Here, first, is a standard wide-angle shot toward the sanctuary from the earlier session.
And here is a similar shot from the more recent visit.
There are some evident differences between these two shots. First, the earlier shot is a bit more color-saturated and shows greater contrast. It is also cropped a bit tighter and shows more of the floor and less of the ceiling. But what I could see this time around on close inspection was a lot less noise and greater crispness as a result.
Here are two similar shots focusing on the back of the crucifix from just in front of the sanctuary, the first from August, the second from September.
Again, the earlier shot is cropped a little tighter, and again the second shot is less noisy, more crisp, and a bit brighter, at least in my view. And I think the wider angle gives a bit more context.
For anyone curious, following is a shot of the front of this most unusual of crucifixes.
Yes, the crucifix is not located on the building's midline.
Among the better features of the cathedral are the rows of twin pillars on either side of the nave, and once more I took nearly identical shots in both sessions, again, first August and second September.
Another feature of the cathedral that I am attracted to are the archways on the second floor to either side of the choir loft at the back of the nave. This time I do think I did a better job of capturing that feature. Here is what I thought was the best of those attempts.
I thought this shot also worked well as a black & white.
Finally, one of the best statues in the cathedral is one halfway up the nave on the left side. Part of the reason for its attraction is because of the neutral background and lighting. Here is the shot I got from my August visit.
OK, I thought. However, on the more recent visit, I happened to spy the statue between two of the pillars and caught the following shot.
This, I feel, is a much more interesting shot, as it brings the pillars into play and also presents a bit of intrigue. There's a lesson here, I think.