A new genre - architectural noir. Fantastic.
David

PPG: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/davidtrout

I hadn't checked that - till now. Most impressive. Its an extreme example and without some clever footwork in both the taking stage and later in PS obviously you could not have achieved it.
It comes down to this: sometimes you need to work with all the technical means available to produce an accomplished image, especially if you're working commercially or attempting to produce exhibition quality prints.
I also totally agree with Nigel's earlier point about perfect image quality being a thing of beauty in its own right.
But there are other times when merely working for your own satisfaction you can achieve perfectly acceptable results from the simplest of procedures.
David

PPG: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/davidtrout

Inside Wells Cathedral.




OK, there was a fair amount of light inside Wells Cathedral, but this was done in one take, no separate layers. There was some interior light on the beautiful Mendip stone while the white bits in the window are not blown, it was clear glass. I had to do some selective exposure adjustments using the lassoe tool and sliders in PS, but nothing excessive.
Some of my photographic friends at Durham PS enjoy making life complicated, sometimes I believe to show just how clever they re in Photoshop.
I belong to the keep it simple school.
David

PPG: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/davidtrout

All this faffing about with layers, HDR or whatever brings me back to my original point. Decide what it is you are supposed to be photographing. If its the windows expose for the windows. If you're doing a church interior expose for the darker stonework.
In this series its the window and the colours that are important. Forget the stone wall, let it go dark and leave only a hint of detail. It will look better against the vibrant colours in the glass.
Keep it simple otherwise you're spending far too much time on the computer when you should be out and about creating stunning images in the camera.
David

PPG: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/davidtrout

These last two crops seem good to me. The vibrant colours are getting better compared to the earlier efforts. The very last post looks a bleached but the potential for rich saturation is there, it just needs a tweak on the slider in PS to bring down the highlights and enrich those lovely reds and blues. Does the image need a little PP sharpening? I think it does.
David

PPG: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/davidtrout

I believe in keeping it simple. No HDR for me just straight shots when I take pictures like this. By exposing for the brightest parts of the image - that's the window itself - and ignoring the dark stone surrounding area, it usually works for me. I don't feel the stonework needs lighting, the image is the glass. Unlike Smeggy I wouldn't make two exposures, one for the glass and one for the church interior. The stonework, with just a little detail, makes a good dark surround to the bright window.
I used to under expose by either 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop but since moving from a K10 to later models, K5, K30 and now K3, I find the meter gives me acceptable images from straight exposures.
Shooting RAW also helps to recover any hint of blown highlights.
For me the most successful treatment of those posted Andrew is the final, by Mr B. It has good saturation in the glass. There's a lot of detail in the stonework too but as I said earlier I prefer to see that area quite dark.
David

PPG: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/davidtrout

These are very good indeed Carl. Highly polished locomotives and bright sun often lead to blown highlights but the reflections you've captured are very effective and give the images vibrancy. I also like the atmospheric effects of smoke and steam in several of these shots.
David

PPG: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/davidtrout

Debates on these lines have appeared previously from time to time. In my very early days back in 2008/9 there was criticism of the banality of many of the comments, and indeed of many of the pictures, posted in the Gallery. It was felt for serious debate it was best to post and comment in The Forum.
I think the problem with The Forum is that threads are soon lost under pressure of new posts and unless you attract early comments your work is quickly submerged.
The Gallery is excellent for easily spotting worthy entries from the thumbnails, and if you're prepared to delve back a few pages, you can discover fine entries missed earlier but still worth a comment.
I think there are too many posts in The Gallery.
I know fully paid up PUF members are allowed unlimited posts but this can lead to the indiscriminate posting of several very similar images. I believe that if individuals were more selective and posted only the very best pictures from a shoot the quality of The Gallery would improve. And it would mean that everyone's photos would stay near the top of the queue
longer.
Personally I rarely post more than a couple per week although this is merely a self imposed rule, occasionally broken.

David
PPG: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/davidtrout

That's a very attractive and natural photo. I also found the background technical info interesting.
David

What a fascinating set. Love the treatment.
David

PPG: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/davidtrout