# White Chapel, Albright College, Rdg, Pa



## Rick58 (Feb 18, 2013)

View attachment 36536

The results of todays outing
 C&C is always welcome

18-70 kit lens
ISO125
f9
1/200


----------



## EONOnly (Feb 18, 2013)

It's pretty good, I think. Lines are quite straight and that's the crucial thing in architecture photography, I think. Cropping is not bad either, but I'd probably prefer to give it a little more breath. Editing is lacking a little bit of contrast and clarity.


----------



## Rick58 (Feb 18, 2013)

Thanks for the comments. This is is my infamous kit lens. As can be seen on some of my other threads, I been having issues so I thought I'd try it one more time under ideal conditions. 

ISO 125: Good lower speed
f9: Good middle of the road f stop
1/200: Good speed for a sharp handheld
Sun with shade on a white surface: Good for contrast
Properly exposed RAW so I can eliminate exposure correction

Results: unacceptably soft with terrible shadow detail.

It seems others here much more knowledgable in digital then myself are stumped as well


----------



## Mully (Feb 18, 2013)

Rick ...what camera are you using?


----------



## Rick58 (Feb 18, 2013)

Mully said:


> Rick ...what camera are you using?


D200 with about 9000 presses


----------



## mishele (Feb 18, 2013)

Love the diagonal shadow lines that you got going across the building. It makes the shot more interesting.
 Nice Rick.


----------



## Mully (Feb 18, 2013)

I would review some of your shoot presets.... something could have changed and giving you soft focus.... maybe reset them. I have a D300 and had similar problems awhile back


----------



## Rick58 (Feb 19, 2013)

Thanks for the tip Mully. Just to be sure, I did a factory reset. Brent contacted me to let me know the 35mm is on the way.
Fresh reset, fresh lens...This weekend will tell. If I still output crap, I'll just have to retire the 200. 
Maybe my 40 year old F2's will have to show this 7 year old digital anchor how it should be done.


----------



## amolitor (Feb 19, 2013)

Nice. Walker Evans did a bunch of this sort of thing, but with less attention to geometry and more attention to.. whatever magical thing Evans had. He would have shot this straight on, though, I think.

Technically sound, nice shadows, detail in the whites, detail in the curtained windows, and so on.

I like it as an elegantly composed documentary shot of a nice thing. These things tend to work better in a series, I find. Alone, it's a nice postcard, in a group it's a study of churches in America, or whatever the series is about, and that's inherently more interesting to us. We get to compare things that are similar and yet different. Each photograph affects how we see the others.


----------



## Mully (Feb 19, 2013)

Rick58 said:


> Thanks for the tip Mully. Just to be sure, I did a factory reset. Brent contacted me to let me know the 35mm is on the way.
> Fresh reset, fresh lens...This weekend will tell. If I still output crap, I'll just have to retire the 200.
> Maybe my 40 year old F2's will have to show this 7 year old digital anchor how it should be done.



F2's Good camera I have 2 and can't part with them along with 2 older F's......I was simpler back then....no 200 menu items to go astray...good luck with this and the factory reset should get you on track.....hopefully right.


----------



## ceeboy14 (Feb 19, 2013)

I'm going to pop out another possibility and that is what focusing method were you using. Is this a matrix type with nine or more focusing spots? If so, try changing it to a single point focus. I suggest this because the tree branches, especially the finer ones are quite crisp. It is the structure of the church that is "soft." My conclusion is either a back focus or front focus issue, or the camera simply wasn't focused where you really wanted the focus to be. I hope that makes sense. 

Try a single focus point and reshoot the same location, same distance, same settings.


----------



## Rick58 (Feb 19, 2013)

Mully said:


> Rick58 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the tip Mully. Just to be sure, I did a factory reset. Brent contacted me to let me know the 35mm is on the way.
> ...



MUCH SIMPLIER!
I actually have 4 F2 bodies with a stable of AI lenses. I also have a Nikkormat that was given to me but I never even fooled around with it since I have the F2's.
The Nikon's are excellent, but if I was to go back to film for quality B&W, it wouldn't make any sense to shoot 35mm when I have MF and LF sitting there. Even in my film days,
the Nikon's were my carry around cameras for color prints and slides. I did very little B&W in 35mm. 
I have two current rolls of 120 / XP5 in the fridge. One day I want to run them through the Mamiya 67 for old times sake. That could be dangerous


----------



## Rick58 (Feb 19, 2013)

ceeboy14 said:


> I'm going to pop out another possibility and that is what focusing method were you using. Is this a matrix type with nine or more focusing spots? If so, try changing it to a single point focus. I suggest this because the tree branches, especially the finer ones are quite crisp. It is the structure of the church that is "soft." My conclusion is either a back focus or front focus issue, or the camera simply wasn't focused where you really wanted the focus to be. I hope that makes sense.
> 
> Try a single focus point and reshoot the same location, same distance, same settings.



Thanks CB, I'll have to check the data, but I THINK it was center weighted.


----------



## Rick58 (Feb 19, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Nice. Walker Evans did a bunch of this sort of thing, but with less attention to geometry and more attention to.. whatever magical thing Evans had. He would have shot this straight on, though, I think.
> 
> Technically sound, nice shadows, detail in the whites, detail in the curtained windows, and so on.
> 
> I like it as an elegantly composed documentary shot of a nice thing. These things tend to work better in a series, I find. Alone, it's a nice postcard, in a group it's a study of churches in America, or whatever the series is about, and that's inherently more interesting to us. We get to compare things that are similar and yet different. Each photograph affects how we see the others.



Thanks Amolitor, sorry, I missed your post.
To me there's a thing about historic churches and B&W film. They just seem to mesh. After looking at this one, I should have bumped up the highlights just a tad to a full zone 9 to a 9+, but it sucks so bad, it's not even worth messing with.
There's another white clapboard church close to my trailer in Md. The parsonage is in very bad condition and being over taken by the surrounding woods. Once I get my camera situation squared away, I want to retake my recent two churches along with these.

EDIT: I just Googled Walker Evans churches. I think I just found my next hero.


----------



## ceeboy14 (Feb 19, 2013)

I'm not referring to the metering but focus points.


----------



## Rick58 (Feb 19, 2013)

ceeboy14 said:


> I'm not referring to the metering but focus points.



Ahhh, yes. Darn noobies...


----------



## Rick58 (Feb 22, 2013)

I was purging my hard drive and came across this straight-on view of the White Chapel.
After a little time in post, I think I like it better then the original. Any one care to share an
opinion?
View attachment 36987


----------



## FanBoy (Feb 22, 2013)

The newer photo shows the doors better. I like how the direct sun and clear skies depict the tidy, quaintness of the church in both photos.


----------

