# Passage of Time- Still Pond, Md



## Rick58 (Feb 15, 2013)

View attachment 36206

I drive by this abandoned home countless times of the way to my trailer on the Chesapeake's Eastern Shore. Today I made the trip just for this shot. I've made the decision I either need to get a better digital or dust off my medium and large format gear. I realize the D200 is an older camera, but to continually get noise like this at ISO 400 is ridiculous.
Reasoning: There was a good breeze blowing and I wanted to insure stopping the limb motion.  I chose 1/800 which was probably excessive. Next time I think I'll shot it with my RB67. :banghead:
I wish now I would have shot at 1/400 @ 200 but I didn't want to come home with motion blur. Anyway, I'd appreciate comments and/or thoughts.

f16
1/800
ISO 400


----------



## MK3Brent (Feb 15, 2013)

Hi, Rick. 

Looks like you missed focus, even at f/16! 

Looks a little soft on my end. 

I really love these old houses, they're the best to shoot. 

Sometimes, a wide angle and up close to these houses comes out really well. 

I look forward to more photos!
You liking the D200 so far?


----------



## Rick58 (Feb 15, 2013)

Liking 200? I'm ready to use it for a boat anchor.
Noise at ISO 400
Someone pointed out some hot pixels and now soft focus.  I was focused on the front of the house, about 1/3 back at f16. The old eye's aren't what they used to be, but even they can hit the broad side of a house...

Glass is clean, camera fosuses and looks sharp in the finder, but the photos looks like they are taken with a $20 Instamatic
If you look at my last egg shots in my gallery, they have the same softness and they were taken with my 55 Macro Nikkor, this house was with the 18-70 kit lens.


----------



## MK3Brent (Feb 15, 2013)

Are you manually focusing? 

Are you using the focus indicator on the display through the view finder? (I believe it's lower left inside the view finder on the D200.)


----------



## Rick58 (Feb 15, 2013)

MK3Brent said:


> Are you manually focusing?
> 
> Are you using the focus indicator on the display through the view finder? (I believe it's lower left inside the view finder on the D200.)



Auto focus, and yep,  the green dot in the lower left corner of the finder.
I just looked at all the RAW files from today and everyone is about the same degree of "softness". The only shot in my gallery that appears half way sharp is my peppers, but thats only because they are only blown up to 4x5.


----------



## MK3Brent (Feb 15, 2013)

It could be your lenses, in all honesty. 

I shoot a D200 (or used to anyway, it's just sitting on my desk now.) 
The 35mm 1.8 DX produces some pretty sharp images.

I have one somewhere, if you want it I'll send it to you. 
Give it a shot, see if you can get some sharp photos.


----------



## Rick58 (Feb 15, 2013)

Thanks for the offer. I sent you a 
PM. I don't understand why the Macro Nikkor and the kit lens would have the same affect.


----------



## Rick58 (Feb 16, 2013)

Well, I see this went over like a sack of rocks. Thanks to Brent, I at least know my PC was plugged in when I posed it


----------



## FanBoy (Feb 16, 2013)

Nice find, Rick. I would also like to see more intrusive angles of the house. The pine branches on the left seem to steal from the subject.


----------



## Rick58 (Feb 16, 2013)

FanBoy said:


> Nice find, Rick. I would also like to see more intrusive angles of the house. The pine branches on the left seem to steal from the subject.



Thanks. This turned out to be a noisy, soft focused train wreck, so I'm going to give it another go. My idea was to frame the house with those evergreens and overhead branch. I agree it didn't quite reach the mark and I'm not particularly fond of the results either. I think I'll move in a little and eliminate them all together. 

I hear what you're saying about the intrusive angles, but that's not really me. I like my architecture, especially in B&W, to be neat, clean and plum. Boring I suppose to some. That's probably one reason the evergreens don't sit well with me.

Unfortunately, this is 100 miles away. Hopefully it will be there for another month or two until I start going down regularly


----------



## tirediron (Feb 16, 2013)

Great subject matter Rick (technical issues aside)... you need to get some inside shots!  I wish there were structures in my area that looked like that.

As for your camera, the D200 should do better than that, and the 18-70 lens is VERY sharp when stopped down a couple of stops, but I've rarely used it stopped that far down; I almost wonder if you're getting some difraction effect?  Given how cheap the D300 & 300s have become, it might be worth looking at one of those.


----------



## Rick58 (Feb 16, 2013)

Thanks. Just to show off the high quality output I'm getting, here a sootc 100% snip of the house eve's. Geez...I think I'll go back to my entry level Sony 

View attachment 36265

Any ideas anyone?


