The Seductive Inn

[KimC]

Thanks for commenting John. No, I didn't use any noise reduction in PP; that's something I need to explore as I haven't used it much.

Nicely captured, some visible noise in the first, not so much in the second (some on the pillars). Did you use noise reduction in camera or during post-processing? I would consider trying both to see which handles noise best.

[KimC]

John, thank you for sharing this with us. I don't mind people modifying my images, as it's a way we all learn. For me, the added brightness loses the intimate atmosphere that I saw, and feel in love with. As noted below, from comments from CiC members who didn't see the original scene, they enjoy this version.

Lucky you Kim. The place looks as if you could sink into the cushions with a good book. I wanted to follow up on Robbie's suggestions at post no. 3 except that I have used some gentle HDR to simulate what he proposed. Used a programme called SNS and came up with this. Plus, minus one stop on the original Jpg (3 images) and it's had some sharpening and noise reduction as well (Nik). If I'm intruding, tell me to ......... go away:

[KimC]

Thanks for commenting on the revised version Mike. As for your other point - touché; although I have tried on other shots and have not had success, I didn't EXPERIMENT and try it here!

I really like the warmer look, Kim. Have you determined that you would not have been able to hold the camera still enough shooting at slower than 1/125 or are you guessing about that?

[KimC]

Manfred, extremely helpful response. Thank you so much for taking the time to discuss each item. Def going to copy and save this.

Kim - I really think your updates work a lot better than the original images; the warmth of the setting that likely attracted you to this place can be seen and "felt".

When shooting in these lighting conditions, the photographer has to deal with all kinds of "unattractive" tradeoffs.

Let's start with large apertures. I personally would have taken that shot wide open. You have a fast and expensive lens (I own one as well so know how it performs). There are two potential issues when shooting wide open; depth of field and some loss of quality from shooting that way. For depth of field; if you prefocus about 6 or 7 ft in from where you are standing, I would expect that the image would be appropriately sharp throughout. Using hyperfocal distance, especially with an ultrawide angle lens lets you cover off a lot of sharpness issues quite easily. If you don't have access to tables (lots available for smart phones and tablets on the internet, try bracketing the distance; three or four shots where you pick different focus points should work fine.

The second issue is exposure versus high ISO. The blue channel in you camera is especially sensitive to noise as are the dark areas of the shot. Proper exposure or even ETTR exposure will minimize noise.

The third issue is hand holding at slow shutter speeds. Again your shooting an ultra-wide works in your favour here. I've gotten decent shots hand holding at 1/8 sec and occasionally when I've timed things well, even 1/4 sec. A good solid stance. bracing your arms (and camera) with your chest and holding your breath while smoothly pressing the shutter release can let you shoot in lighting conditions like these. Again 3 or 4 shots and picking the best one helps here.

[Mike Buckley]

although I have tried on other shots and have not had success, I didn't EXPERIMENT and try it here!

My guess is that when you tried it on other shots, you were using a longer focal length. In that case, it would be understandable that you could have not held the camera steady enough at 1/125.

There is a standard guideline that most people can handhold their shots if the shutter speed is 1/focal length. As an example, when the focal length is 24mm, that speed would be 1/24. That's only a guideline. As another example, I generally try to shoot at 1/(2 x focal length) or in this case 1/48. But using techniques explained by Manfred, I have gotten lucky occasionally and have shot at far slower speeds than the standard guideline. It might take five or six tries, but I've done it. If you are using image-stabilization, you can sometimes use much slower shutter speeds than the guideline suggests, especially as the focal length becomes longer and longer.

Another trick is to fire three shots at a time. You might be holding the camera more still when one of those shots is fired than when the other two are fired.

Naturally, with a scene such as this one when you've got the luxury of time, always magnify the image in your LCD to ensure that you've got a nice sharp image before leaving the scene or composing a different one in the same location.

[KimC]

I have been giving the HDR image that John posted more thought, and since this is a learning forum, I would like to ask a question. As I mentioned, I thought the added brightness impacted the intimacy of the room, but upon reconsidering, if looking at the image as strictly a viewer, I would question where all that light is coming from with the limited lighting in the room. Is that a limitation of this rendition?

