What do people think? Yes, it's supposed to be OTT, so I know it won't be to some people's tastes.
'0' shot:
HDR shot:
What do people think? Yes, it's supposed to be OTT, so I know it won't be to some people's tastes.
'0' shot:
HDR shot:
John
I'm a Nikon man, with some other bits and pieces.
My website:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I love these old churches, I like both of these but the HDR version seems to highlight parts of the architecture that isnt as obvious with the first image, an example is the tiny window centered above the big arched window is more obvious with the HDR , but then the crosses in the stonework up either side is more eveident in the first one.
Each has their merits, i love the close crop with the chained or rope fence leading into the church.
Very interesting images, thanks for posting ..
Julie Fuji X100. Canon 6D plus lenses.
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice!!!
hmm, I don't really like the processed image. It appears too saturated for my taste. Lovely church though!
Cheers,
Emma
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Thanks for the comments. To me, churches are 'special' architecture. So, I was trying to portray the character of the building tha I didn't think was that evident in the first shot, as well as trying to give a quality to the stained glass that both highlighted it and gave a sense of something emanating from within.
John
I'm a Nikon man, with some other bits and pieces.
My website:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
yuk yuk; too much. Sorry.
This fiddle is mainly done using the burn tool set to shadows and the dodge tool set to highlights. And no; I don't really like what I have done either mainly because it is rushed and there fore rough. I may fiddle with it again later and try a different way.
#2 is the original
BTW: I feel the building was photographed at the wrong time of day. As I read somewhere last night "without good light there is no good photograph" (or something like that) or maybe a photograph is only as good as the lighting is another way of putting it.
The camera & lens it's just a tool to capture light and shadows.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Yes, I may go back and gt it at a better time. It had to be taken then, because it was in between a wedding service and reception we were attending.
John
I'm a Nikon man, with some other bits and pieces.
My website:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Well John, I'm going to comment on a couple of aspects of your image:
OTT (over the top)? Yeah, maybe, but only just. I rather like the effect but if you want to call something OTT, then you need to go a good bit further that this, Mate.
I see the gum trees are competing with the main subject. Have you considered making two layers, the church presented as is and the trees presented as in the OOC (straight out of camera) version?
I see you've been fiddling with the sky below the foliage to subdue it. Maybe the suggested method would make a better job of this.
If you take the HDR effect away, you have a pretty bland image, one that says only, "I've been there." If an artist is one who presents a point of view, a feeling, a reaction, a question and confronts through their work, then this may well belong in a different section.
So, what I'm suggesting is that you go out and get a strong image to work with, keeping this technique up your sleeve, and then use whatever technique is appropriate to enhance the feeling of the basic image.
Now John, as you would well know, I'm not very good at saying things gently. But then, you did ask, "What do people think?" and I'm one of those people and that's what I think. Maybe you'll find my comments helpful, even if abrasive.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Thanks Laurie. Your comments are helpful, and not abrasive at all. I would much prefer people to call it as they see it. The more I think abut this image, the more I think I need to go back when the sky is full of menacing clouds. In addition to what you've said, I think the sky lets it down in particular.
John
I'm a Nikon man, with some other bits and pieces.
My website:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
maybe; but just picking a better time in the day would make all the difference. The light is too hard and flat; maybe just later in the day if there is nothing to cast shadows over the building. Unfortunately the church looks to be facing west so perhaps you should wait until winter when the sun will be further to the north and would or should add some shadow content to the building.Originally Posted by Sventek
The camera & lens it's just a tool to capture light and shadows.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
It is a good building the play with John
#2 is the original
The camera & lens it's just a tool to capture light and shadows.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Yep, lots of potential with it Ian. Good advice about the season, too.
John
I'm a Nikon man, with some other bits and pieces.
My website:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
OK, this might be a more appropriate application for my new HDR formula. More gooderer?
John
I'm a Nikon man, with some other bits and pieces.
My website:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Johyn
I like what you have done .. bit OTT but then you need to try things. The only thing that you might want to try it leaving the non church "background" alone and only make your changes to the church itself. I think you are right that you want to bring out the architecture of the church and make it the focus.
Phil
Canon 5D Mark II - Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70L 2.8, Sigma 105, Sigma 10-20mm
Yeah! Much more gooderer! I really like it!
I think there may be something in what Phil said about the non church area of the image. It's fighting for a piece of the action. But then, I dunno.
It looks like you've compressed perspective with a long lens. If that's your style, well and good, but I wonder how it would go with a wide lens. I'm a wide lens person!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
It was an 18-200 that I was taking to the wedding for the first one, Laurie - and it was at 50mm exactly according to the EXIF data. The second one was taken with my 50mm 1.4G.
John
I'm a Nikon man, with some other bits and pieces.
My website:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks