# Turret



## Fred Berg (Jan 8, 2012)

1. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





2. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




3. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




4. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





Nikon P100


----------



## jterry85 (Jan 8, 2012)

Where were these taken at?


----------



## manaheim (Jan 8, 2012)

Very interesting subject, huge array of technical issues (exposure, white balance, focus), and compositionally not very interesting.


----------



## Fred Berg (Jan 8, 2012)

jterry85 said:


> Where were these taken at?



Wittelsbacher Schloss in Friedberg, Bavaria.


----------



## Fred Berg (Jan 8, 2012)

manaheim said:


> Very interesting subject, huge array of technical issues (exposure, white balance, focus), and compositionally not very interesting.




Not much point to these comments, unless you wish to expand a bit.....


I'd be delighted to learn from your input.


----------



## Robchaos (Jan 8, 2012)

Lighting is key. Your photographs were taken at a time when there was a very wide range of lighting, which makes it hard to get a proper exposure that also looks good. If you expose for the turrets, the sky is blown out. If you expose to get the sky nice and blue, half of the photo is a silhouette due to the shade. There are unattractive shadows all over the building in #4. The best way to get around this is either wait for an overcast cloudy day where the lighting is more diffused, and the sun doesn't cast so many shadows, or bring a tripod and bracket exposures to make an HDR.

I'm sure the buildings are cool in person, but the area just does not seem like it offers a good composition to capture the whole structure. For this reason I think your photography would have been more effective if you focused on the building in pieces. A slit for the archers, the old brick doorways, the stairs and the barred window.
If this is a spot that you really like, what you should do is look at your own photos and decide what you like and what you don't like, and go back and try over and over untill you feel like you have the best photos you can possibly make from that area. Different techniques, different angles, different times of day for the lighting, etc.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 8, 2012)

Fred Berg said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > Very interesting subject, huge array of technical issues (exposure, white balance, focus), and compositionally not very interesting.
> ...



I love it when people tell other people that their comments are valueless.

The reason for the brevity of my comment is simple... there is very little in your pictures that _isn't_ out of whack. This is not merely a tuning exercise.  Therefore, to comment appropriately would require me to basically write a book.  I'm not going to do that.  You would be best served by reading your camera manual as well as some books on exposure and composition.

You would also be well-served by _not _telling anyone who takes time to comment in any way that their comments are valueless.


----------



## thinkricky (Jan 8, 2012)

I'd at least tell him why the composition is not interesting. You don't have to write a book just help him figure out what book to read.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 8, 2012)

thinkricky said:
			
		

> I'd at least tell him why the composition is not interesting. You don't have to write a book just help him figure out what book to read.



The problem with that is...

1. It's not really about what's interesting.  Interest is subjective and controlled by his interpretation of the subject and then by the viewers perception of the finish product.  I can no more tell him what's interesting than I can tell him his mind... And mine.

2. Without seeing the subject personally I don't know much about it other than what he has shown us, so I couldn't really even guess how one might capture it... And again, see point 1.


----------



## jterry85 (Jan 8, 2012)

Fred Berg said:


> jterry85 said:
> 
> 
> > Where were these taken at?
> ...



Very cool! I'm in Baumholder over in Rhineland-Pfalz, I'm planning on doing some castle photography when I get back from Afghanistan in Feb.

I actually like the composition in #'s 1&4. 
#1 like I said I think is good compositionally however the sky is blown out which is distracting and the rest of the shot looks a little underexposed as well. 
#2 is underexposed as well and I have a hard time finding the point of interest or the point you are trying to get across with this composition. It looks nice but what's it supposed to show me?
#3 is also underexposed and I like the composition however I find myself wanting to see what it would look like from a different angle. The sky is not blown out on this one which is good and I clearly see the intended subject which is the turret itself, just like I said earlier, I would rather see it from a different angle perhaps.
#4 could have used just a little more exposure IMO, I like the composition and the mood it sets for the viewer. If you have a computer editing program that allows you to you could clone out the trash on the sidewalk. 

I wasn't very familiar with your camera so I looked it up online and it is capable of shooting in a manual mode so I would recommend adjusting the settings and checking the light meter to allow for proper exposure. If you aren't familiar with the "exposure triangle" you can find some good info here on the forums or just by simply googling it.

Hope this helped you some and it's good to see another person in Germany here on the forums! We'll have to swap photo spots sometime!


----------



## Joel_W (Jan 8, 2012)

Picture one could be improved considerably by cropping out that plain Jane house in the upper left background. That would also decrease the amount of sky you have to deal with. Then properly expose for the ivy walls. 

