of this historical church and decide to do a few effects to ad some more interest. I won't burden the group with many of these, C & C if you would like, I do have the real work well in hand.


----------



## Tuffythepug (Aug 22, 2012)

I think you forgot something;  like pictures maybe


----------



## seakritter (Aug 22, 2012)

Here we go, lol


----------



## seakritter (Aug 22, 2012)

Not sure why they aren't uploading


----------



## Tuffythepug (Aug 22, 2012)

pictures are up now.


----------



## seakritter (Aug 22, 2012)

Thanks for some reason they don't show on my post still, weird


----------



## sm4him (Aug 22, 2012)

They're up, but out of the three pictures, durn if I can tell a difference in them. Granted, that may be because of my vision problems, but I'm just not seeing the differences.

I'm not a fan of faux light streaks, so this doesn't do much for me, but beyond that, it seems like it's got some weird, conflicting angles of light (and/or white streaks), especially at the front of the church, and the steeple just seems to be streaming down onto the roof.

I applaud doing things differently, and others may love this, but I'm not digging it. Sorry.
It's a beautiful church though, and I suspect I'd like the less-edited version just fine.


----------



## seakritter (Aug 22, 2012)

sm4him said:
			
		

> They're up, but out of the three pictures, durn if I can tell a difference in them. Granted, that may be because of my vision problems, but I'm just not seeing the differences.
> 
> I'm not a fan of faux light streaks, so this doesn't do much for me, but beyond that, it seems like it's got some weird, conflicting angles of light (and/or white streaks), especially at the front of the church, and the steeple just seems to be streaming down onto the roof.
> 
> ...



Yeah it was just for fun they are all the same pic, I could seem to get it to post so I kept trying, lol, so it attached 3 times, it doesn't seem to be letting me edit it for some reason, I'll prob post the untouched ver at some point


----------



## seakritter (Aug 22, 2012)

I think I fixed it at least one is gone


----------



## snowbear (Aug 22, 2012)

I think this could work well as an illustration, perhaps for a prayer book, missal, or a devotional/inspirational website.  I guess it's just the way the lights and shadows play, but the roof appears to be somewhat transparent where the steeple is.


----------



## seakritter (Aug 23, 2012)

sm4him said:
			
		

> They're up, but out of the three pictures, durn if I can tell a difference in them. Granted, that may be because of my vision problems, but I'm just not seeing the differences.
> 
> I'm not a fan of faux light streaks, so this doesn't do much for me, but beyond that, it seems like it's got some weird, conflicting angles of light (and/or white streaks), especially at the front of the church, and the steeple just seems to be streaming down onto the roof.
> 
> ...



Just for you here is the original , I hope you do like it.


----------



## rlemert (Aug 23, 2012)

I like the idea, but the shadowing is inconsistent with the 'aura'. You've got the light coming from behind the church, but you're still getting shadows from the trees in front of it on the roof. If you could get rid of that shadow you'd improve the picture's effectiveness substantially.


----------



## sm4him (Aug 23, 2012)

It's a beautiful church, and I do like the original better, because at least all the shadows are consistent with the light angles. The "streaks" and shadows in the "artified" version just seem to come from too many conflicting angles.

The thing I still don't like, even in the original is the harsh lighting and shadow on the roof.  Nothing you could really do about it given the particular day and time you were shooting, but if it were me, and I were close enough, I'd make a plan to go shoot this during the golden hour.


----------



## seakritter (Aug 23, 2012)

rlemert said:
			
		

> I like the idea, but the shadowing is inconsistent with the 'aura'. You've got the light coming from behind the church, but you're still getting shadows from the trees in front of it on the roof. If you could get rid of that shadow you'd improve the picture's effectiveness substantially.



I agree the shadows do challenge the photo, the concept was meant to be a separate presences coming out of the cross on the steeple , I did one with the light rays coming from the approx same angle I wasn't as pleased with it , I'll post it to see if you like it better.


----------



## seakritter (Aug 23, 2012)

sm4him said:
			
		

> It's a beautiful church, and I do like the original better, because at least all the shadows are consistent with the light angles. The "streaks" and shadows in the "artified" version just seem to come from too many conflicting angles.
> 
> The thing I still don't like, even in the original is the harsh lighting and shadow on the roof.  Nothing you could really do about it given the particular day and time you were shooting, but if it were me, and I were close enough, I'd make a plan to go shoot this during the golden hour.



Thank for your evaluation the church sits obviously north and south, surrounded by trees on most side, what do you think would be a good time of day, I shot these around 3 in the afternoon, I was trying to avoid high noon because of the building being white. Thanks again for your time.


----------

