Re: [SI] Steeples - What hasn't made the cut

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by PeterN, Feb 1, 2013.

  1. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 2/1/2013 8:18 AM, Bowser wrote:
    > On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 13:22:07 +1300, Eric Stevens
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> I've already explained that there are few worthwhile steeples within
    >> gunshot of where I live and that I am in any case presently restricted
    >> in my movements. Instead I've gone to recent archives to extract
    >> photographs of steeples and the like.
    >>
    >> All the photographs were taken under tourist conditions: no control of
    >> the site, the distance, the nature or direction of the light, or the
    >> weather in general. A good photograph is one without a stray head in
    >> it.
    >>
    >> One of my problems is I tend to value content as much the technical
    >> aspects. A technically lousy photograph of an interesting steeple
    >> still ranks highly in my general opinion. I know that not everyone
    >> holds that view (sigh). Anyway, I had to make a decision and the best
    >> way seemed to be put up the ones which didn't make the cut, thereby
    >> committing myself by implication to those that did make the cut.
    >>
    >> Here are two from Copenhagen:
    >> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/IMG_0088_DxO.jpg is the
    >> extraordinary spire of "Vor Frelsers Kirke" in Copenhagen. There is a
    >> stairway to the top of the spire but it runs up the outside! I met
    >> someone who has climbed it and he said once you get up a bit it feels
    >> much safer if you go up backwards on the seat of your trousers.
    >>
    >> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/IMG_0101_DxO.jpg is the spire of St
    >> Nikolaj Kirke. Just look at all that copper. The mounted gentleman is
    >> the bishop. The speckled texture is due to overdoing it with DxO. I
    >> can now do better.
    >>
    >> St Petersberg now:
    >> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/IMG_0253_DxO.jpg are the 'spires' of
    >> the family chapel on Queen Catherine's Palace. They told us "If it
    >> looks like gold, it probably is gold".
    >> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/IMG_0258_DxO.jpg helps put things
    >> into perspective. You can see about half the servant's quarters to the
    >> left of the chapel and less than half of the palace-proper to the
    >> right of the chapel. You can only photograph the whole of this from
    >> the air.
    >>
    >> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/IMG_0286_DxO.jpg is the "Peter and
    >> Paul" Cathedral. The tower is 404' high and very difficult to
    >> photograph from any accessible site on the ground. The murk was due to
    >> the hot muggy atmosphere - 36C + high humidity I think it was that
    >> day.
    >>
    >> These photographs are interesting but I don't think any of them are of
    >> real merit.

    >
    > And, sadly, they're better than any of mine, so far.
    >
    > Whine. Sniffle.
    >


    Is extensive Photoshopping permitted?

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Feb 1, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 2/3/2013 10:25 AM, Bowser wrote:
    > On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 11:41:37 -0500, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2/1/2013 8:18 AM, Bowser wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 13:22:07 +1300, Eric Stevens
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I've already explained that there are few worthwhile steeples within
    >>>> gunshot of where I live and that I am in any case presently restricted
    >>>> in my movements. Instead I've gone to recent archives to extract
    >>>> photographs of steeples and the like.
    >>>>
    >>>> All the photographs were taken under tourist conditions: no control of
    >>>> the site, the distance, the nature or direction of the light, or the
    >>>> weather in general. A good photograph is one without a stray head in
    >>>> it.
    >>>>
    >>>> One of my problems is I tend to value content as much the technical
    >>>> aspects. A technically lousy photograph of an interesting steeple
    >>>> still ranks highly in my general opinion. I know that not everyone
    >>>> holds that view (sigh). Anyway, I had to make a decision and the best
    >>>> way seemed to be put up the ones which didn't make the cut, thereby
    >>>> committing myself by implication to those that did make the cut.
    >>>>
    >>>> Here are two from Copenhagen:
    >>>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/IMG_0088_DxO.jpg is the
    >>>> extraordinary spire of "Vor Frelsers Kirke" in Copenhagen. There is a
    >>>> stairway to the top of the spire but it runs up the outside! I met
    >>>> someone who has climbed it and he said once you get up a bit it feels
    >>>> much safer if you go up backwards on the seat of your trousers.
    >>>>
    >>>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/IMG_0101_DxO.jpg is the spire of St
    >>>> Nikolaj Kirke. Just look at all that copper. The mounted gentleman is
    >>>> the bishop. The speckled texture is due to overdoing it with DxO. I
    >>>> can now do better.
    >>>>
    >>>> St Petersberg now:
    >>>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/IMG_0253_DxO.jpg are the 'spires' of
    >>>> the family chapel on Queen Catherine's Palace. They told us "If it
    >>>> looks like gold, it probably is gold".
    >>>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/IMG_0258_DxO.jpg helps put things
    >>>> into perspective. You can see about half the servant's quarters to the
    >>>> left of the chapel and less than half of the palace-proper to the
    >>>> right of the chapel. You can only photograph the whole of this from
    >>>> the air.
    >>>>
    >>>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/IMG_0286_DxO.jpg is the "Peter and
    >>>> Paul" Cathedral. The tower is 404' high and very difficult to
    >>>> photograph from any accessible site on the ground. The murk was due to
    >>>> the hot muggy atmosphere - 36C + high humidity I think it was that
    >>>> day.
    >>>>
    >>>> These photographs are interesting but I don't think any of them are of
    >>>> real merit.
    >>>
    >>> And, sadly, they're better than any of mine, so far.
    >>>
    >>> Whine. Sniffle.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Is extensive Photoshopping permitted?

