Project 52 by Geoff F

[Goldcoastgolfer]

I scrolled down and found myself smiling at your shot Geoff. The woman's eyes are very expressive - they look very concerned about the fact she is in the shot, holding that poster up. It reminds me of someone just poking their head up above something to see what's going on and suddenly getting caught.

All in all, given how quickly you had to take the shot it looks good to me. Flash wise, no shadowing and other than the excessive DoF which I don't think is a big deal because your subject is fairly dominant, it looks good.

[Geoff F]

Thanks for the comments.

These many boxes of archives were nearly lost. The company concerned was having a clear out of their storage area and were going to send everything to the rubbish tip. Luckily, someone there knew the history society chairman and asked if he wanted anything.

The records cover an area of around 50 miles, so at the moment we are just sorting things into locations so material can be distributed to history associations in the various villages.

[Geoff F]

Had an experiment with some HDR landscapes this week.

My previous software only performed HDR in Jpeg and, to my eyes, didn't do it very well either. So I hadn't bothered to use this method; particularly as I'm not keen on some of the excessive examples which I see.

However, a few more subdued edits on CinC recently started me thinking about trying it again. Normally when faced with tricky scenes I produce two Raw conversions, as Smart Objects, then manually combine them with layers and masks.

But some scenes make this method rather difficult.

So here are some examples of HDR and Raw conversions of the same scene.

7D with Canon 24-105 lens, 1/320 F11 Iso 200 on tripod.





Here is a closer shot of the lighthouse from a different angle. 7D with Sigma 150-500 lens. 1/400 F9 Iso 100, on tripod.





The HDR Raw shots (one stop under & one over the initial shot) were slightly edited during the Raw stage to crop, adjust noise and capture sharpening by uploading all 3 versions to the ACR converter then using Select All and Synchronise.

The Raw conversion image was the same one as the 'middle' shot of the HDR triplet.

My opinion is that although the HDR produced brighter highlights particularly regarding the sky, this was at the expense of midtones. So after the HDR merge a I continued to edit with curves to lighten the midtones.

All images had the same sharpening.

The Start Point Raw conversion had one smart object produced for the overall shot and another for the sky. And that area was further edited with a Curves Adjustment Layer.

The lighthouse Raw conversion was just one image but that had a duplicate image as a layer which had a Soft Light blend mode.

After examining the results, and trying the HDR conversions for a second time; then asking for an opinion from my 'scrutiny committee' (local pub) we all came up with the same answer.

Normal Raw conversion (with or without smart objects) and a few standard tweaks produces a better result than HDR.

But I will try HDR again when I find a scene where the tonal range seems too great for the Raw conversion methods to work well.

But which of these alternatives do other people prefer?

[Cindi]

Awesome. . . . lighthouses are my favorite!!! Good job!

[Cindi]

I knew I should have bought a 24-105!!!! Got talked out of it in December and bought a 24-70, which was upgraded probably within 3 weeks after I got it. The story of my life. Love the 24-70 but I really fought with myself about it. Still might get the 24-105. Taking photojournalism classes in the fall and feel like I'll need that, along with the 70-200.

Back to you. Love the photo. Great job editing. Love the illusion of movement. Very festive. Well done, Geoff.

[Geoff F]

Thanks for the comments, Cindi.

I find the 24-105 is a useful size but in some ways I miss that little bit extra which I had with my previous 28-135, although the quality is better.

I also use the 70-200 but sometimes find I am changing lenses when having 135 mm would have been sufficient. But it all depends on what you photograph; some people would prefer to have a little bit extra at the other end.

[johnbharle]

I'm not much for HDR and have never tried a RAW conversion, so you are pretty much speaking Greek to me. But I must say that I like the saturated colors you were able to obtain. They don't look "too too" as so many HDR's do to me. Nice photos!

[Bunty Plumchip]

I like the more defined and saturated rocks n the first versions and the more subtle/softer skies in the second versions. I like the sea in the second versions better- not sure why though- usually the more depth of colour the more I like it, but in this instance I like the softer hue. Given the overall choce though, personally I wouuld go with the definition of the rocks as the main interst leading to the lighthouse.

But what do I know.

[Letrow]

Difficult choice Geoff. in the last photo (close up of the lighthouse) I think the differences are too big to choose from. The first photo of those two looks very bright, but because of that the second is a bit washed out. Especially the rock is now a bit dull. As stand alone I would probably still have the same opinion, but it would be less obvious.

