Johnny Johnson wrote:
> At 06:15 PM 1/23/2008, Moose wrote:
>
>> Most of the interiors of the Hearst Castle were taken at 17mm, as well as
>> several exterior shots.
>>
> I'm not personally into shooting interiors but those sure do look nice.
Nor am I generally, but this was a special opportunity - and challenge.
I've been to the Castle several times over the years. there was never
any possibility before of capturing the often quite interesting
interiors at all.
They don't object to photography, but no tripods or flash. Frankly, I
don't think any on-camera flash would give appealing results anyway, but
a tripod would help a lot. They also limit the area of the floor
available, so angles are limited.
Beyond that, you have to keep moving; they are on a relatively tight
schedule and can't leave anyone running around loose. The fellow in the
first Casa del Monte image is the guide gesturing me to hustle up. Then
the rooms are full of fellow tourists until the last moment. So I was
regularly waiting to be the last one out, then run to catch up. Once the
guide felt he could trust me to keep up, that wasn't too bad.
You can see Carlo Anne hustling out of the room in 1235 and there is a
disappearing hand in another. There really wouldn't be time for a
tripod. I'll tell you one thing, those folks taking a few snaps with
their P&Ss aren't going to see anything like these.
> I didn't notice much in the way of distortion or weird perspectives and the
> lighting/colors look onderful. I assume you cleaned them up with software?
> Do you mind listing all of the post processing steps you used for one of
> them, #1273 for example?
>
I don't remember the details of any particular one, but all were much
the same process. something on the order of:
- NeatImage. I'm sure other apps would do. I happen to have NeatImage.
PS NR isn't really as good with these iso3200 images. I did check the
settings at 100% to fine tune the noise/detail balance.
- Linear distortion correction. I did this second on the theory that it
would distort noise patterns and make NR less effective. I doubt it
matters much, if at all. Certainly not at this display size.
- ShadowHighlight or Levels to lift the darker tones. LCE, then curves
to adjust tonal distribution.
- After some experimentation I did the RAW conversions at or near
daylight, 5500K. With significant sunlight from a bright day coming in
through the windows, it gave the color balance I liked best. I think the
incandescently lit parts should look yellowish in those circumstances.
The room in #1273 is wonderful. I think it was less right in person than
I have made it. The color and detail are so rich that I wanted to show
them fully. It was hot summer; that's why the fans all over the place.
But #1274 is the more photographically interesting one to me. That's
Hearst's bed and chosen view. Getting the room and view both looking
properly exposed was a challenge. In a straight conversion for overall
room exposure, the windows are almost white. It still needs a little
edge cleaning around the windows if I print it, but looks pretty good at
this size.
>> Several of the Elfin forest shots are also with the 17-35, and give a whole
>> different subject matter, very natural vs. very opulently man made.
>>
> Those I also like, especially #1203.
A real example of something that can only be shot with a super wide. We
were on a boardwalk, the tree is right against it and the trunks go up
overhead, yet 17mm makes it look pretty normal. It took me a long time
to really 'get' it that SWAs really aren't for wide landscapes. Way to
many "What was I thinking? Everything is too small!" shots before I
started to wise up.
> Funny thing though is that I think that #1173 shot with the telephoto is the
> best of the group. Too bad about the out of focus stuff in the foreground.
>
Yeah, I should crop it. Don't know why I didn't.
>> This is another nature shot at 18mm.
>> <http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/Shasta/slides/_MG_2144cr.html>
>>
>
> That one doesn't do as much for me as the others. With that scene
> and wide of an angle I think you lose sight of what is supposed to
> be the main subject in the picture. Did you by any chance take
> another shot there with a longer focal length?
>
This is an extremely tough subject. The falls are much wider than what's
in that image, while the places from which to shoot them are limited. I
shot at all sorts of focal lengths and angles and really haven't gotten
around to tackling but a few the many images from two different times of
day on two different days.
Here's one taken a little closer, showing a fellow with waders and his
4x5 camera working for that magic shot. He didn't know I'd taken shots
of him and his patient companion until they were leaving and I asked for
an email address so I could get copies to him.
<http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Misc/timo/slides/_MG_1613cr.html>
Here's almost the full scope of the falls, but it really plays down the
left side, small as it is from perspective, and partially hidden by
topography.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Miscellaneous&image=MossBraeP116laz.jpg>
The falls are so wide and so close that benig there is an experience
very difficult to convey in an image. Magic place.
> Thanks for the examples - I may have to reconsider having 24mm as my widest.
>
I can go whole days of shooting without bringing out the 17-35, but it
makes possible shots that are otherwise not possible.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
