DSLR Photography Forum

A ruin built in the middle 1700s as part of a large slightly fortified house.


Step inside, and it's very dark although open to the elements, with a view over the volcanic island through the hole in the wall.


I noticed a pattern down the centre as I took this.


So I lightenend it using a few settings and metering, and took this..


Gets more interesting as you get a closer look.


And closer still


Intricate patterns in a wreck of a building.


Although not by an accomplished craftsman.


The buildings are in los Casa del Coronels (The house of the Colonels),
who were the military commanders of Fuerteventura over the years. They were a pretty bad lot that taxed and more or less robbed the population until an outcry to the Spanish Government led to them losing command. Although they kept the house and land.
It is in a Town called La Oliva, Fuerteventura, Canary Islands.

Nice place for a Holiday.

Lovely detail on the woodworking. Was that via Post processing, or exposure manipulation, or a combination of both. Excellent. Ed.

On camera before taking the shot Ed. -Ev and that sort of thing.

These are interesting images, and the way the wood has been used to create detail and pattern is unusual and creative.

As photographs I prefer the first three because, in the quest for detail in the wood, the rest have quite a lot of over-exposed areas. It might have been better to have metered for the highlights and then revealed the shadow details in computer software.

As long as the ISO value is kept at its lowest possible for the conditions, even small-sensor compact cameras like the TZ series capture a lot of shadow detail which can be enhanced fairly easily. E.g. -

[attachment=3939]

Cheers.
Philip

Superb subject and most interesting to read the origins of the building and to see the use of the timber mouldings.

Peter

(Nov 28, 2014, 15:39)MrB Wrote: [ -> ]As photographs I prefer the first three because, in the quest for detail in the wood, the rest have quite a lot of over-exposed areas. It might have been better to have metered for the highlights and then revealed the shadow details in computer software.

As long as the ISO value is kept at its lowest possible for the conditions, even small-sensor compact cameras like the TZ series capture a lot of shadow detail which can be enhanced fairly easily. E.g. -

Cheers.
Philip

I agree with you Mr P, but I wished to show better detail which would have been a compromise otherwise. It was nearer noon, than the happy hour.

It's kind of difficult also, with having to use the screen to see what you are taking. An EVF would be a boon.

(Nov 28, 2014, 15:48)Plantsman Wrote: [ -> ]Superb subject and most interesting to read the origins of the building and to see the use of the timber mouldings.

Peter

Thanks Plantsman.

Nice set, I like what you've done.

Thanks Jeffbridge

Hi NT73
I like the images... they tell a story. Mr B and I differ in our viewpoint on the lightness, and exposure of shadows. I like the second image in that it does have shadow and it conveys a sense of age and abandonment. It can clearly be seen where the light comes from... and importantly, in the right side front wall and corner, where it does not. I do agree with Mr B that there could be some lightening and pull out a little more of the detail to help the viewer get more information about what they see. To that end, I hope you don't mind, but I include your image showing how I think it may be shown to achieve a little more of it's potential. I have not over greened the greenery as the Islands are not naturally green, as is Ireland or Scotland but left shadow where I think it looks natural to have shadow. If all shadows are removed to show what is there, then the viewer may be confused as they may not be able to reconcile the lack of shadow with where it looks like there should be shadow... if you follow? Anyway, I like your images. Thank you for sharing.

Kind regards

Rolf
[attachment=3944]

I don't mind at all. As you say, everyone has a different viewpoint.

(Dec 1, 2014, 19:18)NT73 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't mind at all. As you say, everyone has a different viewpoint.

Thank you! I saw that you had written the pic was taken at noon - so the light would have been contrasty and harsh... I tried to reflect that with the contrast I gave your image. As you say, we all "see" the same thing - but understand it a little differently. I really don't like post processing and try to make my images work in camera... a little of the Cartier-Bresson in that he would always seek to compose in camera and not the darkroom (now PC). Look forward to more of your images.
Kind regards
Rolf

Thank you for your points Rolf, and the following paragraphs are just to clarify certain facts, related to some of the comments that you have made alongside your edit of the second image.

