# Disney Castle



## vipgraphx (Aug 3, 2012)

Here are a few shots of the disney castle.  The first one was taken early in the morning while the others where taken in the late afternoon. Morning in Disney seems to be always overcast.


Front




disney castle by VIPGraphX, on Flickr

Side




disney castle side by VIPGraphX, on Flickr

Back




disney castle back#2 by VIPGraphX, on Flickr


----------



## gsgary (Aug 3, 2012)

in another tread i read that you didnt get B+W because you see in color, but if this is how you see you need to see an optician


----------



## vipgraphx (Aug 3, 2012)

:chatty:


----------



## chris82 (Aug 3, 2012)

I love them all but my only one gripe is the lens distortion in number 1. If you fix that it would be even better...in my humble opinion


----------



## vipgraphx (Aug 3, 2012)

Yeah i thought about fixing it, I kinda like the lens distortion but perhaps I will adjust a repost and see how it looks.

Cheers


----------



## BuS_RiDeR (Aug 3, 2012)

gsgary said:


> in another tread i read that you didnt get B+W because you see in color,



I think it makes a very nice B&W....


----------



## gsgary (Aug 3, 2012)

BuS_RiDeR said:
			
		

> I think it makes a very nice B&W....



1000 times better than original


----------



## Bynx (Aug 3, 2012)

I wasnt going to comment on your pics but these show something that is interesting and Id like to know why. There is a blotchiness of gray to the original color images like pockets of shadows that dont look natural and must be from the processing. What you might think are shadows arent. In the first image these shadow areas are on the tops of all the turrets and over the archway. In the third image its all the rooftops and a few other spots. Anyone know the reason for this? Like why just separated areas that get that look?


----------



## vipgraphx (Aug 3, 2012)

I use a glow filter and sometimes it makes dark areas or shadowy areas darker. Sometimes I mask it out when I thinks real bad.

Maybe that's what's going on. I can process these again for a photo-like look and see if those areas 
still look like that.


----------



## Bynx (Aug 3, 2012)

I only point these out because its not just with these couple of images. But I see it often, and come to think of it, not so much when the pics are done realistically.


----------



## vipgraphx (Aug 3, 2012)

Here is photorealistic HDR of the castle with some lens correction applied. Tell me if you still see the blotches. 

Only thing I did after photomatix to this was auto color in photoshop, adjust levels and as mentioned some lens correction.




realistic hdr castle by VIPGraphX, on Flickr


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 3, 2012)

gsgary said:


> in another tread i read that you didnt get B+W because you see in color, but if this is how you see you need to see an optician





vipgraphx said:


> :chatty:



Dude, I really like your stuff, but the guy's got a point!


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 3, 2012)

I am _totally _digging that first image. The only thing I would do would be to remove the cables for the Skyway. Take those out, and maybe brighten it a tad, and that's a _ridiculously _killer image, and much better than your edit...


----------



## vipgraphx (Aug 3, 2012)

Steve that other thread where I said that was trying to critique a black and white. I am not a huge fan of black and white thus my comment that I see in color, and could not give the best critique on the image.

When I process photos its no hidden fact that I like to push colors a lot. HDR to me is fun in that way. I always keep a photo realistic image of the hdr and then I proceed and push the colors. In disney land everything is very color full from the shops to the rides and decor of the rides. Sometimes I like to make it feel dreamy like my photos are from a dream world if you will. Rest assure my eyes are just fine and I don't see in florescent colors through my eyes, Its just with HDR's. Sometimes its a hit and miss but, its the way I like my images right now.


----------



## vipgraphx (Aug 3, 2012)

Steve5D said:


> I am _totally _digging that first image. The only thing I would do would be to remove the cables for the Skyway. Take those out, and maybe brighten it a tad, and that's a _ridiculously _killer image, and much better than your edit...



I was going to remove the cables but that is where Tinker bell flys from the Mt. during the fireworks. It has significance to me....my wife is a tinker bell freak!


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 3, 2012)

vipgraphx said:


> Steve that other thread where I said that was trying to critique a black and white. I am not a huge fan of black and white thus my comment that I see in color, and could not give the best critique on the image.



Ah, okay, it's a context thing.

It's all good...


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 3, 2012)

vipgraphx said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > I am _totally _digging that first image. The only thing I would do would be to remove the cables for the Skyway. Take those out, and maybe brighten it a tad, and that's a _ridiculously _killer image, and much better than your edit...
> ...



Okay, well, as long as you're aware that it's distracting. I can dig the wife being a Tinkerbell freak, (my wife is a Chesire Cat freak), but no one here knows your wife, so no one here sees the significant aspect of the cables. They just see distracting cables...


----------



## vipgraphx (Aug 3, 2012)

true true ^^^ OK I AM A TINKER BELL FREEK :smileys:

naaa just meesen I am not but, I get your point...I did take the time and took them out of the last image though.


----------



## vipgraphx (Aug 3, 2012)

Here is another edit with the cables removed and an added sky as a texture overlay layer.




The Disney Castle CA by VIPGraphX, on Flickr


----------



## Bynx (Aug 3, 2012)

Did I read on another thread you paid $2000 for the lens that creates this distortion in all your shots? You may as well have gone out for a full fish eye.


----------



## vipgraphx (Aug 3, 2012)

Yes its the Nikon 14-24 2.8 pro lens. It is very wide on a full frame body. I really don't care for the fisheye look myself. Janook does a very good job pulling off his photos but I would rather
see them finished then actually use the lens..

The distortion is usually more heavy at 14mm and when you are closer to the object. When you have more space between you and the subject or at 24 it is not as bad.


----------



## Bynx (Aug 3, 2012)

I shoot 10-20mm and usually at the 10mm and the distortion is no where this bad.


----------



## vipgraphx (Aug 3, 2012)

10mm on dx is like 15mm on full frame. 1mm is a difference believe it or now especially on a full frame body. You have to taken into account the bigger sensor on full frame which makes it more noticable. DX uses more or less the center of what a full frame would use. I know when I had my tokina paired with the D7000 it seem to be close to what this lens does but maybe not as bad because it was not as wide.

When you look through this lens on a full frame body vs a 10mm on a DX body will be amazed on how much wider it is...


----------



## Bynx (Aug 3, 2012)

I think it will be quite a while before I outgrow my D7000. My next camera is going to be an AR.Drone 2.0. I almost got one today, but they wouldnt dicker with the price so I left. It will come down sometime.


----------



## vipgraphx (Aug 3, 2012)

Don't know what an Ar. Drone is. I got the D700 a while back because I wanted to be able to AEB up to 9 exposures without having to fuss with the camera. Plus I wanted faster FPS for sport shots. It has been a great camera for me. Although the D7000 I do miss as it had great Dynamic range with 2 stops instead of 1 stop with the D700. 

here is the side view again with a little different processing, the cables out of the way and some lens correction




disney castle side by VIPGraphX, on Flickr

Now they all have the cables out of them


----------



## Bynx (Aug 4, 2012)

Picture perfect. The AR Drone 2.0 is actually a quadricopter with 2 onboard HD cameras. One points down and the other forward. They transmit their image to my Asus Pad and I fly the copter with the pad seeing the view of either camera. The copter isnt really a flying device so much as a device to get the camera to a high elevation. The great thing about the Drone 2.0 is it has altimeter and other features to make the thing stay in position even if being blown by wind. It knows how high it is relative to the ground and if you set it for 40 feet, it will rise to 40 feet and just stay there. The movies and still pics are amazing. Google or Youtube AR. Drone 2.0


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Aug 5, 2012)

I like these, but the keystoning on the castle really kills those shots for me.


----------