In your first photo the differences are not that pronounced. The first of that series is perhaps a bit too much, but just. I find it pleasing to look at. The second of that series is good as well, but a bit more 'oomph' in the colours might have improved it I think.

I couldn't see it, but suppose that the HDR was the first one in each series.

[Geoff F]

Wrong, Peter.

The first ones were Raw conversions, as smart objects with the overall scene; and the second, in each case, was the HDR effect.

With the HDR adjustment, I used the default setting for 'Photorealistic' then made a few slight tweaks to suit each image.

I will definitely try the subdued HDR merge again with a different subject where the tonal range is greater and see how that works out; but I certainly won't be rushing to HDR everything in future.

ps. With the first set (overall scene) my original Raw conversion was a little more subdued but I tried, with a little more editing, to bring the sky closer to the HDR alternative to give a true comparison.

[Dave Humphries]

The first ones were Raw conversions, as smart objects with the overall scene; and the second, in each case, was the HDR effect.

Phew, You had me going there for a minute Geoff, I thought I was going to have to admit the HDR ones were better

I prefer the tonal range of the 1st and 3rd. The 4th, in particular, is really flat, but possibly nothing some LCE, plus a reseting of the black point wouldn't solve.

Cheers,

[Goldcoastgolfer]

#1 and #3 for me - I like the colours better with the colours in #2 and #4. Overall, I prefer the composition of #3. I find that that it's a bit better balance overall and the lines lead you to the lighthouse a bit better

[Geoff F]

Thanks for the comments. This, I found, was an interesting experiment, and it is always a good idea to try something new.

Although, who was it that said something about, 'We should try everything once; except incest and folk dancing'

[Donald]

I think what you have done is what HDR is meant to be about.

In the first it is excellent and provides us with an image that we very easily imagine we are seeing as if we were sitting looking at that view.

In the second one, I find that rock outcrop over on the left not quite as I would expect to see it. It is obviously quite a bright day and my brain is telling me I should be seeing more contrast than I am. The effect of your work on the lighthouse is excellent.

[Geoff F]

Firstly, thanks for the comments about week 11 Donald.

It has been mostly another dull weather week with some days when the mist never cleared. But I have been converting a room, which isn't currently being used, into a computer/camera room; so I have made a bit of headway on that instead. And have had a house full of dust ever since.

Chipping off some old tiles was a nightmare; then I had to replaster the surface; which was another 'skill' to be learned. Although only basically learned! But after a bit of extra filling, sanding and painting, I think the result will be sufficient; if not exactly professional standards.

Anyway, to week 12. I went to the quay to photograph the rowing gigs as they passed on a training row. But with a difficult light, I wasn't really happy with the results; then I spotted this.



Why have I titled it 'The Flasher'? Well to my warped sense of humour this reminded me of the stereotype comedic representation of a 'flasher' proudly lifting up his raincoat.

Not the intended target, and no 'thinking time' so the shutter speed was a little on the low side; hence slight blur on the wings.

1/320 F5.6 Iso 320. 7D with 70-200 IS at 180 mm. Cropped to this size, although I also produced a 3 x 2 ratio version. It is level, the bollard is on a slipway.

And the model's name? Phalacrocorax aristotelis.

[FrankMi]

'The Flasher' is priceless, Geoff. And so is the 'ho-hum' look on the other bird's face. Great capture!

[Letrow]

Nice moment to capture Geoff

[Goldcoastgolfer]

There must be a few of us that have a warped sense of humour. Your other model is looking the wrong way - you might need to work with them a bit.

Great capture - really great detail. Looks like you had all of the settings just right for that moment!

[Geoff F]

Thanks for the comments. I suppose it might be possible to put a 'different head' on the left bird. I will have a look to see if there is anything suitable in the other snaps.

Then, it would simply be a case of finding time.

[johnbharle]

Why have I titled it 'The Flasher'? Well to my warped sense of humour this reminded me of the stereotype comedic representation of a 'flasher' proudly lifting up his raincoat.

Not the intended target, and no 'thinking time' so the shutter speed was a little on the low side; hence slight blur on the wings.

1/320 F5.6 Iso 320. 7D with 70-200 IS at 180 mm. Cropped to this size, although I also produced a 3 x 2 ratio version. It is level, the bollard is on a slipway.

And the model's name? Phalacrocorax aristotelis.

He really does look like a flasher. Great capture!