San Xavier

[Snarkbyte]

The church at San Xaviar Mission was originally completed in 1797. The dome of the eastern tower was destroyed by a lightning strike in 1939, and the current reconstruction project began in 1989. I intended to have a closer shot of the external statuary on the facade, but the SmugMug uploader seems to be having problems at the moment

C&C is invited and appreciated.

#1 Mission Church


#2 Facade


#3 Northern Dome



#4 Towers

[jiro]

Nice shots there, Al. What lens did you use? I was thinking of a wide angle lens to show more detail on the structure. Hope to see more from these series, Al. Nice work!

[Snarkbyte]

What lens did you use? I was thinking of a wide angle lens to show more detail on the structure. Hope to see more from these series, Al. Nice work!

#2 was taken with a 10-22mm, and I have other shots with that lens as well, but it's difficult to get wide shots without a couple dozen tourists and church parishoners in the frame. San Xavier is still an active church, which is also why I didn't get any good interior shots... the church was filling with people for a service of some sort, so I didn't have much time.

#1 was taken with a 24-105mm, while #3 and #4 were shot with a 200mm prime from a small hill just east of the church.

I did get some closer shots of the exterior facade:

[jiro]

...but it's difficult to get wide shots without a couple dozen tourists and church parishoners in the frame.

Clone them out in photoshop, Al. Just joking. I do that sometimes if the shot is really worth the effort. Nice shot, Al. Hope you can drop by again at that place and shoot it on a non-busy day.

[Snarkbyte]

Clone them out in photoshop, Al. Just joking. I do that sometimes if the shot is really worth the effort. Nice shot, Al. Hope you can drop by again at that place and shoot it on a non-busy day.

Actually, I had to stand patiently for over 30 minutes to get #2, and ended up cloning out a couple of people in the dark doorway after all. I do intend to revisit sometime soon, and hopefully on a weekday when there is less traffic inside and out. In spite of Elise's experience, they really don't mind photos in any area where the public is allowed; I even set up a tripod inside, and no one complained, but I just didn't have time to set up any good shots... they (quite reasonably) ask tourists to respect the church services, so I left before I became a nuisance.

[mythlady]

Very nice! I like them all. When I was there, I had to stick with narrow-angle shots of what I could get, because there was scaffolding around the front of it. I think the man who was irritated with me just kind of had a pet peeve about it -- he wasn't connected with the church at all, just another tourist who thought any photography was disrespectful.

It's a lovely church.

[Snarkbyte]

OK, just one last shot. I love this shot because it has so many possibilities, but on the other hand... I hate this shot because it has so many possibilities, LOL. Just panning thru the presets in SEP2 drives me crazy, so I finally just built my own with control points and tried not to get too dramatic (or too bland). Realizing that there really aren't any correct answers here, I would appreciate some feedback on this one, because I agonize over this stuff. I would probably do better if I just went with my first instinct, but I always seem to get lost in the possibilities...

Thanks in advance, the advice and criticism I get here is invaluable.

[jiro]

Al, I would probably recommend that you clone out that horizontal streak of cloud. I can't seem to find its correlation to the main builiding. I wish the light was coming towards the front side so the bells are properly lit. If you have shot this in RAW you could probably cheat on this one by bringing up the exposure on these parts.

[Peter Ryan]

I do like this Al and I see where Jiro is coming from but getting rid of the contrail from the plane is going to be difficult.

With the first set # 1 & 2 taken up close with the wide angle lens shows convergence of the lines. I would try to shoot with more room around the sides so I could correct in PS later. With # 1 I feel the building is tilting a bit to the left but this can be easily adjusted. The colour and clarity are good.

Getting further back and using the telephoto lens has removed the convergence issue and these images present well although opening the shadows a little on # 3 would add interest to the very dark foreground shadow.

I like this type of architectural photography so please keep posting.

[Snarkbyte]

Al, I would probably recommend that you clone out that horizontal streak of cloud. I can't seem to find its correlation to the main builiding. I wish the light was coming towards the front side so the bells are properly lit. If you have shot this in RAW you could probably cheat on this one by bringing up the exposure on these parts.

