Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Nevers cathedral - a BIG thanks to Luminous Landscape  (Read 6537 times)
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1543


WWW
« Reply #20 on: June 18, 2011, 12:12:06 PM »
ReplyReply

I have to say that what you are seeing is what I saw with my eyes.

Actually its not. As you look from the bright to the dark areas your eye dilates or vice versa, but a photograph can't do that and when we try and achieve that effect in one image it looks unnatural. Though some "unnatural" looking interior have become accepted in the genre over the years like shooting at twilight with the intense saturated blue of twilight outside the windows. IME on any large interior like that above the only real natural look in a photograph is to have the windows bright but detailed.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
jools230575
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 88


« Reply #21 on: June 18, 2011, 12:32:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Kirk. I accept that you are a specialist of architecture etc and the work that you do. But for me, the image presented is the closest I can get to how it was. I'm not trying to present a false reality or a cartoon recreation of a real thing. That's not my style at all.

As I said. I think it's a case of one person has one opinion and one has another.
Logged

John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #22 on: June 18, 2011, 12:43:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, we all have our own preferences in these things. I don't aim to shoot church interiors as a kind of architectural record, so if it is the windows which are the main subject, my inclination is to expose for them and keep the interior dark and moody, like the example posted below. No HDR or exposure blend here, just the one shot.

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6830


WWW
« Reply #23 on: June 18, 2011, 01:02:50 PM »
ReplyReply

There are a number of things going on here:

If the purpose is to render it how you saw it, Jools did it.
If your purpose is to produce a fair rendition of an interior in which you see both highlight and shadow detail, Kirk has his finger on the right buttons.
If your purpose is to do a great shot of a church window framed in a relevant but non-distracting context, John did it.

So there's really no argument here. It all comes back to achieving your objectives; they can all differ so if you are in control of what you are doing, the results will all differ. It's only when we start contending that one objective is more valid than the other that the arguments can break out.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
jools230575
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 88


« Reply #24 on: June 18, 2011, 01:21:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Exactly. I'm not here to argue only to post up an image I thought that people might enjoy.

In this world we are each individual people. As such, we see the world in our own individual way and it is highly likely that one individual will disagree with how another sees the world around them.

To give you a little more info on the image.

Looking down the nave is to look directly east.
The image was taken roughly at midday. That means that the light would have been its strongest on the right hand side of the image. Thus, you see highlights on the left of it.

As I said. I'm just trying to say thanks for to the site for providing a good technique for blending and two show the results of it in what I feel is a pleasing way.
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6830


WWW
« Reply #25 on: June 18, 2011, 01:28:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Well Jools, not to put too fine a point on it: but just because you aren't here to argue, doesn't mean there won't be arguments - I mean, would there be so much fun and challenge in a Forum otherwise? -  As long as we all stay respectful with each other :-)
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
jools230575
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 88


« Reply #26 on: June 18, 2011, 01:48:48 PM »
ReplyReply

This is true but I just don't like things getting into tit for tat. I find it tiresome. Maybe I've listened to too much Grateful Dead which has mellowed my argumentative side.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1889


WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 18, 2011, 04:39:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have to say that what you are seeing is what I saw with my eyes.
Actually its not.
Why do you say that ? Have you actually photographed in this particular location ?
Logged
jools230575
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 88


« Reply #28 on: June 19, 2011, 02:25:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Actually its not.
Why do you say that ? Have you actually photographed in this particular location ?

I nearly came back with the same but my Englishness told me not to. I didn't want to start an all out war!
Logged

artobest
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 258


WWW
« Reply #29 on: June 23, 2011, 08:00:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Actually its not.
Why do you say that ? Have you actually photographed in this particular location ?

I think Kirk explains himself pretty well in his post. It isn't what the photographer's eye saw because our eyes cannot simultaneously behold the extremes of light and dark the way they are presented in the picture. That is why the photograph looks somewhat artificial IMO, and that is the essence of all that is wrong with high dynamic range photography, regardless of how it is achieved.
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6830


WWW
« Reply #30 on: June 23, 2011, 08:13:42 AM »
ReplyReply

I think Kirk explains himself pretty well in his post. It isn't what the photographer's eye saw because our eyes cannot simultaneously behold the extremes of light and dark the way they are presented in the picture. That is why the photograph looks somewhat artificial IMO, and that is the essence of all that is wrong with high dynamic range photography, regardless of how it is achieved.

