The variations on only two forms makes this interesting. There's the pentagonal fronts of the buildings, each slightly different, and the multiple ladders and steps, each different again.
Alan likes the handling of the sunlit white paint and so do I.
But there's another thing that interests me. I'm seeing the sunlit white in the image against the white of the web page. There's no doubt that the web page is objectively brighter, but nevertheless, the sunlit buildings seem brighter. It's is very curious, isn't it, that our perception works this way?
Thank you folks. Following Martin's comment about sharpening I searched out the negative from my chaotic photo archives, must sort those out one day but doing that is not nearly so much fun as making pictures, anyway the negative is beautifully sharp with good contrast. One of those instances where I apparently got everything spot on, so although we can't remember what degree of sharpening was used for the computer image I am pretty sure the sharpening was only modest. A bit of tech info for those that like to know. Film Acros 100, f32 @ 1sec, Orange filter.
The reason I mentioned it was as soon as I looked at it that was my first reaction as it looks a little too much digitized in the edit, of course, that's my personal opinion and not a criticism Helen. Some really nice lines, shadows and well-controlled high contrast.
Thats Ok Martin. Possibly the real problem is trying to judge an image on screen rather than as a print. I am not at all technology savvy, but I guess there must be considerable variations in the way we all have our screens set up which must make a difference to how the image looks at the viewers end. I much prefer to see a paper print but as we are scattered all over the place then on screen it has to be.