For the vestry kettle
Intrigued by the Butterfieldian "streaky bacon" look of the spire, I turned off the main road. The resources of Pevsner are unavailable to me at the moment, but according to its website St Andrew, Great Finborough, Suffolk, is an ancient foundation, though the present building is eminently Victorian. Not, as I'd hoped, by Butterfield, but R M Phipson ...a new name to me. Some may, reasonably enough, think fuse boxes, channelling, trip switches and unconcealed wiring an unwelcome addition to the fixtures of a church but, to me, they do not intrude but represent continuity. The eternal accomodates itself to the temporal ...or do I mean the other way around? Something like that, anyway.
A difficult shot from an exposure point-of-view. I normally keep "post-processing", in my hopelessly out-of-date version of Photoshop Elements, to the bare minimum of necessity ...not much more than removing dust specks and lightly tweaking exposure. I think my scanner takes correct exposure as a kind of average of what it "reads" from the image, producing a grotty result from a contrasty scene such as this. Here I have applied "auto contrast" selectively to the left, middle and right of the picture. Is this cheating? I think not: it merely restores what the eye and the camera saw.
For the vestry kettle
Intrigued by the Butterfieldian "streaky bacon" look of the spire, I turned off the main road. The resources of Pevsner are unavailable to me at the moment, but according to its website St Andrew, Great Finborough, Suffolk, is an ancient foundation, though the present building is eminently Victorian. Not, as I'd hoped, by Butterfield, but R M Phipson ...a new name to me. Some may, reasonably enough, think fuse boxes, channelling, trip switches and unconcealed wiring an unwelcome addition to the fixtures of a church but, to me, they do not intrude but represent continuity. The eternal accomodates itself to the temporal ...or do I mean the other way around? Something like that, anyway.
A difficult shot from an exposure point-of-view. I normally keep "post-processing", in my hopelessly out-of-date version of Photoshop Elements, to the bare minimum of necessity ...not much more than removing dust specks and lightly tweaking exposure. I think my scanner takes correct exposure as a kind of average of what it "reads" from the image, producing a grotty result from a contrasty scene such as this. Here I have applied "auto contrast" selectively to the left, middle and right of the picture. Is this cheating? I think not: it merely restores what the eye and the camera saw.