Been away from this forum for a while.
I have learned alot in the last few months and this shot depicts where I am now.

Please give me your thoughts on this capture.



Keith

Beautiful in an end of the world kind of way. I would hang it on my wall.

Tom

Well... my first thought was, 'Great clouds!! Too bad that building's in the way.'

Mike.

[quote=wolfnowl,Mar 27 2008, 11:24 PM]
Well... my first thought was, 'Great clouds!! Too bad that building's in the way.'

Mike.


Mike
It is interesting that you would say that. I have taken numerous sunset shots with just a shallow foreground and here I was trying to add a subject. The concept was to create a mood.

Keith

[quote=Keith S,Mar 28 2008, 01:54 AM]
[quote=wolfnowl,Mar 27 2008, 11:24 PM]
Well... my first thought was, 'Great clouds!! Too bad that building's in the way.'

Mike.
Mike
It is interesting that you would say that. I have taken numerous sunset shots with just a shallow foreground and here I was trying to add a subject. The concept was to create a mood.

Keith

[/quote]


Personally, I like the building (barn, right?) in the image. Adding a building, or something else familiar adds a sense of scale. The clouds look low because of the building. I would like to see a little more detail in the shadows though. The building takes up quite a bit of space in the photo and with lack of shadow detail seems too much like a blob of black. Try punching up the shadows a little and see if you still like it.

I certainly agree that sunset/sunrise shots usually benefit from some kind of foreground interest.

I'm more curious about the "no post processing" part.

I'm assuming there's no post processing...

(other than the JPG stuff the camera automatically does - and I'm not sure why you'd let the camera choose that for you. If you captured as RAW, and made no adjustments in the conversion, I'll come back and reframe my comment)

...because you think the image can't be improved on? Or are you looking for PP suggestions?

A building in profile in the foreground can look great, but I think this particular barn, and all the foreground here, does not really have clear enough lines to really be interesting, rather than distracting, as a pure-black background.

Why does it matter that there is 'no post processing'? What does that even mean? My camera club has a 'digital unaltered' category which leaves me with similar thoughts--a digital image only exists in a viewable format insofar as processing decisions have been made after capture, whether through menus in the camera, through Lightroom sliders, or the various abilities of Photoshop.

I'm curious too. Playing briefly with curves in Photoshop shows that some data exists in the building and in the foreground (grass).

First off, thanks for the comments! This is exactly what I was looking for.
When I set up this post I didn't realize that the "no post processing" comment would go with the topic. What I meant to do was to just state it. I am trying to take shots that do not require post processing as in "get it right the first time".
The building is an old abandoned post office built in 1903 on the Alberta prairies. The framing of the shot was tough. There is a communication tower just off the left and farm houses that are hidden behind it. I see what you mean about having more detail in the shadows and I am in the process of getting graduated ND filters.
I never thought of shooting in Raw and not make any adjustments during the conversion, thanks for that I’ll try it this weekend.

I appreciate the great comments and they have helped me.
Keith

With respect, this is meaningless.

When you take a shot with a digital camera, raw data from the sensor is either saved as is or converted in camera to a JPEG. If it's saved as a raw file, it is available for conversion - and must be converted - later into something useful, like a JPEG or a TIFF.

Either way, it's processed into a usable form after you have taken the shot. In other words, it's post-processed.

You can pretend that you've not indulged in any post-processing, but all that actually means is that you've chosen to accept the default post-processing imposed either by your camera or by whatever raw converter you elect to run on your computer.

I don't think that using an ND filter is any more virtuous than taking two shots at different exposures and merging them in Photoshop or some other program. That idea is a hangover from the days of film when there wasn't any really usable alternative.

So, if your shot has data in the apparently jet-black shadows that can be used and, if used, will make the shot look better, use it. Don't pretend that you've somehow achieved a better picture by not taking advantage of tools which are available.

As to the shot, I have to say my first thoughts were exactly those of Mike (wolfnowl). Fantastic clouds and sky. Black building. Why?

Jeremy

Jeremy
My intent was not to infer that a shot that has not been reworked in Photoshop is better. I happen to enjoy the feeling of not using Photoshop after I take the shot. Are graduated ND filters old school, yes they are but I never got to use them when I shot film years ago and it looks like an interesting thing to learn.

The comment “As to the shot, I have to say my first thoughts were exactly those of Mike (wolfnowl). Fantastic clouds and sky. Black building. Why?” That is why I posted the photo here to get comments just like this.

As I said before, thanks for the comments
Keith

Keith:

I should have been more specific, but as others have said, in this case the building and the foreground becomes a large black 'blob' that to me doesn't add anything to the picture. If you had some detail in the shadows, or even a more interesting silhouette, it would have made a better picture for me.

My $0.02.

Mike.

Mike
I appreciate your comments and I understand what you are saying. This building does have some character and I would like to post a photo c/w a companion shot to show what I saw. The silhouette shot was me cranking down the exposure until the area where the sun was wasn't totally blown out. What I like in this forum is the hard honest comments, this is how I can improve.

Keith

Mike
I went back to see if I could find the first shot before I started cranking down the exposure and found this.

Is this what you ment by more detail?





I dismissed this shot because the settings pulled too much blue from the sky and the sun was blown out.

