HOME | DD
WayneBenedet — Trial of Time (5484)
#abandoned #abandonedhouse
Published: 2016-11-18 05:18:22 +0000 UTC; Views: 1253; Favourites: 143; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Related content
Comments: 27
A very stunning photo,it stands out so bold,and i love the mix of colours.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
thank you for your thoughts
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
thanks for your visit and comments.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
great picture with a BUT from my side :what happened to the sky when the data is right _ 5D MK II at 100ASA
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lol... it is called pushing the envelope. I was working with new programming when I fist processed this image over a year ago. I pushed a few things to far. Thanks for your comment though, it was the incentive I needed to re-process the image.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hello Wayne,
as a funny matter of fact I sat yesterday for 15 minutes trying to find the right
RAW switches for having the sky of a 100 ASA picture nearly without pixelstructure in the
100% foreseeing. So the only possibility was doing 2 RAW developments, one for the
foreground ( main scenery ) one for the sky and combining them by layermanagement.
I did so in some of the swisspictures and I love the result although I am not selling pictures
it was worth the effort.
Best regards from Germany,
Chris
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hi Chris, it is possible to do this with a single high quality RAW file. I am not sure if it is possible on every CMOS because there are variations is the ability of the CMOS to capture dynamic range. The technique you are trying is a possibility, though any movement in the scene can cause problems. The particular image that we are talking about had a sky that appeared noisy even in the actual scene (right from the RAW). Unfortunately I pushed the envelope too far and brought out that detail even more. The image was also taken with a 21 Meg camera which has a good dynamic range, but still has limitations. I have since switched to a 50Meg and there are even less problems with this artifact on this CMOS. All of the images in my gallery are based upon on RAW file rather than a combination. In many cases, I have exposed for the sky and processed for the foreground detail.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hi Wayne, great to have that great answer.
You are rigt about movement in the scene including
clouds and complicated cloud forms.
In those cases i go on a more illuminated less saturated Version by RAW.
I also always shoot RAW. I think If you don´t want to do the efforts
of RAW exposure you can leave the Camera in the bag.
A 36 to 50 Meg Cam is still a dream, sticking to a small System I began to develop
more stitching routine, what helps. Sticking to the System a Dream would be the K1.
Utopia de luxe the Pentax 645.
Did you ever try Sigma Cameras?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In my training I used a film Pentax medium format camera. In my pro work I used an RB 67 medium format (A digital back is available for about $10,000.00). I found that my 21 meg camera was giving me images that rivaled my RB 67 in detail and quality. My 50 meg goes far beyond that. (You have to understand that a lot of my work goes into shows or is sold for wall murals, CD covers etc, so detail quality it terribly important to me. It also makes it reasonable for me to put out the expense of the equipment)
I have never used a sigma camera, though I have used their lenses. I have a 105mm macro. It is an amazing lens, though it is being out performed right now by a Zeiss 85mm with extension tubes (I purchased in the September as a portrait lens and have been more than pleased with its performance in landscape, portrait and macro). No surprise here though, as the cost factor between the sigma and zeiss lenses is phenomenal. I also have a sigma 150-500. I tried the 50-500 but it did not perform very well for my kind of work. The 150-500 is a bit soft, but I don't use it often, so it is a trade off for me... cost of the lens vs how much I will use it. Actually I have only ever produced one print from it that I could use professionally. That was was used as a prop in a film. That particular image will go into a show that I am in process of creating.
Chris, sticking to a "smaller" system is not a problem. I tell my students NOT to buy fancy higher end equipment. Rather they should learn everything that they can from the equipment they already have and only upgrade when it makes sense. I have found that many people buy a lot of high end equipment and get overwhelmed by it. The result is that it stays on a shelf. I have looked at your gallery, you are making some very outstanding images. Keep doing that you are doing. Equipment will not make it better. Rather time and experience will do that. You have specific skills that are developing really well, keep shooting, keep learning. In time you will out grow what you have. Then, and only then you should look at something else. High end equipment is NOT a status symbol... it is a tool,... and in the right hands is makes sense. Eventually for you, based upon your gallery, it will make sense. So be patient. I have been learning for over 35 years and I am still not done.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Dear Wayne,
thanks a lot for your big and substantial answer,
and your encouraging remarks concerning my work.
You really sort of read my mind in certain concerns you mentioned.
The possibility of being overwhelmed by big equipmkent
is really what I am sure that can happen very fast.
What I am also not convinced about is the tendency in art to have
large scale formats supposed to be optimum.
If I regard in painting Paul Klee for example...he did only small pictures.
Not so Ansel Adams but he filled the range. I read everything from him but
could never get ethusiastic according big scale cameras like he used
and always wanted to stay flexible and move free.
According that I once choose the Pentax system because the K 7,5,3...1
dont´t mourn when you use them in the pooring rain without any protection.
But at least I didnt want to make so much "equipmentconversation" right now.
Thanks a very lot, I´ll keep contact, take care.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think a change is happening in camera formats. Ansel had little choice but to use a large format camera, because image quality improved with film size. This standard seems to be changing. I was shooting a 21 meg camera until about a year ago. It was producing large images up to 30x40 that rivaled what I could get on film from a 6x7.
I now use a 50 meg 35mm camera. The quality is amazing, and from everything I can see, it probably rivals a 4x5 I was using (and still have) some years ago. I think what is happening, is that physical size does not seem to be the same concern as it was years ago. Some of this is I think due to lens design and construction. The pro lenses I used in the 80's and 90's are now surpassed in quality by the amateur lenses being made and used today. The other factor of course is that CMOS has improved so much.
That is why I said what I did. What ever you are using today, is probably much better than anything I was using professionally 40 years ago. So just go for it. You don't need to haul pounds of equipment around to get good images. I have done that, with my 4x5 camera. On one trip into the far north of Manitoba, I sacrificed clothing and other supplies just to bring my camera. (I had a 40 pound weight limit). I was young and foolish, and I guess it was worth it, but today I would not ever do that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So now I am back again here.
Thanks a lot for your thoughts/reflections according all my doubts.
It was really helpful and helped to recover my mind.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
you're so welcome my friend
👍: 0 ⏩: 0