Though I have taken a series from the same spot I wanted to do something different this time.

The last one I showed a couple of years ago was this: http://joinerphotography.com/This%20month/JPApr18c.html

The older one is a far more ordered scene and I worked at hiding almost all the immediate visual oddities. It also does the obvious by looking to the rotunda through the right opening. Maybe that is what it was about, seeing the rotunda fitting neatly within the arch of the construction, as if framed by 'itself'. Escher-ish.

This one looks also to the left to the greenery and church of the open space. It has a much different feel to the mathematically receding columns that we see straight ahead. The whiteness of the pillars and harsh quality of the light is also at odds with the soft greens and earth colours of the left, to state the obvious.

The discrepencies in the architectural forms where photos abut is another stylistic difference between the earlier one. Looking back I also see that I saturated the red brick a bit to bring them out more, make it lively and rich. Here the bricks are duller and affected more by the shadows. Odd photos retain the exposure differences of individual images.

Both were taken around the same time of day - as evidenced by the shadow angles - but at different times of the year - as evidenced by the shadow length. This is a Winter shot and the other a Summer one. Side by side this one looks rather pale. I avoided contrasting forms in the central section as then it would be the dominant part of the image. It would be too strong and swamp the other sections because of the natural instincts of the eye to follow that path and think it was something more important than anything else. Perhaps I should have done a version like that to show the difference. But I didn't. We have the older version, where, the strong form of the rotunda just about holds its own.