Keith

Shooting RAW and some digital techniques you could have both nice shadow details and a good looking sun. recover in your RAW processor, Layers and curves in PS, stacked exposures/merge to HDR. A filter will leave an unnatural line across the barn the above techniques will not.
Marc
Just a quick combination in Photomatix Pro (Highlights and Shadows)
Click to view attachment

Marc
First off, thanks for taking the time to show me this. I totally agree that a graduated ND would leave a line across the building. I have to admit that seeing what you call "quick combination" saved the shot and turned it into a nice shot (except the blue).
I'm planning to go back and re-shoot this and I was wondering how I was going to get a better balance in the shot. Using a grad ND would not help but I did heard of what is called a black filter where the photographer went for a longer exposure and held his hand over the sun area for a bit then removed it. Using this technique in this application would be tough but I have some ideas of using a (moving) disk to block the sun. I am also going to bracket the exposure and take a look at HDR. Never know I just might get addicted to HDR

Thanks
Keith

When you reshoot, shoot in RAW so you have more to recover. Bracket a lot. I find with sunsets/sunrises I need at least -3 stops to recover a round sun. In raw you can set the white balance to warm it up to your tastes. I also had to rethink/relearn the best way to do things in digital not how I thought I would do it with film.
Marc

Please don't take this comment the wrong way, but...

Do you spend your spare time stripping naked and getting whipped with stinging nettles?

You seem to take a perverse, masochistic pleasure in making your life as difficult as possible. Your digital camera is a great tool. It converts light into binary data. Other tools, whether in the camera or on your computer, take those data and convert them into an image. You can choose to interfere as much, or as little as you like with what the various manufacturers have, in ignorance of your particular needs on this particular shot, deemed to be appropriate in most circumstances.

Why spend your time waving your hands about in front of your camera when you could take a few bracketed shots and achieve the same, or probably a much better, result? You've been shown that it can work.

Now, I used not to be immune to a bit of masochism myself: I spent hours, years ago, writing code in assembler rather than BCPL or C, because I could save, oh, ten or even twenty microseconds inside that loop and maybe several milliseconds in program execution time. Now I use a very high level database language because life's too short and the technology has moved on. I think I can more or less glimpse that you might be thinking as I used to think, but I like to imagine my current approach is more sensible!

Jeremy

May I ask what lens was used for the shot. 35 mm equivalent?

Jeremy
As a matter of fact I do. During the next climbing season I will attempt an assent of Everest while walking backwards.
I just bought my daughter a 40D c/w 17X85 for her grad/wedding present and we just got back from the bookstore with a new copy of "Photoshop for Dummies". I'm sure she will show me how to do this stuff soon enough. Having said that, I will do both until I feel which way feels right for me.
Have to tell you that I almost fell off my chair laughing at your comments.
WELL DONE! and point taken.

Keith

Peteh
I used a 5D with a 24X70L lens.
ISO 800 (becuse I forgot to lower it after taking shots of the building)
6.3 @ 1/250
30mm (full size sensor)

Keith

Keith
Be patient I once climbed Mt Everest backwards too. The best part of digital photography is the feedback loops are very tight and quick, you can learn at a tremendous rate if you want. The camera gives you near instant feedback on composition, exposure and sharpness. The digital darkroom (RAW converter, PS etc) give you quick feedback right in front of your eyes, then if you invest in a good photo printer you have very quick feedback on your prints. So there is a lot to learn (more than in film) but you can learn at a much faster rate.
Enjoy the journey!
Marc

Hello Kieth, I hope that you do not mind my very "rough" edit of your image. (I note the halo and a number of other issues that a longer edit would remove.) I wanted to see how much data was in the shadows, and a very quick play in between stacking boxes for our house move.

I know your post, and photographic aim is to capture everything in camera and that is fine, but I have to say that IMHO, the camera is now, more than ever, a data collector. I know for many images the camera can be tuned to produce very good out of camera images, but as I think was posted earlier, to some extent that is merely moving some choices into the camera processor.

A "null setting" on most dSLR's I'e used produces a pretty disappointing images straight from the camera, with different RAW convertors handling things in their own way as well. I think for many subjects a degree of PP adds a layer to an image, converting it from a sensor capture, to an expression of how the photographer experienced the scene, and with digital the box of tricks is nearly endless.

Please note I will remove the image and delete the jpegs from my drive when the post "dries up" or if you wish me to.

Steven

HI Keith.. yes.. that's getting there. As others have suggested, shooting RAW or possibly using HDR might improve on it. Of course, trying to re-shoot it will be next to impossible - you did get an amazing sky there!

Steven
Don't worry about deleting the Jpegs and thanks for doing your quick rough. I appreciate it


Marc
Thanks
The Nepalese must wonder about these weird folks carrying cameras and walking backwards. I did try reworking a shot I took in Photoshop and I have to admit WOW can you ever bring out contrast and colour with just a few tweaks.

Mike
I do plan on taking some RAW shots and messing with HDR. I did find one shot I took of two old grain elevators when the rising sun had just peaked over the middle of the two. With the reduced light I was able to get good detail in the shadows and the sky. Will be interesting from here on


Thanks for everyone’s comments and help!
Keith

Remember your eye can see much more than a camera can capture so there is nothing wrong with making adjustments to regain a more realistic image or for the sake of art the feeling you want to convey. Start thinking of your camera as a data capture device (capture maximum data), your RAW converter as a file creation program (record maximum data in a usable format) and your image editor as your
canvas to bring out either what your eye saw or the feeling you want to express.
Marc
nice shot by the way!
Click to view attachment

Now THAT'S killer!!