(Dec 11, 2013, 18:09)Phil J Wrote: Looking at these, if I'm to do much more of this, I'm really going to have to get one of those fancy Perspective Control lenses to put a stop to these converging verticals.
Donations in plain brown envelopes to ....................................... Well, perhaps not.
I like your photos of Gloucester Cathedral, Phil - good compositions and natural, realistic colours appropriate for the light.
Regarding your comment quoted above -
The first three are very slightly tilted (anticlockwise) and the wide-angle shots are showing some barrel distortion.
However, you should not be concerned about converging verticals in these images - you have got the perspective about right. Our perception expects the the top of a tall structure to look narrower, when our viewpoint requires us to look upwards.
Philip
(This post was last modified: Dec 12, 2013, 05:06 by MrB.)
Been there many times Dean, think it's called street furniture? 60's needed a street shot,and there was a deadline. Pic had to be taken from the middle of a busy road. Gave two boys a shilling, 5p, each to cross and recross Zebra crossing, starting off one at each side, worked a treat, however someone told a passing policeman, fortunately he saw the funny side, and told, not to repeat it. Deadline met. Ed.
(Dec 11, 2013, 18:09)Phil J Wrote: Looking at these, if I'm to do much more of this, I'm really going to have to get one of those fancy Perspective Control lenses to put a stop to these converging verticals.
Donations in plain brown envelopes to ....................................... Well, perhaps not.
I like your photos of Gloucester Cathedral, Phil - good compositions and natural, realistic colours appropriate for the light.
Regarding your comment quoted above -
The first three are very slightly tilted (anticlockwise) and the wide-angle shots are showing some barrel distortion.
However, you should not be concerned about converging verticals in these images - you have got the perspective about right. Our perception expects the the top of a tall structure to look narrower, when our viewpoint requires us to look upwards.
Philip
Philip,
Thank you for your observations, which are most gratefully received. In future, I'll have to be more careful with the angles of my horizons as it has now become obvious to me that 'I have a nasty twist to the left' when hand holding an exposure. This I will have to rectify, so thanks again for pointing this out, I really had no idea. Too close to the wood to see the trees perhaps?
(Dec 1, 2013, 09:43)Barbara G. Wrote: Here is your opportunity to post some photographs you have taken of buildings and homes. They can be occupied buildings, unoccupied buildings, homes, historical buildings, or non-historical buildings.
Post some general information such as the type of camera you used, settings used, as well as info about the setting if you can for the other members.
Feel free to add to the thread as you like and have fun practicing your digital photography skills!
How do I download my pictures for your appraisal ?
Taken during a brief period when it had stopped raining this afternoon. Wheal Frances, part of Cornwall’s mining heritage.
3 images combined in a programme called HDRtist and tweaked using Nik PS plug ins.
These two last photographs you've posted are exemplary, they just jump off the screen. Well, they jump off my screen, and the detail you've captured is amazing. I'd love to see the originals in an A3 or A2 print, are you exhibiting any time soon?.
Regards.
Phil.
(This post was last modified: Dec 29, 2013, 10:56 by Phil J.)
Nit picking!! I think the upright in the middle of pic, is slightly off. Type of pic makes it a bit difficult to be certain. If so, worth straightening. Ed.
Thanks Phil. I did go out looking for an image to print for a club competition, so may have another go at processing the first one and printing it off. you are probably right, Ed.
Dean
I did think that there was too much in the first image, and I wanted to see just the old buildings without the fence and gate. So I was pleased that you posted the second one which, in my view, is a stronger image because it is simpler. However, there is little doubt that the sky is more dramatic in your first image! When you re-process for your club competition, just be aware of the slight halo effect you're producing around the top of the building - judges at our club usually criticise that sort of thing.
Thanks Philip. There is a problem with HDR software in that it is difficult not to get a bit of a halo. haven’t twigged how to avoid yet. The subject for the first image was industrial landscape so panned out wider. There are 5 engine houses in the picture.
A rain water collector on the Vine at Sherbourne Hampshire, this is around 500 years old , it was built around the Tudor times.
Camera ; Canon EOS600D , Lense : Tamron 18-270 f= 5.6: ISO = 200 at 1/200 sec.
Jon
(Jan 3, 2014, 16:20)bethanhearne81 Wrote: I posted these pics on the critique section, but I would love to get other opinions.
Normandy House.
Beth.
To be honest, I am struggling with these, Beth. What was it that you were trying to show? There is certainly a story to tell but I am not sure that you have captured it. The final image came closest, IMO, but needs a bit of dodging and burning. The second one also has interest, but needs some work on it to bring out the best in it.
I have probably said the exact opposite to other comments you have had on the other forum, but that’s photography.
(Jan 3, 2014, 16:20)bethanhearne81 Wrote: I posted these pics on the critique section, but I would love to get other opinions.
Normandy House.
Beth.
To be honest, I am struggling with these, Beth. What was it that you were trying to show? There is certainly a story to tell but I am not sure that you have captured it. The final image came closest, IMO, but needs a bit of dodging and burning. The second one also has interest, but needs some work on it to bring out the best in it.
I have probably said the exact opposite to other comments you have had on the other forum, but that’s photography.
Had a quick tinker with your second image, which, I think, is an improvement. But it depends what you were trying to show.
