Mount Saint Michel - Window

You're no doubt right, John--but no amount of analysis is ever going to make me into an artist of the caliber of Gordon Bowbrick--but whether geniuses are born or made is a separate issue.

As for your last sentence, I have to plead guilty on that one.

--Lannie

Education, not analysis! And another misconception in photographers, it isn't about being like anybody else, it is about expressing YOURSELF. If we could just get that idea planted, then we would maybe not have to look at the same tired photos over and over!

John A,
thank you for expressing with clarity what I have not been able to do in my three posts in this thread.
What I pursue is precisely my education in photography. For this I need objective [external] terms of reference with which to confront my own approach, to refine it.
Once I will have developed these terms of reference - watching other photos as well as mine - I will keep them in mind in the very moment when I see a photograph, and decide whether to stick to them or not.

L.

I must admit that I have not been a big contributor to the POW but I felt compelled to comment on this posting. I like the original idea it is something that I might shoot. My first reaction when I viewed this was that the window is blown out and as Gordon Bowbrick has pointed out The lack of perspective correction is disturbing. Both could have been prevented when shot. I’ve always been a believer that one needs to get it right in the camera. To prevent the over exposure of the window and under exposure of the rest I would suggest the exposure bracketing method but not the use of HDR. Three correct exposures using a tripod combined with the use of layer masking would have improved this greatly. It would have more shadows, adding depth and the elimination of the over all noise in the composition. I also suggest using a lower ISO if again one uses exposure bracketing. Eliminating perspective distortion starts when setting up especially in a composition such as this with horizontal grout lines. One has to be totally flat on and centered to the subject. Choice of lens is very important I’m a bit confused here. The technical details show a focal length of 14mm but within the discussion here Tom points out that it is 28mm or a 35mm equivalent. If it is a 35mm equivalent I would say that was a good choice but if it was 14mm and it does not look it I would say that is a very poor choice. Tom can you clarify the focal length.

"Education, not analysis!"

 

 

 

John, when I think of education, I think of analysis--at least the kind of education I have tried to promote since starting to teach in 1974. The more authoritarian model of education--of students' holding out their receptacles for me to pour my "wisdom" into--is not one that I would foist off on anyone in the name of education.

 

 

 

James, Tom uses, I believe, one of the 4/3 sensors on the Olympus which has a different crop ratio from both full-frame and the usual crop sensors of Canon and Nikon, etc. Perhaps that accounts for the anomaly.

 

 

 

--Lannie

Lannie, I agree in large part, but sometimes you need to "absorb" information (educate yourself) before you can analyze it or use it for analysis. It kind of goes back to what I said earlier, analysis without some knowledge is pretty futile.

Nice but it doesn't do much for me. It's kind of lopsided, and it does not have the proper tonality. Nothing in the darks, I think maybe the result of too much shadow recovery filter.

To All:

Thank you for your comments!

Ton, thank for your most recent comments. You are quite correct. The conditions were beyond the dynamic range of my camera. I was on a tour of Mount Saint Michel and often didn’t have more than a second or two to set up a photo. I agree that the RAW file was poorly shot, but do think I made a good attempt to salvage the image to reproduce what my mind’ eye remembered. I would agree that it’s flat, and maybe too grainy for some. Not sure it was a waste of my time to try to salvage it, as I learned something in the process.

As for John A’s comment about my portfolio “whether consciously or not, simply makes records of what he sees--snapshots if you will. He captures information and rarely attempts to design an image or interpret or imbue it with something more than what was there. What we see is what we get….” I do photograph what I see, record my life and travels. If others like them great, if not that’s OK.

I have looked at many of the portfolios of those that have commented here. I see many images that catch my and some that don’t. OK we are all human and have a right to our opinion.

Your comments have been taken in the sprit that you are just trying of help me improve as a photographer. That’s why I have been with PN for the past 3 years. To those that like the photo, thank you! And to Lannie, thank you for your support, I see you as a friend, though we have never met.

I’ve learned in life that everything is an example, some good some bad, but we can learn from all examples.

The purpose of the POW:

· Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having this forum: to help people learn about photography. Visitors have browsed the gallery, found a few striking images and want to know things like why is it a good picture, why does it work? Or, indeed, why doesn't it work, or how could it be improved? Try to answer such questions with your contribution.

On Monday, got the email from PN that this photo was selected for POW. “I thought WOW great.” I still feel that way. I will remember Ton’s wise words. “A long time ago an old, wise and very good photographer told me that no photo ever became better or worse from any critique.”

James: I use a Olympus DSLR with a lens multiplier = 2 so my 14mm lens = 28mm in a 35mm system, and three shots with a tripod would have been nice, but not in the cards that day.

