Moonlight on church

[William W]

. . . the distortions in the first image. I will be working on it some more before printing.

If you want to keep the screen shot of the rough redo that I posted, then download the large size sooner, rather than later, because I clean out that server regularly.

WW

[Kaye Leggett]

You are correct Bill. The image was taken in full late afternoon sunlight on a perfectly clear day. This has been great fun.

Dave

You had me fooled. But I do like the first shot and your PP very much.

[Dave A]

If you want to keep the screen shot of the rough redo that I posted, then download the large size sooner, rather than later, because I clean out that server regularly.

WW

Downloaded, thanks Bill. I use Lightroom, is yours in PS?

Dave

[William W]

. . . I use Lightroom, is yours in PS?

Yes that was done in Photoshop CS2 Ver 9.0.2. That's quite an old version which I have on one of my field laptops.

In Lightroom it is under "Lens Corrections" - and open the "Manual" tab. I am not sure if the 'numbers' in that screen shot will coincide to Lightroom for the Barrel/Pincushion and the Vertical and Horizontal Corrections. If the numbers are meaningless in Lightroom, then . . . I do the rotation first to get the left side of the spire vertical then adjust the Vertical Perspective to remove the inverted keystone distortion. You might have to re adjust the rotation a touch. Do the barrel distortion last - look at the trees background right, and the edge of the frame left - not the Church - it is subtle but it the barrelling is there, I think that the big tree camera right is growing askew - that doesn't assist!

Let's know how you get on.

WW

[Dave A]

Thanks Bill I will try those adjustment then post them here.

Dave

[Dave A]

So Bill here is what I came up with. Using the other image that you preferred which reveals more of the front of the church I did the moonlight PP and the distortion corrections.

Dave

[William W]

Thank you. You certainly have refined a particular PP technique.

Now you have two of them,. . .
What do you think when you compare and contrast the two "moonlight" scenes?

WW

[Dave A]

Thank you. You certainly have refined a particular PP technique.

Now you have two of them,. . .
What do you think when you compare and contrast the two "moonlight" scenes?

WW

Bill, actually I prefer the one you suggested because a little more of the illuminated front wall is seen and that is the focal point. I do miss the shadow of the large tree through. This one will be framed. Thank you for your help and suggestions.

Dave

[William W]

I was thinking that you might like to consider playing with IR.

I don't know how adaptive the D7200 sensor is to using an R72 FILTER on your lens, but if you like the type of B&W conversion and the artistry that you are presently achieving, it occurred to em that you might like to explore further into similar genres.

This was made with an R72 used on a Fiji X100s - in the same type of hard side lighting as your Church, only mine was a made at morning time and not the late afternoon.

The IR techniques with an R72 and an UN-converted filter are slightly different to using IR film or a converted filter. I've experimented and found a set procedure for the conversion in PS which suits me - I intend later to use Lightroom for more a nuanced result, but PS is very adequate at the moment and for me easier to use as the experiment base: (I use Lightroom mainly for batch processing).

Like you commented above, I too have I found these B&W genres are great fun.

WW

[Dave A]

Learning something new here. The R72 is new info to me and didn't realize what can be achieved with it. Your link to the image is amazing and I do like the effect very much. Defiantly worth picking one up..........tomorrow

Dave

[William W]

. . . actually I prefer the one you suggested because a little more of the illuminated front wall is seen and that is the focal point. I do miss the shadow of the large tree through. This one will be framed. Thank you for your help and suggestions. . .

YES! That's what hit me too! I didn't want to make any comment until you provided your analysis.

I didn't 'see" that aspect as an outcome when I suggested you convert the second image; but when I first viewed the conversion early this morning I thought, "Wow! The façade of the Church is a fantastic visual and has great initial impact!"

I retain the views as outlined in my previous, concerning: juxtaposition, balance and composition and those are more reasons why I prefer the second inage

*

One more consideration: the relative whiteness/greyness of the circle area on the spire looks odd to my eye.

Consider if it is too intrusive being that “white” - maybe it could be a bit greyer?

Furthermore, it occurs to me that is a reconditioned area because of the need to repair (probably to avoid water damage: my guess is that it was probably a circular window previously and it was been replaced with a wood panel – maybe it needs to reconstructed as a window?

Rough A/B comparison and the original on the top:



WW

[William W]

... ps:

Big size of the rough, FYI -

[Dave A]

Haha that's great. That was a newer fix to replace a broken window as far as I could tell. I have straight on shots of the front.

Dave

[William W]

Thanks for the kind comment regarding my IR image: you should be able to navigate inside that folder and there are two other images in it. The bridge is as example of shooting into the sunlight and the rivulet is an example of soft light and shadows. You can view the images 'large' by clicking on the mouse which it is over the smaller image.

Gotta go and do some work now. Catch you later.

WW

[DanK]

Wonderful images. I agree with Bill. The composition of the second is better, but the processing of the first is really striking, with the ersatz moonlight.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk