your expertise, please

[dorus]

<p>There is a local competition, here in the Netherlands, for which I'd like to enter.<br>

The subject is architecture, and I've been working on these pictures.<br>

However I'm a little dazed now and I find it very hard to judge what is best. Can't see the wood for the trees, so to speak.<br>

Would you help me decide ? Tell me what's right and what's wrong, or simply tell me which is best.<br>

<img src="http://static.zoom.nl/369c2ec267555994708d19f34564deb8.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="439" /><br>

w5</p>

<p><img src="http://static.zoom.nl/9ccddb29e8f1f403a4065b29a2999785.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="418" /><br>

w4</p>

<p><img src="http://static.zoom.nl/d2023072372efc15a020044e5e19dca6.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="470" /><br>

w3</p>

<p><a href="http://static.zoom.nl/647a32fdf616697fcbcb5515c6007cc1.jpg"><img src="http://static.zoom.nl/647a32fdf616697fcbcb5515c6007cc1.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="458" /></a><br>

w2</p>

<p><img src="http://static.zoom.nl/77722f1b58dffa9a415251988766009c.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="443" /><br>

w1</p>

 

[elnoralouisa]

<p>I like w3 the best, just because it looks like something :) W5 is probably the best as far as picture wise. Question would be which fits the description of what they are looking for.......</p>

[rparmar]

<p>I also prefer W3 because there is a good deal of different textural material -- sky, glass, brick -- that all add interest. But additionally you get to see the brick through the glass and the sky through the glass, so there is even more direct indication of the materials you are shooting. But a square crop that eliminates excess sky would be better.</p>

[pbarnes]

<p>W2 for me. It is the most interesting perspective, has an interesting mix of natural looking monochrome and colour, the sky isn't as processed as some of the others, but is still dramatic. The building part of the image makes some sense as an object (as does w3, the others give me very little idea of what I am looking at). It would help us respond better if we knew the criteria set by the competition. And just what is this clear stuff (glass?) bolted to a brick wall? Does it have any function?</p>

[dorus]

<p>here's a view of the whole building. The large glass panes sticking out are ornamental, rather than anything else. Actually, I work here....<br>

The competition has no other rules besides being about dutch architecture.<br>

<img src="http://static.zoom.nl/defd7c3af7f599e7cff87cb3690bdc20.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="469" /></p>

 

[rose_duclos]

<p>I like W1 - because of the sky and how the lighting is reflecting off of the glass. There also seems to be more of a 3d effect to the 'box'.</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>This is a tough one Dorus.<br>

I prefer W5 mostly for the proportions of each of the elements and the angle of the shot. I like the color too.<br>

W1 is attractive because it is the most kinetic and brings the architecture to life. Also pleasant color and treatment.<br>

W3 is pretty good but I feel like it is missing something in that patch of sky like a zeppelin or a balloon. Wonderful texture.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[jeremy_corbin]

<p>I agree, I think that W3 looks the most stunning with W1 a close second. I also liked not knowing what this was a photo of too; like you only gave us one piece of the puzzle.<br>

It's quite intriguing. </p>

[brad_n]

<p>Dorus,<br>

For me W5 is the hands-down winner. I have a strong preference for the blue tint. Blue is cold and metalic. The yellow/orange tint doesn't belong thematically. I prefer the more blank sky as it is an architecture study not a cloud study: don't draw the viewer's eye away from where you want them to focus. I love the dramatic DOF given to W5 by the angled roof tiles versus W1 and W2. Finally, I don't like the box within a box effect of the W2 framing: too surreal for "architecture".<br>

Very nice work. Good luck.</p>

[occhicone]

<p>i like the cold look of 5 but i think there is a halo around the glass...it looks a little fake... overall, i think if you toned down the processing to a slightly more natural look, they would be better - i like the direction but just a touch overprocessed for me. imo, i like 1 the best...</p>

<p>also, have you thought about b&w - may be cool</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>I like these photographically, but I feel that for the subject of archetechtuure, there is not sufficient structural information in these shots. An interesting building. One wonders, though, if going through the trouble and expense of glass panel construction, they could not have been designed for a practical use as well, such as gathering solar energy!</p>

[jtk]

<p>I agree with Michael K...what we see appears architecturally goofy...mere decoration rather than relevant to occupants of the building. I dislike the examples that are artifically warm-toned. My favorite image is the first one, W5, despite its over-sharpening. </p>

[rose_duclos]

