Low Light by the Canal


japers45

Link Posted 08/01/2012 - 18:08
Taken this afternoon at about 330 400pm.

I went out in fading light because I read an article in a old mag about low light hand held photography. I was intending them as B&W and trying to find some texture and tone and try and get the depth of field correct- sharp front to back.

They've been tidied up in Lightroom and I've tweaked them in Silver FX pro 2 (trial version)- I find this
programme is very good for B & W (although it is quite easy to go too far with the effects available, I hope I have shown restraint)

Feedback much appreciated.



Thanks

">
" class="comment_image" />


">
" class="comment_image" />
Last Edited by japers45 on 08/01/2012 - 18:10

trickletreat

Link Posted 08/01/2012 - 19:57
Hi chap and happy New Year.
In both I like the detail and tones in the foregrounds and treatment of the sky.
In the first one the composition in relation to the foreground moving up the diagonal to the hedge line is strong, and the cloud lines in the sky are interesting as well. The tree does not work for me.
In the second one, the texture and treatment of the foreground is really what I like, the building is interesting as well. I would want to lose the the buildings on the left.
Are these how you experienced the light at the time, or have you dragged the sky detail out after?
Nigel

Opethian

Link Posted 08/01/2012 - 21:53
Both superb photos. I wouldn't imagine both of them being taken the same day, or area even as the second photo has a darker tone.

I would crop (brush) out the house(s) on the second photo, and leave that abandoned tower there.

Twitter | Someone said time-lapse?
Pentax K5 | Samsung N9005 | DA 18-55 WR | DA 35 2.4 | DA 50 1.8
Tamron 10-24 SP | Tamron 90 2.8 Macro | Tamron 70-300 Macro
Samyang 85 1.4 ...and a few other manual lenses older than me.

George Lazarette

Link Posted 08/01/2012 - 22:11
Opethian, if that is your sincere opinion, then I can't really argue with you, since it's partly subjective. However, the lighting in both is dull, and consequently the pictures are rather lifeless.

The compositions are not exactly arresting, though I think something could be done with the second one. It needs more emphasis on the building, but there are the makings of a picture there.

It's old hat but it needs repeating. It's difficult to make a good picture with bad light. On a better day, these two might come alive, so it would be worth a return visit.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

japers45

Link Posted 08/01/2012 - 22:26
Thanks for the comments.Happy New Year to you too Nigel. the sky has been tweaked a little , I pretty much exposed for the sky rather than the foreground which is perhaps why they are a little flat. george is right about the light.

Having read an article on hand held photography in low light it occurred to me that I wouldn't be so reliant on dusk/dawn golden lighting which is a bit restricting when you've got so much else going on. So I thought - just get out there and have a go and if necessary turn up the ISO to get some shots. these were two of the better ones.

I think they are okay- I like the textures in both, but no more than that. I havent posted any images for a while so i thought "what the hell".

Opethian- thanks for your encouragment (I'm sure you were being kind really)- I imagine the difference in the lighting is probably down to slightly different processing- they were taken within a few minutes of each other.

Tomorrow I am going to expose a roll of film (my first) so looking forward to that. Should be fun

George Lazarette

Link Posted 08/01/2012 - 22:30
Japers,

In my view, flat light is more unkind to mono than it is to colour. You can sometimes get some nice muted colours from a dull day whereas you will almost never get a good mono shot except when there's some drama in the lighting.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

japers45

Link Posted 08/01/2012 - 22:33
MMmmm, I'm such a lover of B&W George that I think I may need saving from myself.

I will have another look at the RAW colour files again.


Thanks.

ChrisA

Link Posted 08/01/2012 - 22:53
Personally I'd say they're nice, but not superb. The tree is a bit central in the first one, and although the hay is nicely textured, it's ultimately slightly unsatisfying, since I find myself looking around, but finding only hay.

The second one lacks a certain crispness, to my eye. The shadow area in the middle would be perfect, if the building had a little more to say for itself, but again, it's slightly unsatisfying. Is there more detail to be seen there?

I also see no canal
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.

davidstorm

Link Posted 08/01/2012 - 23:03
I think the second one has potential, though I agree with the comments on the distracting houses at the left. I can understand you wanting to try low light photography but I think the results would have been much better with a sturdy tripod employed. Perhaps this would have spoiled the essence of what you were trying to achieve, but when looking for front to back sharpness in low light landscapes, I'm not sure there is any other option.

Regards
David
Flickr

Nicola's Apartments, Kassiopi, Corfu

Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs

Opethian

Link Posted 08/01/2012 - 23:41
George Lazarette wrote:
Opethian, if that is your sincere opinion, then I can't really argue with you, since it's partly subjective. However, the lighting in both is dull, and consequently the pictures are rather lifeless.

And by being lifeless, the photos get my vote for that!

I love how the trees were captured without any leaves. It looks like a scene where I DO NOT want to be in. Beautiful nonetheless.

I hope you do not mind Japers, just twiddling about here:




But that's me. Again, save for the houses, I wouldn't change a thing.

Twitter | Someone said time-lapse?
Pentax K5 | Samsung N9005 | DA 18-55 WR | DA 35 2.4 | DA 50 1.8
Tamron 10-24 SP | Tamron 90 2.8 Macro | Tamron 70-300 Macro
Samyang 85 1.4 ...and a few other manual lenses older than me.

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 08/01/2012 - 23:57
That's certainly better.

But I think G has a point... I don't find the flatness of the light and the total blackness of the dark areas particularly enticing. However the crop makes much more of the composition IMO.
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]

alun

Link Posted 09/01/2012 - 00:07
Quote:
the distracting houses at the left[quote]

[quote]save for the houses, I wouldn't change a thing

It may just be me, but I think that the house really lifts the image, although it may have been more effective set off more to the left.

George Lazarette

Link Posted 09/01/2012 - 09:39
The house is what makes the picture. I believe that on a better day, and with it playing a larger part, there could be a very good image there.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 09/01/2012 - 09:57
IMO the house(s) distract from the main focal point of the picture, ie the derelict tower.
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]
Last Edited by Pentaxophile on 09/01/2012 - 09:58

darkskies

Link Posted 09/01/2012 - 13:24
Hi japers,

I'll not talk about the composition of the photos, as that's been done, but about Silver Efex Pro.

I've been a user for a while now and I find it is brilliant. However, it is a part of a suite of programs that work best together, rather than in isolation. Or, at least, it takes time to know "what else" to do with an image to make the most of Silver Efex.

I have found that it is pretty much essential to do the "cleaning up" of the image 1st. So, I use a couple of other Nix software packages to remove the noise and make any light adjustments I want to do. You can try those programs on trial too. They are Define and Viveza. Also, I do any dust removal 1st too. That's because the Silver Efex processing accentuates any dust and noise. That is evident in the sky on your 2nd shot.

After you come out of Silver Efex you can do any remaining cleaning up made evident from the processing.

Hope this helps.
This space deliberately left blank.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.