Re: [SI] Eric Stevens comments on 'Tens'.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Robert Coe, Aug 29, 2013.

  1. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 14:38:03 +1200, Eric Stevens <>
    wrote:
    : ...
    :
    : 10- Bob_Coe 1.jpg
    : http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/152026105
    : I like this shot although I found the contrast between the shadow and
    : the lighted parts of the walkway rather hard to look at. I almost
    : didn't notice the alternating grey and yellow on the walkway. The
    : almost totally black background outside the bridge makes the shot: I
    : presume this was done in post-processing.

    No. All I did was crop some off the right and rotate the result .25 degree
    clockwise to get the door at the far end of the bridge as straight as
    possible. The sun was very bright, and most of the patches on the floor,
    including the large one in the foreground, generate a blown highlight alert.
    But I try to play the cards I'm dealt. I was surprised the shot turned out as
    well as it did; I'd have expected a lot of extraneous light screwing up the
    background. I don't know where that light went, but I'm glad it went
    somewhere.

    : 10- Bob_Coe 2.jpg
    : http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/152026106
    : A very nice shot, and well composeed and well executed. There is no
    : visible geometric distortion, in spite of being taken at 13mm focal
    : length. Presumably you took this out in post-processing. Were there
    : some crop-losses as a result?

    I turned up the shadows and the color saturation, each by three notches out of
    a possible five, and cropped the image to an 8x5 aspect ratio, losing a couple
    of dim ceiling lights. No geometric correction. The lens was the Tokina 11-16
    f/2.8, of which the Duck has the Nikon version. He's often praised it in the
    newsgroups.

    : To get finicky, according to the EXIF, this was shot at ISO 1250. When
    : I looked at the photograph in the original size I was surprised to
    : notice a small amount of noise, both in the grey carpet and the black
    : background. Was this shot made as a raw, or straight to jpg?

    RAW. The room was very dark, and I should have at least tried full-power
    bounce flash off the ceiling. But I liked the mood conveyed by the darkness,
    so this might have been the keeper anyway. I had only one 7D at the time, so
    this shot was made with my 50D, which doesn't have the low-light performance
    of a 7D.

    : 10- Bob_Coe 3.jpg
    : http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/152026107
    : I guess I've taken too many indoor architectural shots recently. The
    : first thing that hit me was that the nearest edge of the door to the
    : left of the photo was not quite vertical. Nor was it parallel to the
    : edge on the far side of the opening. To some extent this is a
    : consequence of camera height but you have this just right from other
    : respects.

    In cases like this I usually try to get the verticals straight in the middle
    of the picture. As it happens, I didn't rotate this one at all. Looking at it
    with a grid tonight, I could probably get away with a quarter to a half degree
    of clockwise rotation. Whether that would have made a significant overall
    difference, I don't know.

    : I expect the architect would have liked you to have one person in view
    : to help make the scene less sterile. I suppose then they would have
    : stood in the way of the waterfall effect you were trying to capture.

    I was shooting for the owners (the City of Cambridge), not for the architect.
    School hadn't started up yet, and the whole building was, in fact, still a
    hard-hat area. So my choice of people to populate the scene was limited to our
    Public Information Officer and the manager of the construction project. The
    PIO was also taking pictures, and the PM was concentrating on making sure we
    kept our paws off of anything dangerous or freshly painted. Truthfully, I
    condidered this one of the more boring areas of the building and might not
    have taken the picture at all if it hadn't been for the waterfall effect. As I
    mentioned in the picture caption, the effect bacame a little less vivid after
    enough JPEG compression to satisfy the SI size limits.

    Thanks for your comments!

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Aug 29, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. tony cooper

    Re: [SI] Pairs etc - Eric Stevens comments

    tony cooper, Jul 21, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    376
    otter
    Jul 22, 2012
  2. tony cooper

    Re: [SI] Pairs etc - Eric Stevens comments

    tony cooper, Jul 22, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    326
    tony cooper
    Jul 22, 2012
  3. Tim Conway

    Re: [SI] Pairs etc - Eric Stevens comments

    Tim Conway, Jul 22, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    268
    Tim Conway
    Jul 22, 2012
  4. Tim Conway

    Re: [SI] Eric Stevens comments on 'Tens'.

    Tim Conway, Aug 27, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    104
    J. Clarke
    Aug 27, 2013
  5. PeterN

    Re: [SI] Eric Stevens comments on 'Tens'.

    PeterN, Aug 29, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    286
    PeterN
    Aug 29, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page