Wildcard - Red, Doors, Seeing double

[derbunk]

Fits all three:

[calr]

Nice one. I like those doors. They look a lot like the doors on a cathedral I spotted in Northwest Portland, OR. I plan to photograph it soon. Good work.

[monkey143]

Nice architecture - and you did a good job with keeping it straight - hard to do sometimes in grand architecture, with the horizon's paralax (did I say that right? :-)). This looks just a little washed out to me, tho. All in all, a very pleasing photograph. Nice and easy on the eye. :-)

[derbunk]

It was a very overcast, drab day. WB was set to "cloudy", but I probably should have upped the saturation a bit, also. Could have also tweaked it some while I had it open in PSE2 to clone out a phone wire, although it looks OK when my laptop sceen is tilted properly. It is a neat building; here's an unedited shot of the whole edifice:

[bcoultry]

Yes, saturate some of the dickens out of those doors to enhance an already good photo.

By the way, it doesn't suit the seeing-double challenge, which was to simulate the film technique of either double exposure or sandwiched negatives. Regardless, hitting two challenges within one photo shows good thinking!

--Barbara

[geoffs]

Where are the handles for the side doors? The holes are there but no handles.

It seems like red doors with ornate hinges and other hardware is popular for churches. Here's a picture I took when visiting in the Bronx in NYC last fall:

[monkey143]

These doors are so similar, Geoffs and derbunk!

Until you posted that second photo, I thought that perhaps you blended two photos to make a third, with those side doors. Barbara's right - that one isn't seeing double but it sure is "red" and "doors!"

[derbunk]

I believe that the handles are on the inside and those holes are actually the bolt heads. Enter through the center doors and exit through the side ones. Just a guess.

[geoffs]

Yes, I believe you may be right, derbunk! Sure looks funny though...

[derbunk]

After one click of the auto levels button in ACDSee: