Dunstable Priory

Cobra

Cobra

In Memoriam. TPer Emeritus
Admin
Messages
115,214
Name
The real Chris
Edit My Images
No
From the web.
The Priory Church of St Peter with its monastery (Dunstable Priory) was founded in 1132 by Henry I for Augustinian Canons in Dunstable, Bedfordshire.
St Peter’s today is a large and impressive building, but this is only the nave of what remains of an originally much larger Augustinian priory church.
The monastic buildings consisted of a dormitory for the monks, an infirmary, stables, workshops, bakehouse, brew house and buttery.
There was also a hostel for pilgrims and travellers, the remains of which is known today as Priory House.
Opposite the Priory was one of the royal palaces belonging to Henry I, known as Kingsbury.

So much for the advert.
I really do struggle getting to grips with the 10-22 f/3.5-4.5
It seems that I the horizontals sorted and end up screwing up the verticles,
and vice versa.
Comments and crit appreciated.

The outside

View attachment 28887 View attachment 28888 View attachment 28889

And one from the inside
Although the "spire" is straight the top horizontal is way out,
but the lower handrail seems ok,

View attachment 28890
 
Last edited:
The light is a little harsh but I think you have done ok with it. The first is so-so for me, the shadows of the trees (??) seem like smudges and ummm, well the lights harsh ;) I like the framing in the second same issue with the shadows though (maybe take a chainsaw next time ...) but it makes better use of the light for me, the hard edged shadows add depth. The third one is the best of the exterior ones, whilst the light is similarly harsh, it has a better quality to it, and the hard shadows really add to the feel. I'm not sure what is on the tower though, I may have been tempted to clone it out, whatever it is, it looks completely out of place. Nice colours in #3 too.

I think in number 4 you weren't quite central, either that or the rear wall with the spire in it is either at an angle (i.e. the left hand side is further away than the right) or it's squint.

As for horizontals and verticals, I tend not to worry too much over them if you are meaning convergence. I'd expect verticals to converge and as long as the horizontals that matter are where intended (you may not want them level) I let the rest sort themselves out. I've tried software that sorts this sort of thing out (DxO ViewPoint) and whilst it is very clever I'm not convinced the output feels right.
 
@PaulButler
Thanks for taking the time Paul, I appreciate your comments and input.
Chainsaw, Hmmm thats an idea, but I have a feeling the trees maybe protected :D

The things on top, one is a flag pole the other a weather vane.
But I see what you mean :)
And I suspect that its likely to have been me that was squint, rather than
the church TBH ;)

BTW I just use "lens correction" in P/s to try and sort out the H&V's
 
Last edited:
HI Chris.

To be cruel to be kind...

Watch your sharpening. The second one (with the folliage on at the top of the frame) looks oversharpened. It could be the resolution/web resizing though.Compositionally you are neither oblique like you are in one or three, not completely perpendicular. I'd recommend standing dead straight, and level face onto the subject (use your camera grid) and spirit level to get this just so.

1st shot is compositionally better. I'd have let the sun drop a little lower, get the light a bit richer. I'd clone out the small branches on the lHS of the frame, they are neither adding to the subject but ever so slightly distracting. The 3rd one is really quite good, better light, better composition that draws your eye in.

4, good exposure, a nearly shot. Again, you need the symettry to work this, you need to be bang slap in the middle, dead square to the subject and dead level to pull it off. I can live with the slightly convergence.
 
ST4 said:
HI Chris. To be cruel to be kind... .
Click to expand...
Cheers Steve I appreciate your honest comments & critique (y)
I never even saw the small branches until you mentioned them, but now I have, they are annoying, and need to go.

It was a spur of the moment thing TBH, but I think it definitely deserves a re-shoot,
and I'll take a tri-pod next time too ;)
 
Cobra said:
Cheers Steve I appreciate your honest comments & critique (y)
I never even saw the small branches until you mentioned them, but now I have, they are annoying, and need to go.

It was a spur of the moment thing TBH, but I think it definitely deserves a re-shoot,
and I'll take a tri-pod next time too ;)
Click to expand...

Tripods are good. The thing is, you have chosen, particularly with the 3rd flattering light. A lower softer light in one would make it, and be all square etc for some and you are there.
 
@ST4 Thanks for the tips, yet again Steve (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top