Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Gothic Temple, Stowe Landscape gardens  (Read 2306 times)
ScottWylie
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


WWW
« on: September 07, 2009, 08:41:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Converted from colour using the channel mixer in Photoshop CS3. I had to push the levels quite a bit so there is some banding and pixalation of the sky, but I feel the sacrifice in image quality is worth it to get images that have the same 'dreamlike' quality as I felt when at the original scene.



Logged

kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3989



« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2009, 02:06:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ScottWylie
Converted from colour using the channel mixer in Photoshop CS3. I had to push the levels quite a bit so there is some banding and pixalation of the sky, but I feel the sacrifice in image quality is worth it to get images that have the same 'dreamlike' quality as I felt when at the original scene.



I like them, and I like the dramatic sky in the first. I think the second one would be better without the fence, though. It's distracting.

Jeremy
« Last Edit: September 07, 2009, 02:06:58 PM by kikashi » Logged
Ed Blagden
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2009, 02:15:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I feel I must reply to this, because the Gothic Temple at Stowe was, as it happens, the very spot where I had my first experience with illegal substances.  On a moonlit summer night, about 29 years ago, listening to The Clash.  Or was it Echo and the Bunnymen?  The general spookiness of the place is probably what put me off the said substances for life, so I have the Gothic Temple to thank for the fact that I am not living in a cardboard box under Blackfriars Bridge and eating cat food.

As to your photos, I think the development is fine but I have to say I don't like the composition of either of them.  At all.  I won't make suggestions but I think you have to decide between formalistic architectural style shots or funky wide-angly type shots with gnarly trees and big skies.  These are neither.

Thanks for bringing back some memories.


Ed
Logged

Visit my Flickr page
ScottWylie
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 08, 2009, 05:44:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the comments. Very interesting to hear about your experience Ed. I found a good composition very difficult to achieve because there is a lot of 'clutter' in the landscape and the bold simple shots I was looking far proved elusive. I've been there a few times and perhaps eventually I will manage it. Although I've been able to realize the slightly dreamlike images in my mind's eye with high-contrast skies and strange architecture to a certain extent.

I quite like the fence in the first pic, the way it separates the viewer from the building in the distance - to me it kind of emphasizes the surreal landscape.
Logged

John R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1031


« Reply #4 on: September 08, 2009, 09:30:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ScottWylie
[...] Although I've been able to realize the slightly dreamlike images in my mind's eye with high-contrast skies and strange architecture to a certain extent.

I quite like the fence in the first pic, the way it separates the viewer from the building in the distance - to me it kind of emphasizes the surreal landscape.

I quite agree with your assessment. I like the interplay of light and shadow on the fence. As to the first image, it may not evoke a dreamy atmosphere, but it is nicely done all the same. More haunting than dreamy.

JMR
Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2009, 03:45:13 PM »
ReplyReply

I like the straightfoward composition and large, looming sky in the first shot. The only thing I'm not crazy about is the skewed perspective. If you had been able to square up the camera or use a shift lens, I think it would have been a strong image.

In the second shot, I like the fence in the foreground, although I wish you had included a little more of it on the left, instead of so much empty sky above. Also while side-lighting is generally desired, the long shadow across the front of the building doesn't really work for me.
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6246



WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 08, 2009, 04:26:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ed B
I feel I must reply to this, because the Gothic Temple at Stowe was, as it happens, the very spot where I had my first experience with illegal substances.  On a moonlit summer night, about 29 years ago, listening to The Clash.  Or was it Echo and the Bunnymen?  The general spookiness of the place is probably what put me off the said substances for life, so I have the Gothic Temple to thank for the fact that I am not living in a cardboard box under Blackfriars Bridge and eating cat food.

As to your photos, I think the development is fine but I have to say I don't like the composition of either of them.  At all.  I won't make suggestions but I think you have to decide between formalistic architectural style shots or funky wide-angly type shots with gnarly trees and big skies.  These are neither.

Thanks for bringing back some memories.

Ed

I'm happy to hear that Ed isn't living in a cardboard box or eating cat food. I suspect it's hard to shoot photographs when you're running on cat food. And I have to agree with his criticism. The combination of formal architecture and gnarly trees with dark skies comes off -- at least to me -- as a collection of stills from a forties Dracula movie. On the other hand, these are technically excellent photographs and the light on the structure is interesting.
Logged

ScottWylie
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 09, 2009, 04:16:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JeffKohn
The only thing I'm not crazy about is the skewed perspective. If you had been able to square up the camera or use a shift lens, I think it would have been a strong image.

I agree about the perspective, the building is on top of a hill and pretty much has to be shot by looking up at it - a shift lens would have been very useful. Also, the building itself isn't quite square which doesn't help - I didn't realise this until my fourth visit.

I'll take it as a compliment that they look like stills from a 40's Dracula movie because I like that style, as you can see here:

[attachment=16475:1.jpg]

I plan to return in a few months time (the lighting is best in the winter) on a day when there is more texture in the sky and may well borrow a shift lens and try to create a really good image as I like the scene so much.
Logged

Ed Blagden
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 09, 2009, 07:22:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ScottWylie
I agree about the perspective, the building is on top of a hill and pretty much has to be shot by looking up at it - a shift lens would have been very useful. Also, the building itself isn't quite square which doesn't help - I didn't realise this until my fourth visit.

I'll take it as a compliment that they look like stills from a 40's Dracula movie because I like that style, as you can see here:

[attachment=16475:1.jpg]

I plan to return in a few months time (the lighting is best in the winter) on a day when there is more texture in the sky and may well borrow a shift lens and try to create a really good image as I like the scene so much.

Now Scott, that is a good shot, what I was on about when I mentioned the funky wide-angly type shots with gnarly trees kind of vibe.  I like the shot a lot, and I think you have captured the spirit of the place.  Use a shift lens if you like, I personally don't think it would improve the shot much - it's just fine as it is.

Ed
Logged

Visit my Flickr page
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad