The Duck nailed it when he said this month's subject matter resulted\nin postcards. I can imagine several of these shots on sale in\nchurches as postcards. Or, on the cover of a church bulletin.\n\nRob's "Ben" is gloomy but interesting, his Busselton is OK but the\nlower portion is a bit dark making it look bottom-heavy, and St\nMartin's is kinda disturbing. The tilt of the building and the vapor\ntrails are just too much all together.\n\nTim Conway's views are all almost ruined by distracting elements\nof the wires and the television antenna.\n\nI like the idea of a juxtaposition of the old and the new, but Bob\nCoe's #1 doesn't present the old with any interest. His #2 is better,\nbut cloning out the limbs and leaves in the top portion would have\nimproved the image. Same with #3. I see no problem with helping\nnature out with the clone tool.\n\nMartha's #1 might be a little more interesting by cropping out all the\nsky to the left and right of the brickwork and having the rest\ndead-center and cropping to just below the points of the woodwork at\nthe bottom. Also, a perspective adjustment to make the vertical line\nof the brick straight up and down. Again, cropping to the edge of the\nroof on the lower left and just above the white bit of roof on the\nlower right. There are two parts of photographic composition: what\nwe do in-camera, and what we do (cropping) in post.\n\nMartha's #3 is a good one, but needs sharp contrast between the blacks\nand the whites.\n\nI can't figure out what Peter Newman is doing half the time. I like\nthe inclusion of the building on the right, but what's going on with\nthe steeple itself in "Atlanta"? "Camden" is just weird. There's a\ngood image there cropping to just the upper right quarter with the\nchurch, the two colors of foliage, and the mist at the top. But, the\nflags should go.\n\nSavage Duck's "General Sherman" is a good photograph even if it\ndoesn't have a real church in it. I love the way the trees angle in\nto converge in the center. Mission San Miguel is a nice enough shot,\nbut it doesn't really have any impact. The Belltower is a good shot\nwith great clouds that the Duck has mercifully left natural.\n\nI usually look forward to DanP's shots, but #1 doesn't make it at all.\nHe's back with the #2, though. That combo of old and new says\nsomething. Cropping to include the white fence at the bottom is the\nright touch. I think I'd burn the white thing at the base of the\nbrick structure just so it doesn't act as an eye magnet.\n\nEric Stevens should use the tower on Christiansborg Palace shot to\ngive him incentive to get into some post-processing program that would\nallow him to drop in the right sky or add color. Good sky, though, in\nSt Petersburg. This is one of those shots where a standard ratio\nshould be abandoned and crop it just where the canal walls exit the\nimage and some off the top. Cropping the top gives it better balance.\nOverall, this is one of the better images this month with good water,\nsky, color, and interest.\n\nThe Riddarholmen image doesn't need the buildings at the bottom.\nIn other shots, I like the mix of old and new, but not here. They\nhave no interest-adding factor, and the blue thingy should have been\ncropped out.\n\nGraham did everything right in-camera and in-post with Spaldwick #1.\nExcellent composition with just enough left, right, top, and bottom.\nGood idea of black and white in Spaldwick #2. The tree adds to the\nlook. I'm ambivalent about the tilt in Chesterfield. I think a\nsquare crop would work better if the tilted view is used. The\nproblem, though, is that this leaves too little of the branches and\nthey can't be cloned out without losing that vapor trail diagonal.\n\nI'm also ambivalent about KPetre's #1. I like the constrained view of\nthe church between the buildings and the red taillights, but there's\ntoo much loss of detail of the lower part of the church. His #2\nmisses for me for the same reason: lack of detail in the spire. It\ndoesn't work as a total silhouette. #3 has great warmth in the color\nand a really good effect with one face in the sun and one face in\nshadow. That's an image where the sky is better without clouds. I'd\nclone out that white pole or antenna thing.\n\nStick's photo is just kinda insipid. Not his fault, but must have\nbeen better churches around wherever he is.\n\nBowser's North Andover white church may be a cliche shot, but it has\nimpact. With steeples, the sky is half the shot and this is a great\nsky color. Glad someone else saw a steeple reflected in a window as a\ngood idea. His window has less distortion than the reflections I\nfound. Clone out the white things.\n\nBut, don't clone out the white things in #3. The one gold spot of\ncolor works well.\n\nCute idea from Frankess.\n\nAbout my shots...I took about 30 shots of various churches in and\naround Orlando, but they all began to look alike to me. Finally, I\nspotted one of the reflections and found what I wanted. A hunt for\nmore reflections became almost obsessive. Each building, depending on\nthe window glass color or sun-blocking treatment, resulted in a\ndifferent color. In #1, the windows were a bronze color. In #2, the\nwindows were tinted blue. I didn't change the colors in post.\n\nI also found that moving to the left or right a few feet completely\nchanged the distortion effect. The same church, reflected in the same\nwindow, changed completely in shape depending on where I stood.\n\nThe Episcopal church was, as I stated in a post in this newsgroup,\nPhotoshopped. In a layer above the Background layer I added a\ntoned-down Poster Edges Filter. Then, using a Layer Mask, I removed\nthe filter effect from the sky.