Thanks, Jiro. I argued with myself about the jet contrail and finally left it in because I thought it made an interesting complement to the dark horizontal lines of the bell supports in the tower. I do have the RAW file, of course, and I can bring some detail into the bells. When I took the shot, I thought it would be a silhouette against the bright clouds and sky, but the tower is actually bright enough in this light to go either way... dark silhouette or brighter foreground against a darkened sky. Being torn between two opposite versions usually results in a compromise that is not as good as either option, and I think I just fell into that trap again.

[jiro]

Thanks, Jiro. I argued with myself about the jet contrail and finally left it in because I thought it made an interesting complement to the dark horizontal lines of the bell supports in the tower. I do have the RAW file, of course, and I can bring some detail into the bells. When I took the shot, I thought it would be a silhouette against the bright clouds and sky, but the tower is actually bright enough in this light to go either way... dark silhouette or brighter foreground against a darkened sky. Being torn between two opposite versions usually results in a compromise that is not as good as either option, and I think I just fell into that trap again.

I understand what you meant by that. I also fall in the same situation sometimes when I am not so sure about my idea why I took a certain shot. Later on, after seeing something, a new idea comes to mind and I am able to edit the old work with a new twist. I can't remember the name of that famous photographer who frequently uses photoshop. His idea was that "If you don't like the background... then change it." Besides, that is your vision and your shot. At times it makes sense.

[Snarkbyte]

With the first set # 1 & 2 taken up close with the wide angle lens shows convergence of the lines. I would try to shoot with more room around the sides so I could correct in PS later. With # 1 I feel the building is tilting a bit to the left but this can be easily adjusted.

Yeah, it's pretty obvious in #2, lesson learned. As for #1, when I look at it for a while, I can see what you mean, but according to the vertical guide lines, the image is completely straight, and there is no convergence. I have no idea what causes the perception of leaning to the left.

Getting further back and using the telephoto lens has removed the convergence issue and these images present well although opening the shadows a little on # 3 would add interest to the very dark foreground shadow.

Actually, I darkened the foreground shadows in PP because I liked the strong contrast. Looking at it again, it does seem overdone a bit, and I should have left the hill in the background brighter. Thanks for the comments, Peter, I have other architectural sites planned for the next few weekends, though they are rather diverse, and a few a absolutely unique (a biosphere, a missile silo, movie set, ghost town, mining town, and of course... Tombstone). I appreciate your feedback, so stay tuned and keep the comments coming!

[ANSORB]

Clone them out in photoshop, Al. Just joking. I do that sometimes if the shot is really worth the effort. Nice shot, Al. Hope you can drop by again at that place and shoot it on a non-busy day.

There is quite a simple way of getting rid of moving objects like tourists which avoids cloning - always a pain and only too often leaves traces. Marting Evening describes a technique in "Adobe Photoshop for Photographers, The Ultimate Workshop" (p.82) but there he is using a Photoshop Extended feature, stacking multiple exposures and Median Stacks rendering.

When I came accross it ought to be possible to do something equivalent in the plain man's photoshop and it is, very effectively. All you need is a tripod and a bit of patience. You set up for the shot, regardless of people standing in the way or walking past, and take a lot of shots. People eventually move so you can get a tourist-free shot of the area where they were standing. Walkers are less of problem because they are there one moment and gone the next.

In Photoshop you stack all the shots in to a multilayered document and then add a layer mask (reveal all) to the top layer. With the mask active paint the offending tourist with black, removing him/her and the dog, and revealing a tourist free area in the layer below. Then you do just the same with the next layer down.

It sound complicated but the principle is simple and should be possible with any editing software which allows layers and masking. In fact, you don't need the masks, you can just erase the people layer by layer.

It works very well because you are not modifying any pixels (and with a mask you can reverse anything you want to) and removing the people doesn't require more than a rough bit of painting or erasing. I used it to clear a busy motorway of traffic and left it looking like the day before it was first opened and without a trace of what I had done. Cloning would have been a nightmare.

I hope that is understandable because it is a technique which can be quite useful.

And no, I'm sure I didn't invent it!

[MiniChris]

I would think that would have to be accomplished in a relatively shortperiod of time to avoid shadow casting from open windows, etc. However, I've thought about such a techniques and have even experimented with such, but didn't know it really existed...(note to everyone on a previous response to Raylee's "new classes" thread - learning takes place every day -if you pay attention)...whoohoo, thanks for the information. It will go to great use soon.

[Snarkbyte]

Thanks, John. As Chris said, I'll be putting this to good use very soon, as I have a lot of busy places on my shooting list for the next several weeks.