    >
    > At this point, all bets are off. But I'd prefer we didn't go down that
    > road, so no. Please try to stick to "straight" shots with minimal post
    > processing.
    >


    OK Just shot my second one today.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Feb 3, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. PeterN

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 10:25:44 -0500, Bowser <> wrote:
    : On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 11:41:37 -0500, PeterN
    : <> wrote:
    :
    : >On 2/1/2013 8:18 AM, Bowser wrote:
    : >> On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 13:22:07 +1300, Eric Stevens
    : >> <> wrote:
    : >>
    : >>> I've already explained that there are few worthwhile steeples within
    : >>> gunshot of where I live and that I am in any case presently restricted
    : >>> in my movements. Instead I've gone to recent archives to extract
    : >>> photographs of steeples and the like.
    : >>>
    : >>> All the photographs were taken under tourist conditions: no control of
    : >>> the site, the distance, the nature or direction of the light, or the
    : >>> weather in general. A good photograph is one without a stray head in
    : >>> it.
    : >>>
    : >>> One of my problems is I tend to value content as much the technical
    : >>> aspects. A technically lousy photograph of an interesting steeple
    : >>> still ranks highly in my general opinion. I know that not everyone
    : >>> holds that view (sigh). Anyway, I had to make a decision and the best
    : >>> way seemed to be put up the ones which didn't make the cut, thereby
    : >>> committing myself by implication to those that did make the cut.
    : >>>
    : >>> Here are two from Copenhagen:
    : >>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/IMG_0088_DxO.jpg is the
    : >>> extraordinary spire of "Vor Frelsers Kirke" in Copenhagen. There is a
    : >>> stairway to the top of the spire but it runs up the outside! I met
    : >>> someone who has climbed it and he said once you get up a bit it feels
    : >>> much safer if you go up backwards on the seat of your trousers.
    : >>>
    : >>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/IMG_0101_DxO.jpg is the spire of St
    : >>> Nikolaj Kirke. Just look at all that copper. The mounted gentleman is
    : >>> the bishop. The speckled texture is due to overdoing it with DxO. I
    : >>> can now do better.
    : >>>
    : >>> St Petersberg now:
    : >>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/IMG_0253_DxO.jpg are the 'spires' of
    : >>> the family chapel on Queen Catherine's Palace. They told us "If it
    : >>> looks like gold, it probably is gold".
    : >>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/IMG_0258_DxO.jpg helps put things
    : >>> into perspective. You can see about half the servant's quarters to the
    : >>> left of the chapel and less than half of the palace-proper to the
    : >>> right of the chapel. You can only photograph the whole of this from
    : >>> the air.
    : >>>
    : >>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/IMG_0286_DxO.jpg is the "Peter and
    : >>> Paul" Cathedral. The tower is 404' high and very difficult to
    : >>> photograph from any accessible site on the ground. The murk was due to
    : >>> the hot muggy atmosphere - 36C + high humidity I think it was that
    : >>> day.
    : >>>
    : >>> These photographs are interesting but I don't think any of them are of
    : >>> real merit.
    : >>
    : >> And, sadly, they're better than any of mine, so far.
    : >>
    : >> Whine. Sniffle.

    How did you make out on your trip to Copley Square? I still haven't made it
    over to ONC. On the one day I had my cameras along, by the time the weather
    cleared I was bogged down with other work and couldn't get away.

