Shots From Cadiz

More shots taken during our recent holiday in Spain.
These were all taken from the Torre de Poniente Tower in the city's cathedral.

1.
[IMG]http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa184/stevejcoe/cadiz2.jpg[/IMG]

2.
[IMG]http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa184/stevejcoe/cadiz6.jpg[/IMG]

3.
[IMG]http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa184/stevejcoe/Cadiz14.jpg[/IMG]

4.
[IMG]http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa184/stevejcoe/Cadiz17.jpg[/IMG]

5.
[IMG]http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa184/stevejcoe/Cadiz15.jpg[/IMG]

6.
[IMG]http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa184/stevejcoe/cadiz13.jpg[/IMG]

7.
[IMG]http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa184/stevejcoe/Cadiz16.jpg[/IMG]

C&C welcome - Steve

Nice, but I think you have committed one of the two cardinal sins of a digital photographer - too much sharpening.

This is particularly the case with the third, fourth, fifth and seventh shots.

The other sin is too much saturation (but that is not your problem here).

But to sin is human, and we are all human.

The first two are a bit flat. If your editing software allows it, tweak the tone curve a bit.

I can't upload at the moment, except to the gallery, so I have taken the liberty of uploading a copy of your first pic to the gallery with a slight tweak to show you what I mean. I'm not saying it is perfect now, but it gives you an idea of what I am on about.

When you have seen it, let me know and I'll delete it.

G

Nice shot's and i agree with George regarding the sharpening.Number 7 though i think has been taken even further and seems to have had a pencil/crayon drawing type filter added.
I actually quite like it.

George I see what you mean, 3-7 were exposure blends based on a images developed using a standard set of Silkypix parameters. I normally use the 'natural fine' setting for sharpening and can only think that by leaving this on prior to blending in Photomatrix I have created this over sharpening effect.
I rather rushed the pp with these, and will know better next time.

Below are 4 and 7 with the same set of Silkypix parameters but no exposure blending

4.
[IMG]http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa184/stevejcoe/cadiz18.jpg[/IMG]

7.
[IMG]http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa184/stevejcoe/cadiz19.jpg[/IMG]


I checked out you tweaked version in the gallery and agree it is an improvement. I am happy for it to remain there if you are?

Thanks - Steve

Steve,

I don't think there is anything in these pictures that require you to do any more outside Silkypix. I almost never use anything else, partly because I don't really know how, but mainly because SP does all I want.

These two revisions are much better, but I have to agree with Roy (?) that the appearance of number 7 is quite attractive.

I've deleted your picture.

Cheers

G

Thanks for the comments George and Roy, which are always appreciated.

Steve

I palyed around with hdr a while back, and quickly lost interest.
While I had some good results with low light, bad weather, and nightshots, I find the daytime shots come out too flat and artificial for my tastes.

they are ok esp#7

the statue image up top was the only one of these I'd have tried it with. I would've tried for bluesky, detial in the statue, then brought back some shadows along the walls and floor to give the image some dimension, and depth.

most likely though, I'd have exposed for the sky, and used two flashes (one difussed (shoot through umbrella, or paper chinese lantern) to light the inside 2 stops lower than the sky, and the other snooted and used to light the statue in a pool of light a half stop lower than the sky) a skipped hdr entirely....

Thanks for the feedback Don, these were impromptu shots from the top of a small 'bell tower' with no space, or time for an elaborate setup, as there were plenty of other tourists trying to shoot the same.

I think Photomatix has its uses, but the lesson I have learned is that I cannot use a set of standard settings, as I do with 95% of the time with Silkpix and expect to get good results. The program needs more time and understanding.

Regards - Steve

I think it will only be a matter of a year or two, before we see sensors and in camera processing, that will make a single click, true hdr, shot right out of the camera with tonnes of range.
while that may make for some fantastic images, some people, especially guys that have had a love affair with photography from way back before digital, will miss the look, of dark, inky figures lurking in the shadows...

It'll be an improvement though.

You can take stuff out, but you can't put it in.

Distorting the tonal range, which is what HDR does, can't really be described as an improvement. Unless you like Watney's beer, processed cheese, and Nu Labour.

G

I certainly agree with this based on most of the HDR shots I've seen posted here.

But the tonal range you get from the camera is not itself undistorted, and anyone that uses Shadows/Highlights tool in PhotoShop will know that careful attention, particularly to the shadow areas, can make it look more the way the eye perceives it.

The brain/eye combination, of course, does its own HDR treatment of any scene it looks at - changing the aperture as it looks at differently lit areas, which allows the brain to form an HDR composite of the whole.

As sensor and in-camera software develops to both extend the tonal range of what gets detected, and then how it's output, as Don was saying, all this HDR messing will become even less desirable, and more of a novelty, like many of the PhotoShop filters already are.