<p>Dutch architecture... wouldn't that be windmills?</p>

[dorus]

<p>Rose, you're lucky I'm not a chauvinist....<br>

You might check <a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/oh.shiva/AlmereArchitectuur">http://picasaweb.google.com/oh.shiva/AlmereArchitectuur</a># , photo's from my local town Almere, not a single windmill there :)</p>

[rose_duclos]

<p>I'll check it out tonight - firewalls at work don't allow me to go to that site.</p>

<p>I went to amsterdam ... about 10 years ago... they had some really cute archetecture there - lots of rock and stone bridges and bright colored buildings. Very charming ... <br>

And, it's not chauvinistic - to think windmills, when every tourist shop there were selling tiles with windmill scenes ... <br>

If you asked me to describe something 'unique' to American archetecture - I'd probably show you part of a row of Boston's backbay brownstones along Commonwealth Ave. Either that, or a bright colored Victorian... Some of the neighbors in my part of town, really like to paint them colorful. :)</p>

<p>So - going back to the term "DUTCH" ... what is it about this particular building that makes it Dutch... it's modern, and could be in any country, couldn't it? ... is the style linked to a specific Dutch archetect (sorry I'm not exactly versed in this topic.) ...</p>

 

[rose_duclos]

<p>...oO There's nothing wrong with windmills... I happen to really like windmills... I wish I had one ... imagine never having another electric bill... or all those extra fees attached to the monthly bill - delivery charges, and taxes ... </p>

<p>Definitely, it'd be soooooo cool to have my own windmill. So - really, who's being a little bit on the defensive, eh? :) (windmills are nothing - - you can stick that in your bong, and smoke it - my Dutch friend.) - - Now that's an example of stereotyping. ;)</p>

[tomadakis]

<p>W3 is my favorite photograph. Not sure what it has to do with Dutch Architecture...</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>I like W2 and W5. W2 is the strongest, I think, because of the way the colors flow together. They're all good photos.</p>

[pbarnes]

<p>That's a cool place to work in Dorus. I think people are misreading your statement that the competition is for photos "about Dutch architecture", thinking that the structures must be Dutch in character (eg windmills). I'm assuming that "Dutch architecture" simply means buildings in the Netherlands and nothing more.</p>

[s_brown2]

<p>w5 by a long shot. For me it is the only photo which has dramatic visual impact and will catch the eye of the judges. Excellent composition and a really intriguing perspective. The geometric arrangement of the lines, coupled with the textural contrast between brick, metal, and cloud really make this photo. It's very clean and it is not all obvious that it is the photo of the side of a building. It's a very interesting and very impressive shot. Technically it is not absolutely perfect (a little more dof in the left corner would have been good) but I am nitpicking.</p>

<p>The other photos are "nice", but won't stand out amongst hundreds of entries. They don't challenge the viewer and invite the gaze to linger. They are still very good shots but, for me, are not in the same league as w5.</p>

<p>Regardless of how you go in the competition, congrats on some great work. I would be very pleased with myself if I'd taken w5.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>W5 and W2</p>

[david_n1]

<p>I scrolled down and saw W2 and said "wow". All great images but W2 does it for me.</p>

[hagar]

<p>Well I kind of liked all of them Dorus with some reservations..<br>

W5 is pretty cool pov and the pp is fine<br>

W4 I find it a bit bland, compared to the others at least :-)<br>

W3 This is quite interesting, but it needs something.. maybe a tighter crop, or the angle of the building.<br>

W2 Pretty good and fairly dynamic with the clouds<br>

W1 I like the colors and the angles.. my only beef is the clouds that are at the bottom right edge of the glass.. I find them distracting.. so if you can move the sky around in ps and have the glass clear and the clouds in the sky rather than in that tiny space crammed between the roof and the glass... I find the lines in the photo tend to lead my eyes towards the top left of the glass, so the clouds in that spot are "distracting".</p>

[rose_duclos]

<p>Dutch archetecture... <br>

There's an old nursery rhyme - "There was an old lady who lived in a shoe... "<br>

Was she Dutch? Are there big houses that look like shoes over there? :D<br>

I think if there were and someone should happen to take a picture of it... it'd be a sure winner! ;) I'm just saying... <br>

I have a preference for shoe pictures, and if it should happen to have an old lady and a whole slew of kids playing out in front of it ... Now that's be some picture! :)</p>

[pbarnes]

<p>I want some of what Rose is having!</p>