Besides the strong graphics of this architecture, my photographic intent was to capture dimensionality using the light. Don't think I quite pulled that part off in the B&W conversion. #1473464

This is an old church outside of Tucson, AZ. #10218237

Susan because I have been off I did not realize that you are just back. A big welcome back from me too. #10218451

Aimee -- you're correct, the lines aren't parallel, particularly the outside wall of the tower. In buildings of this type and age, the walls are actually tapered, so I felt it would have been, at the very least, self-defeating to "square" my image using the outside lines. I did use the grid lines and perspective tools to straighten the image (Dale), but I focused more on horizontals and interior verticals rather than the outside verticals. Even so, careful examination will show that even the horizontals aren't parallel with themselves. Such is to be expected in a 400-yr-old building built by a lay architect using unskilled, indigenous labor on the frontiers of the civilized world. Not sure I want to edit all that "character" out.

Mike, I had a hard time getting those patches of sky to show through identifiably as sky, since the color quality wasn't there to provide identification. Any time I tried to decrease the sky (not that I wanted to, by the way), I felt like I was losing the open arches in the towers. #10218503

I'm in the "prefer the color" camp on this one, mainly because the color helps give it more depth. I think the blk an wht idea would have worked had the POV been at an angle so that the corner of the building was in the foreground with one side shadowed and sunlit on the other. #10218684

but boy do I like your last post, pov is much more interesting the lighting is better for the black and white. great job! #10219899

I can also agree with you that, like Rita's more recent submission, the second image with all of its additional lines, angles and complexity holds a lot more interest than the original.

I think it may be bigger stretch, Debbie, to rate my images as "exciting". But thank you. I know I've been negligent in my participation lately, and that may last while longer. But I'll try to be a little more consistent. I am looking forward to meeting many of you in D.C.

My few comments...
-- while I'm gratified with the overwhelming reaction to the 2nd image, I think the first has a couple of unique technical qualities that increase its appeal to me. I think it has a little more "quality of light" content. I think the tonal separation between the exterior surfaces and the internal surfaces provides more depth in the internal structures of the tower. Then there is the rim light along the left edges -- a subtle effect that is less common than the broad expanses of tonal variation of the 2nd post.

--There was also general consensus on the contrast, but interestingly focused on the original post. I'm not going to "apologize" for the darkness of sky which will have varying appeal to viewers. I'll just leave it as "Peter" explanation that that is deliberate interpretive intent on my part in the style of a recognized "master". However, I will point out that my process for creating the second image was to follow the same post-processing regimen as I used on original. I actually copied the adjustment layers, layer-for-layer, from the original to the second. With one exception, the only change made per layer was to delete and re-add the layer masks to fit the contours of the second image. That one exception in the second image was to replace a "multiply" layer to reduce the highlights on sunlit side with a shadow/hilite layer that allowed me to both reduce the highlights and open up the shadows on the lower left facade and the doorway/balcony at the bottom. So to the best of my ability, there is no contrast difference between the two images, with noted exception.

When I go to print these for my local club print competition, I will probably select the 2nd for the B&W categories. #10222278