    : >Is extensive Photoshopping permitted?
    :
    : At this point, all bets are off. But I'd prefer we didn't go down that
    : road, so no. Please try to stick to "straight" shots with minimal post
    : processing.

    That's fine, and we'll abide by that dictum. (We would have anyway - neither
    of us is very adept at photo editing - but that's not really the point.)

    However, unless we're undertaking to accurately document the current condition
    of the world's steeples, it's hard to see the benefit of restrictions on
    extensive editing. Most overedited pictures look artificial anyway. Sometimes
    that artificiality is attractive, and sometimes it isn't, in which case it's
    up to the submitter to defend his artistic judgement when it comes under
    attack. So what's the downside of leaving it up to the submitter and letting
    the chips fall where they may? (Just my 2¢ worth as a devil's advocate.)

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Feb 3, 2013
    #3
  4. PeterN

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 13:28:20 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >: At this point, all bets are off. But I'd prefer we didn't go down that
    >: road, so no. Please try to stick to "straight" shots with minimal post
    >: processing.
    >
    >That's fine, and we'll abide by that dictum. (We would have anyway - neither
    >of us is very adept at photo editing - but that's not really the point.)
    >
    >However, unless we're undertaking to accurately document the current condition
    >of the world's steeples, it's hard to see the benefit of restrictions on
    >extensive editing. Most overedited pictures look artificial anyway. Sometimes
    >that artificiality is attractive, and sometimes it isn't, in which case it's
    >up to the submitter to defend his artistic judgement when it comes under
    >attack. So what's the downside of leaving it up to the submitter and letting
    >the chips fall where they may? (Just my 2¢ worth as a devil's advocate.)


    One of the shots that I will be entering is "extensively Photoshopped"
    in that I applied a Poster Edges filter over part of it. I'll note
    that with the submission, but I haven't had any luck in the past
    getting notes carried over to the SI page.

    I present what I think is a pleasing or interesting image, and how I
    get there is my decision. If that involves "extensive" Photoshop,
    then so be it.

    These are not submissions, but they are interesting to me in that they
    show "current condition". At one time, steeples and spires were both
    ornamental, functional (if bells were in the tower), and a visual
    indication that the church was important. The tower and spire were
    the highest points in the landscape and the church could be seen for
    miles.

    Not so anymore. Modern buildings tower over the steeples. The
    churches are almost like HO gauge models stuck in an urban setting.
    Here's an example:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/y9u0a8r8lkkb0u7/2013-01-10-03.jpg

    The same office building, but a different church, but shot as a
    reflection in a blue-tinted window across the street:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/9hnqwdb05xzbq7r/2013-01-20-20.jpg


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    Tony Cooper, Feb 3, 2013
    #4
  5. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 2/3/2013 1:28 PM, Robert Coe wrote:


    <snip>

    > (Just my 2¢ worth as a devil's advocate.)
    >
    >



    that's one heck of an expression to use with this subject.


    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Feb 3, 2013
    #5
  6. PeterN

    Rob Guest

    On 4/02/2013 2:25 AM, Bowser wrote:
    > On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 11:41:37 -0500, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2/1/2013 8:18 AM, Bowser wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 13:22:07 +1300, Eric Stevens
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I've already explained that there are few worthwhile steeples within
    >>>> gunshot of where I live and that I am in any case presently restricted
    >>>> in my movements. Instead I've gone to recent archives to extract
    >>>> photographs of steeples and the like.
    >>>>
    >>>> All the photographs were taken under tourist conditions: no control of
    >>>> the site, the distance, the nature or direction of the light, or the
    >>>> weather in general. A good photograph is one without a stray head in
    >>>> it.
    >>>>
    >>>> One of my problems is I tend to value content as much the technical
    >>>> aspects. A technically lousy photograph of an interesting steeple
    >>>> still ranks highly in my general opinion. I know that not everyone
    >>>> holds that view (sigh). Anyway, I had to make a decision and the best
    >>>> way seemed to be put up the ones which didn't make the cut, thereby
    >>>> committing myself by implication to those that did make the cut.
    >>>>
    >>>> Here are two from Copenhagen:
    >>>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/IMG_0088_DxO.jpg is the
    >>>> extraordinary spire of "Vor Frelsers Kirke" in Copenhagen. There is a
    >>>> stairway to the top of the spire but it runs up the outside! I met
    >>>> someone who has climbed it and he said once you get up a bit it feels
    >>>> much safer if you go up backwards on the seat of your trousers.
    >>>>
    >>>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/IMG_0101_DxO.jpg is the spire of St
    >>>> Nikolaj Kirke. Just look at all that copper. The mounted gentleman is
    >>>> the bishop. The speckled texture is due to overdoing it with DxO. I
    >>>> can now do better.
    >>>>
    >>>> St Petersberg now:
    >>>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/IMG_0253_DxO.jpg are the 'spires' of
    >>>> the family chapel on Queen Catherine's Palace. They told us "If it
    >>>> looks like gold, it probably is gold".
    >>>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/IMG_0258_DxO.jpg helps put things
    >>>> into perspective. You can see about half the servant's quarters to the
    >>>> left of the chapel and less than half of the palace-proper to the
    >>>> right of the chapel. You can only photograph the whole of this from
    >>>> the air.
    >>>>