Picture 2 I would just classify as a snap shot of personal interest. There is really no central subject.

Picture 3 has the same issues with the wrong era buildings in the background.   I would have moved more to the right, and closer in. especially if I had to deal with whatever in the background on the left. 

Picture 4 is actually your best.  I would have enlarged the image either by moving in closer, or cropping in PP. Thus eliminating more of the blown out sky above and to the left.  As others have suggested, HDR imaging from bracketing would really help.


----------



## Frequency (Jan 8, 2012)

i like the compositions; what i felt was a lack of brightness; since you are  positive to edit, i just adjusted the brightness and nothing else...  Regards 




DSCN5698-1 by Flashback'r, on Flickr




DSCN5726 by Flashback'r, on Flickr




DSCN5718 by Flashback'r, on Flickr




DSCN5739 by Flashback'r, on Flickr


----------



## jterry85 (Jan 8, 2012)

That does help a great bit actually.


----------



## Fred Berg (Jan 8, 2012)

Thanks a lot everyone, I really appreciate the input!

@ manaheim
I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my comments as personal, or my throwing my toys out of the pram. I welcome constructive criticism, to post here would otherwise be a little unwise, but also hope to have one or two pointers attached to it! Perhaps my tone was a little high-handed, and I apologise if so. Cool avatar, btw...live long and prosper!


----------



## manaheim (Jan 8, 2012)

No problem, man.  It's all good.  Keep shooting neat places.


----------



## Bynx (Jan 8, 2012)

Sometimes an understanding of what we are looking at helps. If you had explained what this turret is, how old, whats it for, or where it came from would make it a little more interesting to look at, even if the images themselves arent very interesting from a photographic point of view.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 8, 2012)

To put it back to the OP...What conscious decisions did you make in framing each of these images, and why do you feel they work? Or, where do you think they fail?


If someone tells you your images are poorly composed, you should explain why you did it the way you did. It allows others to see YOUR thought process, and guide you accordingly.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jan 8, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> If someone tells you your images are poorly composed, you should explain why you did it the way you did. It allows others to see YOUR thought process...



It also allows people to tell him he is not taking C&C very well and shouldn't ask for C&C if he can't take it 


I absolutely agree with the OP's response to Man... it was of no use. It would have been easy enough to give one or two pointers dealing specifically with the problems mentioned.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 8, 2012)

What suggestions would you have given to the op, Chris?


----------



## BradSut26 (Jan 8, 2012)

manaheim...your a **** 

*my comment = valuable


----------



## manaheim (Jan 9, 2012)

BradSut26 said:
			
		

> manaheim...your a ****
> 
> *my comment = valuable


----------



## Frequency (Jan 9, 2012)

Everything said and done... it is a new day break


----------



## Fred Berg (Jan 9, 2012)

I was back at the location today, with a different camera (film this time) and in different conditions - it was quite overcast. I was using the same light meter and the film had the same iso as my P100 was set to for the first photos (iso 200). I did my best to get the same shots, as well as some new perspectives with a little different composition, and will post them on this thread once I have them back from the lab. I will try my best to give an account of the conscious selective decisions I made for each shot, as well as some exif info for them asap. I rotated back to the working world and my daughter started back at school today, so time is a little tight. Once again, thanks for the feedback.


----------



## Frequency (Jan 10, 2012)

Well; eager to see them


----------



## Joel_W (Jan 10, 2012)

Looking forward to seeing your 2nd set of photographs. It will be interesting to see how you applied our CC's to your decision making process.


----------



## jterry85 (Jan 10, 2012)

Can't wait to see them! You're making me jealous too, I can't wait to get back to Germany so I can start taking photo trips to all the good spots nearby!


----------



## Fred Berg (Jan 12, 2012)

This is the first of the reshoot. Taken at f8, 1/125 (I think) using Agfa Vista 200 in overcast conditions. I used Picasa 3 to straighten, crop and resize and PSE 8 to pp a little for texture, saturation and contrast, etc,. I went round the back of the structure to get this shot and think the perspective and composition are reasonable to good. I am very pleased with the overall result. Having noted the tips from _over read_, I have posted this at 800 pixels. C&C needed, please.


----------



## Joel_W (Jan 12, 2012)

Nice composition. No extraneous elements to deal with. Actually, the back is more interesting then the front. Your exposures looks perfect on my screen. This is a giant improvement over your 1st set of pictures.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 12, 2012)

Better from a technical perspective, but it's a real estate shot of a building that is clearly not real estate.  What about the place interests you?  Have you brought that out in this image?  Have you captured the feeling?


