# Lacock Abbey



## Mike Chapman (Apr 20, 2015)




----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 20, 2015)

You photographed the home of William Henry Fox Talbot - digitally? LOL what, no little black boxes? no mousetrap cameras??

I usually don't care much for HDR because I often find it to be overly processed and artificial looking, but these are nicely done. The first one is well done, I like the sky in that one, and the second one is nice except the subject in the foreground to me borders on that almost artificial look. The third one I like best, I think the perspective is interesting and works well in HDR. I like the composition of the last one but don't think the effect works quite as well with this scene.

I enjoyed particularly seeing your photos of the interior of the Abbey, thanks for posting.


----------



## Mike Chapman (Apr 21, 2015)

Thank you Sharon for sharing your thoughts I also agree with the last photo didn't think it quite worked, maybe a ND filter and bulb setting would of been a better choice.


----------



## TwilitLens (Apr 21, 2015)

This is the kind of stuff I'd love to photograph myself. Nice job, Mike! I will agree with Sharon about the last shot: seems a little "overbaked" (as they say), but that's mostly due to the branches against the sky. In my experience, tree branches seem to be the worst offenders. Something about the tone mapping process seems to hiccup and create a halo effect around them. And if your image already sports some chromatic aberration, the situation can get a little ugly.

One small question about exposure #2 (the cauldron): the shot seems to be missing something. Were there any other objects in the room that you could include in the picture as well? I've gotten to the point in my own work where I like to include at least three different objects in any composition just to add some sort of pattern. Human models count, by the way; just be sure not to HDR them... 

Once again, love the photos and the setting!


----------



## Mike Chapman (Apr 21, 2015)

With the cauldron I was just limited to what you see as it was just a empty room, I did try to make the shapes as part of the picture and window of course but other than that I relied on the simplistic approach


----------



## Rick50 (Apr 22, 2015)

I like the 2nd because of the contrast in shapes and colors. Also pretty good hdr.


----------



## agp (Apr 25, 2015)

First picture - I think the sky is too dark. You want to use HDR to augment what a single photo captures, but not to invert reality. Was the sky really darker than the building?


----------



## Braineack (Apr 25, 2015)

these all look flat and boring.


----------



## Mike Chapman (Apr 29, 2015)

agp said:


> First picture - I think the sky is too dark. You want to use HDR to augment what a single photo captures, but not to invert reality. Was the sky really darker than the building?



Thanks you make a good point.


----------



## Mike Chapman (Apr 29, 2015)

Braineack said:


> these all look flat and boring.



Well done you must be so pleased.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 29, 2015)

Mike Chapman said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > these all look flat and boring.
> ...


 
The way these are processed they look flat, muted, gray and boring.  They all look underexposed and lack any richness in the color.  There's no contrast or depth to the shadows--nothing is obviously bright or obviously black.

The histograms suggests there is nowhere near any white in any of these.  On the second and third shot where you have blown out windows, the white areas are gray.  The blown out sky on the last shot the sky is brown.  They look like you added a color opacity layer over top of them.

Given my thoughts on the shots: I'm not pleased at all.

I took your first shot into an online photo editor, I altered the brightness/contrast and levels slightly.  Literally made three slider adjustments and I think the shot look MUCH improved:

View attachment 99881

there's now vibrance and contrast.  the exposure on the abbey looks good--It has dimension and pops out against the sky, not fade into it.

I honestly believe anyone who said the processing on the shots as you presented them is doing you a disfavor and holding you back.


----------



## agp (Apr 29, 2015)

I think the above picture is wrong too. Sky is too dark. How can side of the building be so bright when the sky is so dark? That blue streak around 1 o'clock look especially wrong. It might be reasonable to see some stormy clouds, but not reasonable to see a part of the blue sky be black.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 29, 2015)

I got the same feeling from it too.  It seems like it was a decently sunny bright, albeit partly cloudy day when shot, but it was somehow made to look dark, cold, rainy, and dreary out.


----------



## agp (Apr 29, 2015)

Here's an outdoors HDR for you for comparison. Clouds are white, skies are blue, if I can do HDR, so can you.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 29, 2015)

Braineack said:


> Mike Chapman said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...


* OP:  Please select an Edit Preference, either "My photos are okay to edit" or "My photos are NOT okay to edit" in your profile page.  *

*Everyone else, given no explicit permission to edit, assume that none exists and do not edit the OPs images.*


----------



## Mike Chapman (Apr 29, 2015)

agp said:


> Here's an outdoors HDR for you for comparison. Clouds are white, skies are blue, if I can do HDR, so can you.



To me that isn't HDR can you tell me the process you went through to make that into a HDR image? it honestly looks like you have just increased the saturation.


----------



## agp (Apr 30, 2015)

When you google "hdr", this is the first thing you get - THIS isn't HDR. This is garbage. You said that my photo, to you, isn't HDR. If the photo below to you is HDR then I don't know how to help.







HDR is about creating a natural image with lighting similar to how the human eye sees (which has more range than what a sensor "see"). The original image had a very bright sky, and dark houses. You shouldn't be able to "see" an HDR - an HDR image is supposed to look real and natural.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 30, 2015)

There's High Dynamic Range in AGP's photo.  The goal of HDR is to make images appear like you'd see them with the human eye--since your camera cannot caputre scenes in the way your eye does.  In AGP's shot we have a rich blue skies and then a scene that's not underexposed (although I think there could be a little more shadow recovery).  When looking at that scene in real life, im sure your eye would see the blue sky as well as the shadowed detail under the pier.

In your first shot you've reduced the dynamic range.  You've clipped blacks significantly and there are no whites in the image.  The scene does not appear as your eye would see it.  It looks dull, gray, and lackluster.  Regardless of whatever process you applied to your shots, they are are NOT HDR. The dynamic range has been reduced from the orginal capture, not increased.

You may be confusing HDR for tone-mapping where you exaggerate an HDR methodology to make scenes look unrealistic and cartoonish.  Tone-mapping also decreases HDR in order to impress people on the internet.


----------



## Mike Chapman (Apr 30, 2015)

agp said:


> If the photo below to you is HDR then* I don't know how to help*.



Maybe answering the original question might help!

what processing did you use to produce that image? how many shots did you take-what software did you use?


----------



## Braineack (Apr 30, 2015)

why does that even matter?


----------



## agp (Apr 30, 2015)

Mike Chapman said:


> agp said:
> 
> 
> > If the photo below to you is HDR then* I don't know how to help*.
> ...



The underlined question is not something that can be easily answered... if I can write that in a post, the world would not have any more ugly HDRs like the ones you find on Google images.

I took three shots at +1, 0, and -1 exposure, and I used Lightroom and Photoshop.

One simple advice I would give though is to give up Photomatix, if you are using that.


----------