    then again you could have stitched a couple of images.
    Rob, Feb 4, 2013
    #6
  7. PeterN

    Rob Guest

    On 4/02/2013 8:03 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 12:23:38 +1100, Rob <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> On 4/02/2013 2:25 AM, Bowser wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 11:41:37 -0500, PeterN
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2/1/2013 8:18 AM, Bowser wrote:
    >>>>> On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 13:22:07 +1300, Eric Stevens
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> I've already explained that there are few worthwhile steeples within
    >>>>>> gunshot of where I live and that I am in any case presently restricted
    >>>>>> in my movements. Instead I've gone to recent archives to extract
    >>>>>> photographs of steeples and the like.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> All the photographs were taken under tourist conditions: no control of
    >>>>>> the site, the distance, the nature or direction of the light, or the
    >>>>>> weather in general. A good photograph is one without a stray head in
    >>>>>> it.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> One of my problems is I tend to value content as much the technical
    >>>>>> aspects. A technically lousy photograph of an interesting steeple
    >>>>>> still ranks highly in my general opinion. I know that not everyone
    >>>>>> holds that view (sigh). Anyway, I had to make a decision and the best
    >>>>>> way seemed to be put up the ones which didn't make the cut, thereby
    >>>>>> committing myself by implication to those that did make the cut.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Here are two from Copenhagen:
    >>>>>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/IMG_0088_DxO.jpg is the
    >>>>>> extraordinary spire of "Vor Frelsers Kirke" in Copenhagen. There is a
    >>>>>> stairway to the top of the spire but it runs up the outside! I met
    >>>>>> someone who has climbed it and he said once you get up a bit it feels
    >>>>>> much safer if you go up backwards on the seat of your trousers.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/IMG_0101_DxO.jpg is the spire of St
    >>>>>> Nikolaj Kirke. Just look at all that copper. The mounted gentleman is
    >>>>>> the bishop. The speckled texture is due to overdoing it with DxO. I
    >>>>>> can now do better.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> St Petersberg now:
    >>>>>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/IMG_0253_DxO.jpg are the 'spires' of
    >>>>>> the family chapel on Queen Catherine's Palace. They told us "If it
    >>>>>> looks like gold, it probably is gold".
    >>>>>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/IMG_0258_DxO.jpg helps put things
    >>>>>> into perspective. You can see about half the servant's quarters to the
    >>>>>> left of the chapel and less than half of the palace-proper to the
    >>>>>> right of the chapel. You can only photograph the whole of this from
    >>>>>> the air.
    >>>>>>

    >>
    >>
    >> then again you could have stitched a couple of images.
    >>

    > It's a 360 degree view.
    >
    > See Google Earth at 59°42'58.35" N 30°23'42.06" E
    >
    > If you zoom in, you can just see the golden domes over to the right.
    > You should be able to work out where I was from that.
    >



    Yep there was a green arrow on the path :)
    Rob, Feb 9, 2013
    #7
    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. anthony
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    605
    MarkZimmerman
    Nov 20, 2003
  2. Peter Jason

    Re: [SI] Steeples - What hasn't made the cut

    Peter Jason, Feb 1, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    112
    Peter Jason
    Feb 1, 2013
  3. PeterN

    Re: [SI] Steeples - What hasn't made the cut

    PeterN, Feb 1, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    114
    PeterN
    Feb 1, 2013
  4. Tony Cooper

    Re: [SI] Steeples - What hasn't made the cut

    Tony Cooper, Feb 1, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    114
    Tony Cooper
    Feb 1, 2013
  5. Tony Cooper

    Re: Steeples - where Steeples?

    Tony Cooper, Feb 9, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    124
    Tony Cooper
    Feb 9, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page