I love all the different textures and dappled lighting in the photo and that picket fence looks familiar.
A wonderful old bluestone building.
The only thing I find a little distracting is the branch hanging down in the centre of the photo.
Maybe carry a pruning saw.
I like this version a lot. It retains all the interesting texture of the first shot and the B&W conversion works well.
The stonework on the front corner of the building and the down pipe to some extent seems to be grainy. Is this in the building or the pp. Not a criticism just an observation, I quite like it. We have some wonderful old colonial buildings in Aus. Great for photography.
I think both would benefit from some Local Contrast Enhancement, they just looks too 'flat' to me.
Please don't be discouraged by the following;
In #2 you also have the classic tone mapped 'look' of the sky being much brighter between the closely packed twigs than between the gaps in between the branches (i.e. there would be halos if there were more sky to show them).
I'm afraid in both, I can't see anything that warrants 'tone map' treatment and feel a properly processed RAW capture would suffice.
Some tone mapped images can be 'painterly' and you can 'get away with it' - by which I mean I might actually like it
Not sure why these don't quite achieve that; possibly too much fine detail/texture, across the entire image.(?)
Hope that's helpful,
Hey Greg and Dave,
Thanks again for you feedback and comments. I think that the graininess was brought out more by my PP.
No problems there Dave, I actively seek feedback and comments and take everything as constructive and try to learn from it. I have added two more photos, the orig in colour and a straight b&w conversion. I think I may have lost a bit of sharpness in the reduction. The program I used for the tone mapping, Luminance HDR, is a bit hit and miss, you can sometimes get the right look and on the other end you end up with something over the top or underdone.Please don't be discouraged by the following