----------



## mishele (Feb 16, 2013)

Rick, pick me up the next time you're going here...lol It looks like an awesome place to shoot! Nice job on the first one.
Did you go inside?


----------



## Rick58 (Feb 16, 2013)

mishele said:


> Did you go inside?



No it's right along the road and part of a workng farm. I actually felt bad, because as I drove past the abandon driveway, I saw the owner has it posted. I'm going to do it right next time and ask even to go on the yard. If it were mine, I'd expect the same.


----------



## Overread (Feb 16, 2013)

When you're processing your RAW photos check the sharpening tab - by default the RAW processor should apply a degree of sharpening to your photos (typically called Capture sharpening). This is important as RAW photos without any sharpening applied at all will always look softer than they should. 

If you've disabled the capture sharpening it would go a long way to explain why you're seeing this sudden softness in all your photos. 



The shutter speed, ISO and aperture should all be fine, f16 is getting close to where diffraction starts to really show (it tends to start taking effect after around f8-10 but its not till around f16 or so that it really becomes noticeable). Maybe try pulling back to f13, but f16 should still be more usable than this I would think.


----------



## MK3Brent (Feb 16, 2013)

All packed up, heading your way Monday. 

My only request is you shoot it for as long as you need, then pass it on to someone else like I'm doing for you!

It's not "pro" glass, but it's a decent lens that anyone on DX sensors could use.


----------



## Mully (Feb 16, 2013)

Rick .... image has all of the ingredients of an old photo so I do not mind the noise and look at all as it fits that old house subject....very nice of Brent to lend you a lens!!


----------



## Rick58 (Feb 16, 2013)

MK3Brent said:


> All packed up, heading your way Monday.
> 
> My only request is you shoot it for as long as you need, then pass it on to someone else like I'm doing for you!
> 
> It's not "pro" glass, but it's a decent lens that anyone on DX sensors could use.



Many thanks Brent. Like Medic's zoom, it will surely be forwarded to the next needy soul  some day. Even if this turns out to be the camera, I'll be looking for a DX replacement body. I am very anxious to give this a try. You've shown me what it can produce on a 200, so this should prove, lens or body
BTW, your sign...Danke.


----------



## Rick58 (Feb 17, 2013)

Overread said:


> When you're processing your RAW photos check the sharpening tab - by default the RAW processor should apply a degree of sharpening to your photos (typically called Capture sharpening). This is important as RAW photos without any sharpening applied at all will always look softer than they should.
> 
> If you've disabled the capture sharpening it would go a long way to explain why you're seeing this sudden softness in all your photos.
> 
> ...



Being a digital noobie, I'm still catching up. Regarding "sharpening"? On my resizing tab, there is a sharpening adjustment. It's defaulted at 70. I've never changed it. But the last color clip of the eve's is just as it appears as it comes out of the camera, before any PP. Sorry this is late. I caught your settings feedback, but missed the top half.

BTW, I now have CS2, Paintshop Pro 5 and Lightroom 4.3. The photo looks the same opened in all 3. I do find myself always going back to PS5. Only because I "learned" that software first and too lazy to start from scratch I guess. 
A while ago, someone posted a link to the Lightroom tutorials that were offered free for a month. I took the time to download all 17 hours of it and then made my own hyperlinked menu. One day I need to watch and learn. Being it was 17 hours, I didn't even watch them as I downloaded them.
Yep, I just hijacked my own thread


----------



## manaheim (Feb 17, 2013)

When you go back, go in close and get some detail shots.  Look for interesting textures and lines.  Try to be more abstract.  Look for interesting emotional elements within the larger whole as well.

Some examples (though I admit these aren't awesome, but still...)


----------



## Rick58 (Feb 17, 2013)

Sorry Manny. All I see there are photo's from a poor home inspection <only joking>
This just isn't me.  I guess I'll never fit in here, but that ok.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 17, 2013)

1. You "fit in" just fine, and I would very much like you to not leave.  In my opinion, you're a great member to have around here.  Let me put it to you this way... I remember two kinds of people on TPF.  Really cool people, and total *******s.  You're NOT an *******.  Just because you think and work a different way than many of us makes you neither wrong, nor worthy of non-acceptance.  Hey, for all we know, you're way is the next great wave of photography and you should be trying to convert _us_.  

2. That said, I'm still going to constantly try to chip away at you and your inventory shots. 



Also... another thing to try...

You say you go by here a lot, what about going for atmospherics?  You don't necessarily have to focus on the details of the place... you _could_ go for a particular mood.  Look for a day with a cloudy or stormy sky, go when there are some beautiful clouds, go when there is a great sunset or sunrise, play with silhoetting the building, etc.

