Comparing this image to that one...both show the entire front of the church. This image shows all of the left side (with the right side obstructed by a tree), while that image shows most of the front half of both sides, with some obstruction by trees of the first two floors only. In this photo the third level is mostly obstructed due to the angle, while in the other photo it is easily visible, as is the front of the roof and the entire cross at the top. There are the not-insignificant technical issues mentioned above by Archaeodontosaurus: perspective distortion and overexposure; neither of these is a problem on the other photo. Finally, I look at each image at a variety of sizes, ranging from thumbnail to full-resolution. At full-resolution, the overexposure of the facade is even more of a problem, while at thumbnail sizes I find that the inclusion of so much of the surroundings leaves the church itself tiny. But all this is just one person's opinion; perhaps others will disagree... cmadler (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this image is technically far from being perfect. But that is irrelevant here. ("Note that most valuable does not necessarily imply the best technical quality.") From this image one can tell how the building of the church looks like. From the other it is impossible as it captures only a part of the frontal façade. When looking at the other image, can you tell what is on the top of the two towers? (I cannot.)--Ondřej Žváček (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