----------



## Joel_W (Jan 12, 2012)

manaheim said:


> Better from a technical perspective, but it's a real estate shot of a building that is clearly not real estate.  What about the place interests you?  Have you brought that out in this image?  Have you captured the feeling?



while I didn't take the picture, the original ones which weren't nearly as tightly cropped, had issues of more modern building to the left and down the path. I think that his decisions on cropping them out was the correct ones.


----------



## BadPictures (Jan 12, 2012)

I'm probably not as qualified to comment upon the technical aspect of this photo, but I can tell you that what I think manaheim is saying is that it looks very flat.  Nothing in that picture really pops for me.  I think the subject has much potential interest, and that angle is really nice... but it needs some emotion.  If the sky had some evil looking clouds or a nice yellow sunshine.  Can you get back there nearer to sunrise or sunset when you'll get a nice warm glow from the brick and the sky won't get blown out white like that?  That might make this exact picture really nice.  Also, did you try getting some detail shots of the brick and ivy and such?  I think part of the problem with this is the background.  The only interesting thing in the area that we've seen in these pictures is this structure.  Everything else around looks pretty bland.  So perhaps just going right in and getting some shots of smaller chunks of the turret, with no extra details of the world around it would be nicer all around.    That's my two cents, which is probably worth at least a fifth of that.     Keep on working on it!


----------



## Frequency (Jan 12, 2012)

I really like the sharpness, the colors... yet since this is a heavy massive structure, it is always soothing to leave a bit more space around...that is my persona choice though

Regards


----------



## Fred Berg (Jan 13, 2012)

Thanks for the feedback and comments. At the weekend I'll try to answer everyone in turn.....time and family allowing!

This is the second image from the reshoot: a detail of the side wall of the turret, which, perhaps, has emphasis on the essence of the material structure. Again f8 (not sure of the shutter speed) and taken manually using an Autochinon 35-70mm lens. Picasa 3 to crop and resize, PSE 8 to pp for contrast, etc,. I'm quite happy with this in general but think the focus is a little off  (I didn't like the look of it however once I'd tried to sharpen it in pp)


----------



## jterry85 (Jan 13, 2012)

I think your first posted shot of the second attempt (that sounds confusing even to me!) is MUCH better compositionally. I think BadPictures and Frequency are correct also, the sky can really make or break a shot like this and I too would like to see more landscape around it however I know that isn't possible without including some modern buildings. I also think its a little oversharpened or maybe too much contrast? Someone else may correct me on this though. 

Joe


----------



## Fred Berg (Jan 13, 2012)

#3 of the reshoot. Also f8 using Agfa vista 200 and a light meter to double check the camera's own reading. I've used Picasa 3 to crop and resize and PSE 8 for other pp. I've tried to concentrate on the arched opening and the iron bars which deny access to the structure. I also wanted to bring out the textures and colours in the brickwork. My feeling is the ivy has come out really well considering there really wasn't any sunshine - the advice to try an overcast day way great!


----------



## Joel_W (Jan 13, 2012)

Being just a little nit picky, pic #2 looks a little titled. Very easy to correct in PP. I really like picture #3.  Nice color saturation, interesting details, and to my eye, nicely composed.


----------



## Fred Berg (Jan 19, 2012)

I went back again this Monday and took some more photos, this time in sunny and frosty conditions. I wanted to try a couple of ideas out about angles and isolating features. The first shot I already tried last week but it didn't work out at all. In the second shot I noticed the bricks on the ground when there last week and turned over in my mind how I could include them in an effective and interesting shot. I also wanted to try out some new (for me) film - Fujifilm 200:


----------



## Joel_W (Jan 20, 2012)

Picture #1 has an interesting prospective, looking up the steps, but there is still another era building in the background on the far right. It's a simple crop to remove it digitally, but shooting color film, not so easy unless you have access to a photo print kiosk, but they don't allow you to change aspect ratios. 

Picture #2 just doesn't work for me, as my eyes are drawn not to the bricks, but rather through the opening and right to that building on the hill.  I would have tried to get as low to the bricks as possible, used the widest angle lens I had, which would have made the bricks a stronger central subject for the photograph.


----------



## Fred Berg (Jan 20, 2012)

Thanks Joel. I tend to agree about the 2nd photo and will be trying again as soon as the opportunity presents itself. This is a great learning curve for me and I'm really grateful for the input!