For example, I waited and watched for nearly a YEAR to get this sky so I could shoot this angel...


----------



## Rick58 (Feb 17, 2013)

Thanks for all that Manny. Like my record shots, I'm not going anywhere 

I was into B&W and Ansel Adams when B&W and Ansel Adams wasn't "cool". Straight B&W photography with full, crisp tones is what makes a photo I can keep going back to over and over again. It's funny, but my dad got me into photography 40+ years ago. He's now 74 and I was over talking to him the other day and mentioned breaking out the film gear and getting back into medium and large format B&W. He thinks I'm just nuts.


----------



## FanBoy (Feb 17, 2013)

Rick58 said:


> Thanks for all that Manny. Like my record shots, I'm not going anywhere



You'd better not, or I'd have to come down there and pelt you with some stale fastnachts!


----------



## acellis (Feb 17, 2013)

I really like the subject matter. I might take out the branches though. I think it is alfully tough to use tree limbs to frame the subject. I would also reshoot from the same angle but tighter to eliminate the branch and focus in two or three different area (closest corner, middle of the house, the furthest point of the house and 1/2 the distance between you and the house, etc) you might figure out the focus issue by comparing them to each other. I really think you would greatly improve this photo by shooting just after full sunrise or just at sunset. I think this photo is shot in the harshest light.


----------



## Rick58 (Feb 17, 2013)

FanBoy said:


> Rick58 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for all that Manny. Like my record shots, I'm not going anywhere
> ...



 I consider myself warned


----------



## Rick58 (Feb 17, 2013)

acellis said:


> I really like the subject matter. I might take out the branches though. I think it is alfully tough to use tree limbs to frame the subject. I would also reshoot from the same angle but tighter to eliminate the branch and focus in two or three different area (closest corner, middle of the house, the furthest point of the house and 1/2 the distance between you and the house, etc) you might figure out the focus issue by comparing them to each other. I really think you would greatly improve this photo by shooting just after full sunrise or just at sunset. I think this photo is shot in the harshest light.



Thanks. Agreed on the branches and evergreen. Next time I'll move in (after getting the owners pemission) As far as timing, I got there purposely at noon. I go by there so many times, I know it takes takes two hours to get there (about 2:15 to my trailer), so I left home at 10.
My reasoning. If you look at the house, most of the remaining white paint is on the front. Although I wish the sun would been higher to case more shadow on the individual clapboards, I wanted the white clapboard fully illuminated to contrast with the darker gray of the sides. East or west lighting would not have give the affect I was looking for. Actually, it looks as if the satellite passed over head about the same time of day that I was there.
View attachment 36380


----------



## Rick58 (Feb 17, 2013)

I think I just found the answer to my issue.
Apparently the D200 is very unforgiving to under exposure. 
I just pick a neutral colored subject. I happened to be my grandfathers sharping wheel.

Here's an overall shot. ISO125

View attachment 36394

enlarged:
View attachment 36395

Under exposed
View attachment 36396

Under exposed, englarged

View attachment 36397

Under exposed, corrected

View attachment 36398

This only ISO125. 400 would obviously be that much worse.
The house was at 400 and underexposed to maintain the highlights of the white clapboard.


----------



## Rick58 (Feb 17, 2013)

I think I just found the answer to my issue.
Apparently the D200 is very unforgiving to under exposure.
I just pick a neutral colored subject. It happened to be my grandfathers sharping wheel.

Here's an overall shot. ISO125

View attachment 36394

enlarged:
View attachment 36395

Under exposed
View attachment 36396

Under exposed, englarged

View attachment 36397

Under exposed, corrected

View attachment 36398

This only ISO125. 400 would obviously be that much worse.
The house was at 400 and underexposed to maintain the highlights of the white clapboard.


----------



## acellis (Feb 17, 2013)

Noticable improvement on the focus issue. Have you used TPE? The Photographer's Emphemeris? I live by that program. It's free on the computer but there is a small cost for the iphone app. It will help you figure out when the natural light would be stricking the house at the precise angle. good luck and keep shooting.


----------



## Mike Lamb (Feb 18, 2013)

Looks like the Munster's house.  A little too cartoony of a finish for me especially the roof.


----------



## Rick58 (Feb 18, 2013)

Mike Lamb said:


> Looks like the Munster's house.  A little too cartoony of a finish for me especially the roof.


Well, I'm not sure what to say, but that IS the roof. I did nothing to it in processing
View attachment 36604


----------

