St Edmundsbury Cathedral

Beautifully balanced lighting!

It is not overprocessed IMHO. At first glance I had the impression of a good and right exposure. After reading your words I wonder if you dealt this file in SNS HDR. Everything look naturale and balanced as Paul states above

Looks well handled to my eye. I agree with them above me.

Yes, SNS HDR. I've now updated the info to include this.

When viewed at the original size it looks a bit oversharpened, and I think it may look a more natural shot with a fraction of a pixel blur and/or clarity taken down slightly.

Is it worth projecting though?

I do like so. THX for your reply.

You probably can't really see what I mean about 'too sharp' at the PU Gallery resolution. It's more noticeable in flickr

https://www.flickr.com/photos/waypointcharlie/40402483311/in/photostream/lightbo...

Press f11 for full sceen.

I'd say so.
Minor niggles looking in close on Flickr:-
The two vertical light stands are a bit annoying, don't think anything should be done.
I think the stained glass window could be brightened/warmed up a little, it's very cold and blue as is. Maybe worth a play?
BUT, it looks great as is and I would expect it to score well.
It really does not look over sharpened to my eye. There are some fine white lines on parts of the wooden pews/choir stands but I read that as highlights from the lights, certainly not an issue to my eye.
Good luck
I'm entering an overexposed noisy image, I'm dooooomed

Thanks Mr K. I thought the same.

I tried warming up the window but wasn't convinced. I'll take another look.

Those spots are a distraction and would be simple to remove crudely (but it's only projected resolution) but the question then is, where does the light come from? And once you get rid of them the ones on the right become the problem!

That's a cracking shot to be proud of

Great work

Best regards
Peter

Hi again.
My monitor is 50cm x 35cm wide. It is big enough to "sniff" troubles you are talking about. Honestly speaking your picture is sharp but in a smart way. No halos around objects, lines, shapes. I pressed F11 on Flickr and then I used lens magnifier (+ or -) to increase decrease image. "Not bad at all"...Be proud of your work
PS F10 increases sharpness of light-rays in the two columns left/right. It is normal. I don't like open F numbers for pictures taken backlight. So doing lights appear burst.

Viewing large on the iPad shows its full splendour

I just done a rough and ready edit, to see what it might look like without the lights and toning down the blue window.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/waypointcharlie/38615775320/in/photostream/lightbo...

I prefer with the lights. Plus I prefer it to be more 'authentic'. I don't suppose a competition judge would agree. Ah well!

One thing I'm sure of, I prefer the slightly less blue window, it allows a bit more of the hot colours to be seen also. Lights or not lights is a more difficult. I'd probably go no lights on balance, it's a fine line.

Thanks for your suggestions. All this agonising. The judge will probably detest overworked HDR anyway and/or say the lectern is badly placed. In fact, I'm pretty certain he'll say that!

Hi and sorry! It is me again,
previous version is better. Brighter and alive! Latest is weak, less impact. Inside a dark room (i.e. church) lights are very important. Eyes immediately perceive lightness against darkness. This psycho impact is very important in photos or paintings. You have been able to manage it in your former editing.

Superb..

+1