Architecture & nature

[Spam]

These pics have a couple of things in common. One is that they were both shot F16, ISO 100, 1/16 (the sunny 16 Rule). I can't really tell anything from my camera screen in bright light, and that rule has proved very useful in situations like this. Secondly, both pics were converted using Nik Silver Effects, but with the sky masked out to avoid excessive noise (got that tip here, thank you CiC!) Other than that, they're like chalk and cheese. Or like architecture and nature.

Comments welcome.

[Wavelength]

Quality stuffs; liked both of them
PS: what is sunny 16rule?

[Donald]

Two good compositions. And two very well developed (processed) images.

There is the slightest processing 'halo' around the top of the tree that is against the sky and at the corner of the building at the right hand side, in the first image.

[Mike Buckley]

Very nice, Simon. Great conversions and compositions.

PS: what is sunny 16rule?

See this. I relied on it when I was shooting film.

[Spam]

Quality stuffs; liked both of them
PS: what is sunny 16rule?

Thanks, Nandakumar. There's some discussion on the rule here, and here. Basically, it says if you are shooting in bright light, set your ISO to 100, your shutter speed to 1/100, and your aperture to f16. And then raise or lower your shutter speed and aperture proportionally.

[Spam]

Two good compositions. And two very well developed (processed) images.

There is the slightest processing 'halo' around the top of the tree that is against the sky and at the corner of the building at the right hand side, in the first image.

Thanks, Donald. I must confess I hadn't noticed the halo. It wasn't at all evident in the colour photo.

[Donald]

Thanks, Donald. I must confess I hadn't noticed the halo. It wasn't at all evident in the colour photo.

No, it won't be there. It's an artifact of the B & W conversion process. I think you'll likely have control points around those two areas. It's one of the challenges of working with SEP - to get the radius of the control points for one part of the image small enough and plentiful enough to counteract the effect of another control point affecting something else.

[Spam]

I think you'll likely have control points around those two areas. It's one of the challenges of working with SEP - to get the radius of the control points for one part of the image small enough and plentiful enough to counteract the effect of another control point affecting something else.

No control points (unless they get put in automatically?). I haven't yet figured out how to use those.

[Spam]

PS: There was a discussion in another forum here recently on tilt-and-shift lenses. I couldn't justify buying one of those, but I'm sure some of you will notice that I've distorted the building pic (in Photoshop) to make the sides vertical. I'm in two minds about this: it seems vaguely unethical, and would no doubt be frowned upon by professionals, but that's how it looks to the human eye.

[Donald]

No control points (unless they get put in automatically?). I haven't yet figured out how to use those.

Mmm. That's interesting. But I'd say it's still an effect of the conversion.

[DanK]

both are very striking images, but I think the second is the more interesting of the two.

[Shadowman]

Nicely captured and processed.

[rpcrowe]

I don't at all consider adjustments making the image look as we see it to be at all unethical...

[rachel]

PS: There was a discussion in another forum here recently on tilt-and-shift lenses. I couldn't justify buying one of those, but I'm sure some of you will notice that I've distorted the building pic (in Photoshop) to make the sides vertical. I'm in two minds about this: it seems vaguely unethical, and would no doubt be frowned upon by professionals, but that's how it looks to the human eye.

Going slightly off topic here - but does it really look vertical to the human eye, or does the brain make it appear that way because that's how it knows it should be? A function of neurones rather than optics?

[TonyW]

I think Rachel is right but I think that it is quite legitimate and preferable, in this case, to make the verticals look vertical in the image. This is how an architect would draw it and engineers would mostly use isometric drawings without perspective. There are places, though, where you might want the perspective to show, for example with very tall buildings.

And I do like the images!

[Donald]

I've distorted the building pic (in Photoshop) to make the sides vertical. I'm in two minds about this: it seems vaguely unethical, and would no doubt be frowned upon by professionals, .

Not at all. That's why we have a 'perspective correction' tool available to us. It's not in the least unethical and is what every pro would do. The only exception is if you wanted to emphasise the distortion for artistic reasons.

[george013]

These pics have a couple of things in common. One is that they were both shot F16, ISO 100, 1/16 (the sunny 16 Rule).

I think you meant 1/100

George

[IzzieK]

Very neat images, Simon. Out of curiousity, are you an architect? or an engineer? BTW, I prefer #2 to #1 because I have a hard time with building especially using a WA lens.

[george013]

PS: There was a discussion in another forum here recently on tilt-and-shift lenses. I couldn't justify buying one of those, but I'm sure some of you will notice that I've distorted the building pic (in Photoshop) to make the sides vertical. I'm in two minds about this: it seems vaguely unethical, and would no doubt be frowned upon by professionals, but that's how it looks to the human eye.

I think in film days the photo paper was rotated a little to correct perspective. It's all a matter of projection.
Be aware a good perspective correction is always 2 dimensional. So if you corrected the vertical lines, you also must correct the length.

George

[Spam]

Very neat images, Simon. Out of curiousity, are you an architect? or an engineer? BTW, I prefer #2 to #1 because I have a hard time with building especially using a WA lens.

Thanks, Izzie. No, I'm a lecturer in a Journalism school, teaching mostly layout, design and editing, and also a bit of media law and ethics. :-). And yes, I also prefer landscape photos to buildings. I only photographed this building because it is new (opened on Monday), and the early morning light was spectacular.