Trying my best to go with the "keep it simple" theme (honest!!), this is as simple as it can get. It is a (cropped) default conversion in LR5.3 of the same single image taken at 0.5sec, with no added processing at all - so effectively, this is what an in-camera JPEG would have looked like.




So - better or worse? A starting point or as good as it gets and best left alone? Where would you take it?

I greatly appreciate your help with this, folks, and I'm determined to do the best I can with this image. You'll probably find this amusing, but I did put a 16x12 print of the first image in the thread in my camera club comp. It should be interesting to hear what the judge has to say about this (29 May).


Andrew

OK,let's try again. This is a conversion from a single exposure taken at f/8 0.5sec ISO 100, the longest shutter speed that *just* avoids clipping of highlights.

I have tried to concentrate on getting the glass as I think it should be and pretty much ignoring the stonework.




This is a crop from the bottom of that image.




How are we doing? Any better?

Andrew

Yes, I agree with Smeggypants too. The first image is definitely overcooked.

The TIFF produced by LR/Enfuse was too dark. Bringing up the shadows; reducing the reds a bit, adding +20 contrast in LR, reducing saturation to -20 but no other processing generates this image.




I certainly prefer this to the over-cooked version. I'm not sure whether I prefer it to the second image above (single shot at 0.5sec).

I don't understand why there's a large area of purple in the bottom left corner of the window - it's blue out of the camera (preview images). I wish I could remember what it really looked like.

I'm still not sure what I think about using LR-Enfuse. It seems that most of the time, even in quite extreme situations, you can get a decent result from a single image, providing you don't blow the highlights.

I'll have a ponder .......

Andrew

Or maybe this version? WB tweaked a little - but the cill under the window looks too blue (or does it?), as its main lighting source is daylight transmitted through the stained glass. The main light source for the stonework further from the glass is an open door way off to the right - and some quite high power tungsten lighting in the main body of the church. I think the WB of the shot has to be a compromise.




Andrew

Good question. I'd intended to try HDR from the start - so let's give it a whirl with a single image.




A quick and dirty conversion of one of the set used for input to the HDR processing, taken at f/8 0.5sec ISO100.

With a bit of work ...... who knows. Some of the blues in the stained glass are better, rather than the purple version in the HDR.

Andrew

After spending a little time a few weeks back arguing against the use of HDR for landscapes in another thread, I decided to give it a whirl in some of the shots I took in All Soul's Church in Halifax.

I took 8 shots at f/8, ISO 100 with shutter speeds ranging from 1/15sec to 8 secs, using a Pentax K30 and DA55-300mm zoom (at 87.5mm). I used Lightroom, with a plug-in LR/Enfuse to convert/merge the 8 RAWs into a 64bit TIFF just over 120MB. After a bit more twiddling and cropping in Lightroom, this came out of the mill.




I'm quite happy with the result. Thoughts?

Andrew

Interesting - I might try that.

The method I've used with the 55-300mm is to take lots of shots of a distant non-moving subject at each AF setting, average the RAW (or JPEG) file sizes for each AF setting and then pick the setting that gives you the biggest file size - and hence the most detail.

How do others do this?

Andrew

I look forward with interest to your forthcoming series of photos on rights-of-way signage. Perhaps you could start with fingerposts and waymarks.

Andrew

I would have thought that 'Kenley & Caterham Promotion Council' would want to show the relevant "pleasures on offer" for the target audience they wish to attract. I see no walkers, leisure or dog, in any of your photos. I see no footpaths, rights of way signs or stiles. I see no suggestion that members of the public are entitled to walk through any of the areas shown. I see no car parks for walkers, no public toilets and no tourist information.

Sorry, but the photos do not seem to work at all for that specific purpose.

Andrew

Nigel, I have looked again at your photos at the start of this thread and recognise in some of them a failing that has always afflicted my photography - i.e. lack of a well defined subject or centre of interest. I don't think this has anything to do with the locations that you are shooting.

I have been trying for years, with limited success, to improve my photography by concentrating more on trying to make stronger images. I have found a number of books helpful here, such as Bryan Peterson's book on seeing creatively. Joining a photography club has helped me too, I think.

I'm sorry to have to say this, but if I had taken the images you posted here, most of them would have been consigned to the cutting room floor. One of the main reasons why I don't post so many images on this forum is that most of mine lie on the cutting room floor too.

Andrew