Dean
Thanks Dean,
I see what you mean about the IMO and I'm planning on going back when possible to see if I can do it justice, it is a truly stunning building and I think I just need to capture that.
Thanks.
Beth.
quote='Dean' pid='92358' dateline='1388790593']
(Jan 3, 2014, 16:56)Dean Wrote:
(Jan 3, 2014, 16:20)bethanhearne81 Wrote: I posted these pics on the critique section, but I would love to get other opinions.
Normandy House.
Beth.
To be honest, I am struggling with these, Beth. What was it that you were trying to show? There is certainly a story to tell but I am not sure that you have captured it. The final image came closest, IMO, but needs a bit of dodging and burning. The second one also has interest, but needs some work on it to bring out the best in it.
I have probably said the exact opposite to other comments you have had on the other forum, but that’s photography.
Had a quick tinker with your second image, which, I think, is an improvement. But it depends what you were trying to show.
Dean
[/quote]
(This post was last modified: Jan 3, 2014, 17:16 by bethanhearne81.)
What did you do to get the clouds like that?
I was trying to get the sky to look greyer, but e0 that made the whole image too grey?
Beth.
(Jan 3, 2014, 17:09)Dean Wrote:
(Jan 3, 2014, 16:56)Dean Wrote:
(Jan 3, 2014, 16:20)bethanhearne81 Wrote: I posted these pics on the critique section, but I would love to get other opinions.
Normandy House.
Beth.
To be honest, I am struggling with these, Beth. What was it that you were trying to show? There is certainly a story to tell but I am not sure that you have captured it. The final image came closest, IMO, but needs a bit of dodging and burning. The second one also has interest, but needs some work on it to bring out the best in it.
I have probably said the exact opposite to other comments you have had on the other forum, but that’s photography.
Had a quick tinker with your second image, which, I think, is an improvement. But it depends what you were trying to show.
Dean
Your subject matter certainly has a lot of potential. Is there any opportunity to get up higher so as not to be looking up at the building so much? I should try some more close ups too. The rotten bay window has potential, as does the crumbling brickwork. There’s a whole portfolio there.
Dean
(Jan 3, 2014, 17:21)bethanhearne81 Wrote: What did you do to get the clouds like that?
I was trying to get the sky to look greyer, but e0 that made the whole image too grey?
Beth.
(Jan 3, 2014, 17:09)Dean Wrote:
(Jan 3, 2014, 16:56)Dean Wrote:
(Jan 3, 2014, 16:20)bethanhearne81 Wrote: I posted these pics on the critique section, but I would love to get other opinions.
Normandy House.
Beth.
To be honest, I am struggling with these, Beth. What was it that you were trying to show? There is certainly a story to tell but I am not sure that you have captured it. The final image came closest, IMO, but needs a bit of dodging and burning. The second one also has interest, but needs some work on it to bring out the best in it.
I have probably said the exact opposite to other comments you have had on the other forum, but that’s photography.
Had a quick tinker with your second image, which, I think, is an improvement. But it depends what you were trying to show.
Dean
Got rid of the colour cast in PS elements, which allowed the cloud structure to show through. I then used a couple of plug ins from Nik software. Basically to increase the detail, lighten the centre and darken the perimeter, off set a little to give lighting more from one side and then de-noised with another Nik plug in. About 5 mins, honest.
Dean
Thank you so much Dean
I will certainly have more time on my hands when I next go so well be able to get close ups and possibly get up higher if I went around the back
You have been so much help and I will definitely have a go at everything you suggested. I am pretty new into photography so I can use RAW but I am not really sure what it means.
Thanks so much.
Beth.
(Jan 3, 2014, 17:26)Dean Wrote:
(Jan 3, 2014, 17:21)bethanhearne81 Wrote: What did you do to get the clouds like that?
I was trying to get the sky to look greyer, but e0 that made the whole image too grey?
Beth.
(Jan 3, 2014, 17:09)Dean Wrote:
(Jan 3, 2014, 16:56)Dean Wrote:
(Jan 3, 2014, 16:20)bethanhearne81 Wrote: I posted these pics on the critique section, but I would love to get other opinions.
Normandy House.
Beth.
To be honest, I am struggling with these, Beth. What was it that you were trying to show? There is certainly a story to tell but I am not sure that you have captured it. The final image came closest, IMO, but needs a bit of dodging and burning. The second one also has interest, but needs some work on it to bring out the best in it.
I have probably said the exact opposite to other comments you have had on the other forum, but that’s photography.
Had a quick tinker with your second image, which, I think, is an improvement. But it depends what you were trying to show.
Dean
Got rid of the colour cast in PS elements, which allowed the cloud structure to show through. I then used a couple of plug ins from Nik software. Basically to increase the detail, lighten the centre and darken the perimeter, off set a little to give lighting more from one side and then de-noised with another Nik plug in. About 5 mins, honest.
Dean
Lots of stuff on the interweb about RAW, Beth, but a good start is here http://christinagreve.com/jpeg-raw-begin...mode-easy/
I don’t know what sort of camera you have, or software, but if your camera is capable of shooting in RAW then do so. File sizes are bigger but memory cards are cheap these days.
Eds manipulation of your image on the other posting gives a different dimension. It just depends what you want to portray. I don’t think there are rights and wrongs.
Dean