When you enter a scene like that and scan it, your eyes adjust quickly, so when you are looking at the very dark areas of the scene you see the detail and when you look at the very bright areas, after a moment of adjustment you see the details. Human visual response to changes in luminosity is very rapid. This is what HDR photography attempts to replicate, but it is a snapshot not sequential. As with so much else, its success depends on it not being overdone.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1543


WWW
« Reply #31 on: June 23, 2011, 10:54:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Why do you say that ? Have you actually photographed in this particular location ?

................No, but I have photographed numerous cathedrals from the same period and architecturally similar all over England, plus on an NEA grant I photographed 400 historic churches in New Mexico, plus I have spent half my time over the last 32 years photographing interiors, plus I have taught architectural/interior photography at the university level for 20+ years, plus I wrote the photography manual for the National Trust for Historic Preservation.................
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #32 on: June 23, 2011, 11:07:19 AM »
ReplyReply

................No, but I have photographed numerous cathedrals from the same period and architecturally similar all over England, plus on an NEA grant I photographed 400 historic churches in New Mexico, plus I have spent half my time over the last 32 years photographing interiors, plus I have taught architectural/interior photography at the university level for 20+ years, plus I wrote the photography manual for the National Trust for Historic Preservation.................

Owned.
Logged

John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #33 on: June 23, 2011, 12:20:59 PM »
ReplyReply

If you go back to my picture of Fowey Church, that is how it looks when you first walk into the building from a hot summer afternoon outside, before your eyes adjust. And it is just one of many possible interpretations of the scene. The way Jools has it is more like a painter would see it, with their easel set up in the nave, and after several hours of working up the image. There is no "right" or "wrong" way, surely.

However, my own preference is for photography as literally "drawing with light", rather than painting. And I think that HDR or exposure blending mitigates against that. I don't want to lose the impact of highlights against deep shade by reducing the contrast between them. To my mind one of the strengths of photography (perhaps its greatest strength) is that it does not see as the human eye does.

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
milt
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69



WWW
« Reply #34 on: June 23, 2011, 01:40:49 PM »
ReplyReply

An interesting discussion.  Lots of valid points have been made.  For myself, I find I agree at least partially with almost all of the posts.

I'd like to add a small point that hasn't been made yet.  I've become convinced there exists an effect I call "LDR burn-in" for want of a  better name.  We have all (both photographers and non-photographers) become used to the fact that prints have a lower dynamic range than our (even unadjusted) eyes, i.e. we have become accustomed to the way prints normally look.  At least a part of some folks dislike of HDR is due to this effect.

--Milt--
Logged

Los Gatos, California | http://miltonbarber.com
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1543


WWW
« Reply #35 on: June 23, 2011, 02:07:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There is no "right" or "wrong" way, surely.

I don't agree. It seems that this is a popular perception these days. And the result IMO is the widespread acceptance of poorly seen and technically incompetent images (I'm making a general point here-not making this point about this image). With this attitude how would one  teach architectural photography?
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1543


WWW
« Reply #36 on: June 23, 2011, 02:12:15 PM »
ReplyReply

When you enter a scene like that and scan it, your eyes adjust quickly, so when you are looking at the very dark areas of the scene you see the detail and when you look at the very bright areas, after a moment of adjustment you see the details. Human visual response to changes in luminosity is very rapid. This is what HDR photography attempts to replicate, but it is a snapshot not sequential. As with so much else, its success depends on it not being overdone.

I agree. Here is an old example from my blog of the balance I am talking about.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6830


WWW
« Reply #37 on: June 23, 2011, 02:14:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Good example - very natural-looking.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #38 on: June 23, 2011, 02:30:32 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't agree. It seems that this is a popular perception these days. And the result IMO is the widespread acceptance of poorly seen and technically incompetent images (I'm making a general point here-not making this point about this image). With this attitude how would one  teach architectural photography?

Well, there is such a thing as formal architectural photography, just as there is formal portraiture. Which can be taught. But there is also romantic pictorialism (that's me, for better or worse), which is a lot harder to find rules for. And then there might be anarchic lomography or pin-hole mysticism in a church (why not?) all of which might be fun and probably all the better for not being taught.

Which is not to say that I approve of garbage masquerading as art. But technical excellence in and of itself makes for rather a dull world  Wink

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
jools230575
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 88


« Reply #39 on: June 24, 2011, 12:30:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Honestly, all this over a flippin' image  Huh

Kirk, as I said, I admire what you do and the work you achieve. But EVERYONE is different in how they see the world and it is what makes us individuals. For me, it is how I saw it and chose to capture it.

I'm off to process my shots of Blois cathedral. Probably end up with a similar feeling. Heck, what do I know?
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad