Some Black And White Shots.

[CT]

Opinions welcome - good and bad.

 

[Dave]

Where did you buy the dramatic clouds in the first one?

 

[effyman]

Hi CT. I'm not really thrilled by the content of the first photo, but that is just me.
I do, however, like the second and third photos, with a few minor comments. For me the armaure is distracting in the middle one, and I would have tried to get it out of the way (of course that may not be possible). I feel that it distracts me and pulls my attention away from the main focus, the piano keys and guitar.
The last one is pretty cool. I really like how you were able to capture the drop of water right after it was released. The only thing I might have done differently here would be to bring the faucet into focus as well.
Thats just my

though and these are great photographs.

 

[CT]

Where did you buy the dramatic clouds in the first one?

That's just how it was shot actually.

 

[CT]

Hi CT. I'm not really thrilled by the content of the first photo, but that is just me.

No probs - that's photography for you.

I do, however, like the second and third photos, with a few minor comments. For me the armaure is distracting in the middle one, and I would have tried to get it out of the way (of course that may not be possible). I feel that it distracts me and pulls my attention away from the main focus, the piano keys and guitar.

I sort of agree with you there, but if you knew how heavy that cabinet was, you'd forgive me not shifting it. Also I think it would have needed something a picture perhaps, to replace it.

The last one is pretty cool. I really like how you were able to capture the drop of water right after it was released. The only thing I might have done differently here would be to bring the faucet into focus as well.

I actually would have preferred it more out of focus.

Thats just my

though and these are great photographs.

Why thank you, and all comments appreciated.

 

[effyman]

No problem CT Anytime

and oops... I spelt armoire wrong ops:

 

[CT]

and oops... I spelt armoire wrong ops:

That's OK - I never knew I had one of them! :shock:

 

[Steve]

I was just going to say that the tap shot would have worked better with the front more out of focus but I see you have already beaten me to it.

You don’t happen to have a version of the first shot but without the Mazda? This picture has something but for me the car is distracting.

Effyman has summed up my thoughts about the second shot, two great subjects there that I would explore more.

 

[Matt]

1 is great, as Dave says, great sky!

2 is cool also, would like to see more messing about with piano shots....

3 is often done, but you have captured the droplet perfectly and there is no mucky background that normally spoils this sort of shot

 

[CT]

Thanks fellers.

Steve. HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!!! that Mazda is a Honda.

No, I only have that shot. In actual fact apart from that memorial thingy, the forground is totally featureless, and the shot was taken for a Honda S2000 calender which is why the car was in the pic.

I may well do some more piano shots, I love the perspective and depth and the contrast between the black and white keys.

 

[Steve]

Thanks fellers.

Steve. HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!!! that Mazda is a Honda.

Shush about both :wink:
cheers

 

[Arkady]

Something I picked up recently with regard to skies - try taking two exposures - one for the sky and one for the foreground, then put them together in photoshop (and yes, it can be done with film too all you luddites!).
This gets around the problem with burnt out highlights and lack of latitude in general when dealing with a high subject luminance range.

 

[CT]

Something I picked up recently with regard to skies - try taking two exposures - one for the sky and one for the foreground, then put them together in photoshop (and yes, it can be done with film too all you luddites!).
This gets around the problem with burnt out highlights and lack of latitude in general when dealing with a high subject luminance range.

This is something I want to do a fair bit of when I can get out and about. I'm just interested in the mechanics of how you go about it.

Presumably the camera is on a tripod so it's difficult to make the separate required meter readings for each exposure once the camera is tripod mounted. I'm guessing your technique is to meter for each shot and make a note beforehand - or use a hand-held meter perhaps?

 

[Adrian]

Something I picked up recently with regard to skies - try taking two exposures - one for the sky and one for the foreground, then put them together in photoshop (and yes, it can be done with film too all you luddites!).
This gets around the problem with burnt out highlights and lack of latitude in general when dealing with a high subject luminance range.

This is something I want to do a fair bit of when I can get out and about. I'm just interested in the mechanics of how you go about it.

Presumably the camera is on a tripod so it's difficult to make the separate required meter readings for each exposure once the camera is tripod mounted. I'm guessing your technique is to meter for each shot and make a note beforehand - or use a hand-held meter perhaps?

I'd normally use an ND grad filter (strength dependent on the difference in exposures needed) to even out the luminances but if you're going to combine two shots I'd take a reading from both and as you say, note the readings down, set the camera to manual and then take the two pictures. One problem going down the photoshop route is the time taken between shots can mean that objects (mainly clouds) may have moved significantly.

 

[KenCo]

The first shot I liked at first but can no longer decide, I like the second, great. The wardrobe might have a posh name but you’ll not get many clothes in. yes the drop makes this pic shame about the tap. Just my thoughts.
Ken.

 

[CT]

The wardrobe might have a posh name but you’ll not get many clothes in..

It's actually a drinks cabinet Ken. I tend to make sure there's no room in there for clothes anyway. [smilie=b:

Thanks for your comments.

 

[KenCo]

The wardrobe might have a posh name but you’ll not get many clothes in..

It's actually a drinks cabinet Ken. I tend to make sure there's no room in there for clothes anyway. [smilie=b:

Thanks for your comments.[/quote]
Very James Bond, I too have a drinks cabinet, the wife she is so common, she keeps referring to it as the fridge. Every time I want a drink I have to move half a dozen yoghurts.

 

[CT]

Very James Bond, I too have a drinks cabinet, the wife she is so common, she keeps referring to it as the fridge. Every time I want a drink I have to move half a dozen yoghurts.

That's damned inconvenient! I couldn't keep the Walther in there.

 

[Steve]

Something I picked up recently with regard to skies - try taking two exposures - one for the sky and one for the foreground, then put them together in photoshop (and yes, it can be done with film too all you luddites!).
This gets around the problem with burnt out highlights and lack of latitude in general when dealing with a high subject luminance range.

Or shoot in RAW if your camera has this function which will usually give you +/-2 stops lattitude, then process the same image twice once for the sky and once for the forground and combine them in PS to get a perfect result.

Like Adrian I use filters but as usual there are many ways to skin a cat

 

[CT]

Something I picked up recently with regard to skies - try taking two exposures - one for the sky and one for the foreground, then put them together in photoshop (and yes, it can be done with film too all you luddites!).
This gets around the problem with burnt out highlights and lack of latitude in general when dealing with a high subject luminance range.

This is something I want to do a fair bit of when I can get out and about. I'm just interested in the mechanics of how you go about it.

Presumably the camera is on a tripod so it's difficult to make the separate required meter readings for each exposure once the camera is tripod mounted. I'm guessing your technique is to meter for each shot and make a note beforehand - or use a hand-held meter perhaps?

One problem going down the photoshop route is the time taken between shots can mean that objects (mainly clouds) may have moved significantly.

Yes... I can see where windy days could cause problems with trees on the skyline too.

 

[CT]

Something I picked up recently with regard to skies - try taking two exposures - one for the sky and one for the foreground, then put them together in photoshop (and yes, it can be done with film too all you luddites!).
This gets around the problem with burnt out highlights and lack of latitude in general when dealing with a high subject luminance range.

Or shoot in RAW if your camera has this function which will usually give you +/-2 stops lattitude, then process the same image twice once for the sky and once for the forground and combine them in PS to get a perfect result.

Like Adrian I use filters but as usual there are many ways to skin a cat

Top tip! I really like that idea. 8)

 

[Arkady]

I just make an average exposure for the sky, shoot then take an average reading for the foreground - usually about four stops difference.
I do shoot in RAW, but prefer this method rather than the method outlined above as it produces a bit of artifacting.