Firstly, shadow does not mean darkness - it is an area that is relatively darker than an adjacent area. Secondly, in the image in Post #4, it is still very clear where the sunlight is coming from and where there are darker areas in that room - no shadows have been removed. Thirdly, all the photos show that it is a bright sunny day, with a blue sky and lots of white clouds; so, as most of the roof appears to be missing, a lot of reflected light will reach the shadow areas inside the building where there is no direct sunlight. Fourthly, human vision accommodates for a wide contrast range - we would see the shadow areas as much brighter than the camera has "seen" them, and brighter than they appear in the edited image in Post #10.

For those reasons, the image in Post #4 is probably nearer to the reality that most people would have perceived, had they been in the building at the time the scene was captured (although their memories might be affected by their feelings on entering the ruins). However, that was not the purpose of including it; rather it was to illustrate how much detail is recorded in the shadow areas, even by small sensor compact cameras such as the Panasonic TZ27, as was used by NT73 to capture these photos.

It is for the creator of the image to decide how it should look and, therefore, whether to reveal more shadow details. But the choices made in editing an image might also include artistic and/or emotional factors that would affect the extent and style of the processing. The image in Post #10 shows more of that sort of influence rather than scientific/observational correctness. As you have written - "I like the second image in that it does have shadow and it conveys a sense of age and abandonment," - and your edit is a valid artistic/emotional interpretation for NT73 to consider.

Cheers.
Philip

(Dec 2, 2014, 06:26)MrB Wrote: [ -> ]Thank you for your points Rolf, and the following paragraphs are just to clarify certain facts, related to some of the comments that you have made alongside your edit of the second image.

Firstly, shadow does not mean darkness - it is an area that is relatively darker than an adjacent area. Secondly, in the image in Post #4, it is still very clear where the sunlight is coming from and where there are darker areas in that room - no shadows have been removed. Thirdly, all the photos show that it is a bright sunny day, with a blue sky and lots of white clouds; so, as most of the roof appears to be missing, a lot of reflected light will reach the shadow areas inside the building where there is no direct sunlight. Fourthly, human vision accommodates for a wide contrast range - we would see the shadow areas as much brighter than the camera has "seen" them, and brighter than they appear in the edited image in Post #10.

For those reasons, the image in Post #4 is probably nearer to the reality that most people would have perceived, had they been in the building at the time the scene was captured (although their memories might be affected by their feelings on entering the ruins). However, that was not the purpose of including it; rather it was to illustrate how much detail is recorded in the shadow areas, even by small sensor compact cameras such as the Panasonic TZ27, as was used by NT73 to capture these photos.

It is for the creator of the image to decide how it should look and, therefore, whether to reveal more shadow details. But the choices made in editing an image might also include artistic and/or emotional factors that would affect the extent and style of the processing. The image in Post #10 shows more of that sort of influence rather than scientific/observational correctness. As you have written - "I like the second image in that it does have shadow and it conveys a sense of age and abandonment," - and your edit is a valid artistic/emotional interpretation for NT73 to consider.

Cheers.
Philip

Hello Phillip, We have differing opinions. I will email you rather than continue discussing our own opinions with each other here which I feel may detract from the purpose of the Forums. I look forward to your continuing helpful feedback as I am sure others do too.

Kind regards
Rolf

Don't fall out over it guys. It's just a snapshot. Thought provoking though.

LOL! No falling out! certainly not in your Forums... only falling out I might admit to is bed on the occasion over medication on the pernicious properties of Appleton's finest Caribbean product! I suppose there is merit in provoking a little thought in what we do and how we do it - it's how we learn after all. Did you have any more of the Colonels house to show it in the context of it's place in the landscape?
Kind regards
Rolf

(Dec 2, 2014, 11:52)Rolf Wrote: [ -> ]LOL! No falling out!
Kind regards
Rolf

I agree whole-heartedly - I thought we were just having a really interesting discussion about photography.

Your images have stimulated that discussion, NT73, and it is all part of the learning process, which is why (I hope) we all come here!

All the best.
Philip

Ah just kidding guys. Yes I have some of the Colonels house from other years. I will attempt to find them on my index system. aka "Stuff em anywhere."