Lucky you Kim. The place looks as if you could sink into the cushions with a good book. I wanted to follow up on Robbie's suggestions at post no. 3 except that I have used some gentle HDR to simulate what he proposed. Used a programme called SNS and came up with this. Plus, minus one stop on the original Jpg (3 images) and it's had some sharpening and noise reduction as well (Nik). If I'm intruding, tell me to ......... go away

[bnnrcn]

Kim, the lighting in the room in John's edit looks sufficient to me ( The foreground of the image is still less bright than the background and there are lights hanging from the ceiling as well as the two shaded lamps at both sides of the room). IMO the light in your image doesn't look very sufficient despite the lights hanging from the ceiling. If those lights weren't there and if there were only two shaded lamps in the room, then the lighting in your image would look more reasonable. Although I make this comment you are the one who were in that room and you know how powerfull the lights were . If the room was really poorly lit despite all those lights then you are right that John's edit is full of light.


PS. As I said in my previous post, I like them both.

[John 2]

Kim, it's not a limitation but it may well, and probably does, present the scene differently to how you saw it. I wasn't there and it wasn't my intention to change the mood as such rather than explore how effectively the rebalancing of the dynamic range suggested by Robbie could be achieved in PP rather than by making several camera exposures. How you apply it in order to re-create what you saw, can be controlled(see below). I found it a useful exercise.

[Rebel]

Manfred, thank you for commenting on my images. I appreciate your feedback and the substantial knowledge you have. Yes, the rooms were this dark. It was evening, and what they used for lighting kept with the "old feel" of the inn. I think the white balance may have given viewers the impression it was gloomy, which was far from the truth. I have warmed them up -- thoughts? Also, I haven't read all the comments yet, but I did see a few related to the images not being sharp. I didn't want to go above 10,000 ISO, and didn't want to reduce the shutter speed since the camera was hand held, so I was on F3 (mentioned above). Being on F3, I wouldn't expect the images to be tack sharp. Is my thinking correct?

I think this is definite improvement

I do like John's HDR edit, but like you I look at the lighting and it just doesn't match the light in the room (if that makes sense.)

[KimC]

Binnur, I'm one of those people who loves dark and moody -- that's why I loved this Inn so. Many would find my home on the dark side as well. However you, John, and the other viewers didn't have the opportunity to see it in person. With photography, we all have the ability to create our own stories that go along with the image (what makes photography so special and difficult at the same time -- how will the viewer perceive it?)

John, thank you for posting the revised image. I'm glad the exercise was helpful. Personally, whenever I post an image, I hope it will get a discussion going, as those are the types of posts that I have learned the most from on CiC. Hopefully this is one such thread.

Kim, the lighting in the room in John's edit looks sufficient to me ( The foreground of the image is still less bright than the background and there are lights hanging from the ceiling as well as the two shaded lamps at both sides of the room). IMO the light in your image doesn't look very sufficient despite the lights hanging from the ceiling. If those lights weren't there and if there were only two shaded lamps in the room, then the lighting in your image would look more reasonable. Although I make this comment you are the one who were in that room and you know how powerfull the lights were . If the room was really poorly lit despite all those lights then you are right that John's edit is full of light..

Kim, it's not a limitation but it may well, and probably does, present the scene differently to how you saw it. I wasn't there and it wasn't my intention to change the mood as such rather than explore how effectively the rebalancing of the dynamic range suggested by Robbie could be achieved in PP rather than by making several camera exposures. How you apply it in order to re-create what you saw, can be controlled(see below). I found it a useful exercise.

[Mike Buckley]

Kim,

Ansel Adams is one of the relatively few master photographers who wrote fairly extensively about his approach to photography. He regularly mentions that his photo is his "interpretation" of the scene. If our photos are effective interpretations of the scenes we photograph, nobody should be disagreeing with us. As an example, when you changed to a warmer color balance, you changed your interpretation to something you found to be more effective. That's not to say that anyone is going to like your, mine or anyone's interpretation of the scene, but whether or not anyone else likes it perhaps should not be the goal for us hobbyists.