Keep the comments coming; I hope we are all learning. Tom

Tom, thanks for the reply.

The real purpose of my comment has to do with the different functions of photography. The problem with something like the POW is that it might tend to makes us think that a given image is supposed to be something other than what it is. So we take the image and talk about all of its failings and how it could have been better when, in fact, it is perfect for what it was intended to do! Looking at a portfolio should give us insights into the function of a photograph and then allow us to better direct our comments to that end.

So, I will apologize again if my comments offended in any way, as that was not the intent. Photography is one of the few arts that really is so multidimensional in its use and I think that is the beauty of the medium. It can be the outlet for the tortured soul or it can be a simple recording device to remind us of our great moments in life and it can fall anywhere in between. The most important thing is that we love what we are doing,

Landrun said
"You're no doubt right, John--but no amount of analysis is ever going to make me into an artist of the caliber of Gordon Bowbrick--but whether geniuses are born or made is a separate issue."
Analysis - no
Practice, passion, time, and an open mind - sure

I think Raymond Borg hit it...

I too would like to see a bit more contrast, and perhaps deeper shadows in the wall. I'm not at all disturbed by the light from the window. There's something about this image that carries me back to the 10th century. Very nicely done.

 

John A.

First let me say, no offence taken and no apology necessary.
I agree photography is a multidimensional and beautiful media. I believe that for many of our fellow PNers it holds a special place in our lives. What’s important is that we enjoy this media and we keep working to do it better; and if along the way one of our photos is enjoyed by someone else, then all the better. Tom

To me this is a teaching and illustration type image. I don't want to think about technique in such a piece unless it interferes with something- so I haven't reallly read and absorbed all the discussion on post processing. I like this photo, Tom. It shows me the construction of the church at this not so easy to get at I recall site. The use of few stones and lots of mortar for one are obvious. That glass of quality was hard to come by and so the form adapted to that. Like in some modern skylight chute styles actually.The barrel vaulted window and the slope of the window base shows that windows were not a place to have a snack and watch the tide come in. It conveys the spirit of Mont Saint Michel by one of its parts and that is good enough for a single photo in my eye. That it has a nice composition and sweeping curves more the better make it an abstraction as well. HDR, the latest hot topic du jour and I am sure has saved a lot of butts. Here, and I haven't looked that close, the distortion of perspective is not obvious--I will look again tomorrow (what, where are my eyes?, I know I know). In sum, I think it is successful. Not brilliant. Successful.

I think whether you need to use HDR for an image like this depends a lot on the camera used. If the camera uses only a 12 bit A/D converter, then the dynamic range is limited to an absolute maximum of 12 stops, whereas 14 bit capture extends that to a theoretical 14 stops. In practice this means that you can drag a lot more useable shadow detail out of a 14 bit RAW file than you can out of a 12 bit one, and this may make all the difference as to whether you need a second (HDR) exposure or not. I really noticed this when I moved from a Mk1 Canon 5D to a Nikon D700. The amount of extra shadow detail in a RAW file was astounding.

Since Olympus are tight-lipped about the bit-depth of the E510, one can only assume that it uses 12 bit capture, and a 14 bit camera may well have made a much better job of retaining the highlights while still allowing the shadow detail to be brought out.

The limitations of HDR are that you can't have a moving subject or easily use handheld exposures at lowish shutter speeds. If Tom didn't have a tripod, or tripod photography wasn't allowed, then HDR exposures just wouldn't have been an option. Given that the exposure time required was 1/50th of a second, two consecutive handheld exposures would have been almost impossible to align properly, leading to poor definition in the final image.

Having seen the original file, I think that Tom has done an excellent job of turning it into a decent picture. I think that you might have saved yourself a bit of work though Tom, simply by using the eraser tool to rub through from the adjustment layer to the original window detail underneath. This avoids any fancy blending work.

Well done Tom on producing and sharing with us an interesting and unusual image. The detailed and well thought out conversation that has taken place supports the ‘Elves’ choice of your image as POW. Congratulations.
All the best, Mike

Mike: Thank you for your thoughtful comments here and on many of my other photos. Tom

I think the original image is a while lot more pleasing and frame worthy.

For me,this is a good architectural shot with fine details and composed well...A window to freedom!

Regards(Bobby).

Well done Tom! If you've pulled all this out of a single raw image then you've done very well. Excellent work! Congratulations on the photo of the Week! I missed that one.

All the best,

Neil

Excellent shot....

Bravo'

 

nice composition & framing - little bit pixlated

this empty, bad shot? you gotta be..

BB