----------



## Joel_W (Jan 20, 2012)

Fred, you have a great attitude. Most would have just given up, and moved on. Looking forward to your next set of pics.


----------



## Fred Berg (Jan 27, 2012)

OK, so I got the latest film back from the lab this morning. This is the first of the bunch that I'm quite happy with:






Müller (chemist chain) own brand film, iso 200, f2.8 (on aperture priority so I'm not sure of the ss). 35mm wide angle lens.


----------



## DooBr (Jan 27, 2012)

this kinda just screams point and shoot


----------



## Fred Berg (Jan 27, 2012)

DooBr said:


> this kinda just screams point and shoot



Well, it was taken with a Revue AC-5 SLR camera with a Porst 35mm wide angle lens set at f2.8 and using iso 200 film (given the conditions this is what I thought would yield the best results). Admittedly the camera was set to aperture priority, but neither the camera nor the lens have auto focus. Also, this was my fourth visit to the location , and this shot was the main objective of the visit and quite a lot of thought went into it.

Could you give me an idea as to why you think it_* screams *_P&S?


----------



## Joel_W (Jan 27, 2012)

Actually I like it.  You limited the subject matter quite nicely, although a slightly tighter crop, and moving the subject to the right or left would help. The shallow DOF keeps one's eyes focused on the main subject. The low angle also makes it some what more personal then what we usually get of looking/shooting down at a steep angle. Colors have also been limited, again helping to control the over all effectiveness of the photo. And no nasty contrasty lighting. 

DooBr, I would also like to have your view on why you think that Fred's photo screams P & S?

Fred, here's an edit so you can see what I'm talking about. 





imm033_1Kopie by jaw101, on Flickr


----------



## Fred Berg (Jan 27, 2012)

Thanks Joel, the slight change makes a big difference. Food for thought.


----------



## Fred Berg (Jan 27, 2012)

Part of the defensive wall a few metres from the turret, just outside the north-western sluice gate of the old moat: 







Revue AC-5, Porst 35mm wide angle lens, Müller (chemist chain) own brand film, iso 200, f2.8 (aperture priority).


----------



## Joel_W (Jan 27, 2012)

I'm not sure what you're subject is.   In this instant, the background is working against the foreground for my attention. Also the background is tilted, while the foreground isn't.  As I sugested in the last photo, use selective cropping to narrow our eyes view.   Do you have a editing program that you can use?


----------



## Fred Berg (Jan 27, 2012)

I think what I want to show here is how this once very strong and impenetrable place is now in gentle decay and slowly being conquered and reclaimed by the forces of nature.

This is a slight crop using Picasa, which perhaps helps to reinforce this idea, but please feel free to edit this yourself if you like:


----------



## Fred Berg (Jan 28, 2012)

There's a bit of pink tinge, especially on the snow. Maybe my computer needs adjusting.


----------



## Fred Berg (Jan 28, 2012)

Here are the others from the latest roll of film that I feel are okay. The aim is to convey the mood of isolation and desolation of this place but also to show the regeneration of nature amongst the decaying ruins:

























Revue AC-5, Porst 35mm wide angle lens (aperture priority), Müller (chemist chain) own brand film. 

C&C welcome.


----------



## Netskimmer (Jan 28, 2012)

Fred Berg said:


> There's a bit of pink tinge, especially on the snow. Maybe my computer needs adjusting.



You're pics look fine to me. Joel_W's look beige.


----------



## Fred Berg (Jan 28, 2012)

Thanks Netskimmer. At the time of writing I am using a different computer and the colours look about the same, so probably no major adjustments needed. Also, I have compared the on screen images with the prints produced at the lab, and again there are no major differences to be seen. 

Joel, perhaps it has to do with the characteristics of the film. I've been trying different ones out recently (I've always tended to use Kodak otherwise), and quite like this own brand line from the Müller chemist chain. But thanks very much for taking so much time and trouble, I really appreciate the input and feedback.


----------



## Joel_W (Jan 28, 2012)

Fred Berg said:


> There's a bit of pink tinge, especially on the snow. Maybe my computer needs adjusting.



And there is the difference in editing pictures online. On my computer the snow is white. I guess I just should have stuck to the crop and the tilt. I'll remove the photo and you can do the edit the way you would prefer.


----------



## Tadzior (Feb 2, 2012)

Great location and interesting way of catching sharpness.


----------



## Postman158 (Feb 2, 2012)

What kind of PP did you do on these photos, if any? They're interesting, but not interesting enough "for me".


----------

