Landscape Silverton Ruin

**wizofoz** · 03-25-2014, 05:43 AM

Looking for comment and critique of these images I took of a ruined building in outback NSW. Shot with a CPL.

The sense of isolation and desolation were very strong. This is the archetypical outback semi ghost town. A pub remains and a couple of houses, a few hundred meters from this location, but this is a very isolated flyspeck lost in the vast arid plains of Western NSW

Have I gone too far with the PP? The very orange colours of the dirt and bricks are roughly accurate. There is nothing quite like the ochre colours of the outback

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

View Picture EXIF

link81 · 03-25-2014, 05:52 AM

very nice,

the top one looks a little "HDR'ey" to me, but i'm not sure why, the clouds are too white maybe.

i love the second one, there are so many colors, that at first it looks a little too powerful, but the more i stare at it, the more I look "into" the picture, it just looks so real to me.

Quest4ADV · 03-25-2014, 06:02 AM

Love them.

**wizofoz** · 03-25-2014, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by link81

very nice,

the top one looks a little "HDR'ey" to me, but i'm not sure why, the clouds are too white maybe.

i love the second one, there are so many colors, that at first it looks a little too powerful, but the more i stare at it, the more I look "into" the picture, it just looks so real to me.

Thanks for the comment link.

This is definitely just a single raw file, no HDR. But maybe I went a little too far with trying to bring out some drama from the clouds.

Its interesting to get others perspective. I almost didn't put the 2nd one in, as I don't think it is in the same league as the first one, but you prefer it. Thanks for the input

MadMathMind · 03-25-2014, 11:08 AM

The contrast is too hot in the first image. If you look at the clouds right over the structure in the first image, you can see there's a loss of detail in the fringes of the cloud because the contrast has been pumped too high, so what was once a region of high but different white values (say, 245-255) has become all max values (all 255).

The second image is much better but a tad too high. Still, if most eyes, especially those who aren't keen on the subtleties of correct contrast, would find it very pleasing

johnyates · 03-25-2014, 12:05 PM

You've certainly succeeded in making some dramatic photos, esp the first. A bit too saturated for my taste, *but* I think if you were offering up prints for sale to the general public, you'd have a definite crowd pleaser.

**wtlwdwgn** · 03-25-2014, 12:19 PM

The first does appear to be a little over PPd and the whites are somewhat blown out. A little less contrast would help here. The second is just right. The colors are reminiscent of the SW USA. Just my two cents.

**wizofoz** · 03-25-2014, 03:46 PM

Ok, thanks guys for the feedback. I tend to agree I went OTT with the micro contrast in the first image. Too many software tools to play with....

Here is a toned down version.

---------- Post added 26th Mar 2014 at 09:48 ----------

I have to say looking at the same file in LR compared to on this site, the oranges are far more 'fanta' on PF than what I'm getting in LR. What I see in LR is a lot more red/brown than flouro orange.

Not sure why that would be.

link81 · 03-25-2014, 06:18 PM

Love it. The depth is huge.

steve1307 · 03-25-2014, 09:23 PM

I agree i think the first one has a bit to much contrast and sharpening. The other more subtle version of it is better (all though there is some compression artifacts viewing it on PF on my screen anyway).

The orange colour isn't really abnormal with some of the skies that you can get out there.

I went to Silverton a couple of years ago (September 2012) with the Sunrise and the Sunset in virtually the same directions as in mid-March.

I found that Sunrise worked better than Sunset for the light falling on the landscape.

At sunrise the light from the horizon falls directly on the land in the town area. Really nice light

At sunset the town section seemed to be in shadow from the sun setting over the distant hill (in a small "hollow" to describe another way). I had to pull up the shadows a lot. Kinda disappointed after such a brilliant sunrise (worth getting up a 4am for)

**wizofoz** · 03-25-2014, 11:16 PM

Hi Steve thanks for the comments. As you can see from the exif, this was taken at 5:21 pm, sunset was not for another couple of hours. I retired to the shade of the nearby pub for an hour or so after taking a series of shots and came back at sunset, but the dramatic cloud had all drifted away by then and to repeat the first shot in the direction of the distant hills would only have a blank sky. The 2nd shot was obviously taken at sunset.

The artifacts I think you may be referring to come from me adjusting the exposure on the front of the structure, as it was in deep shade. I bracketed 3 shots, but I didn't stop to check if I had a correct exposure for the front of the house. (which would of course mean that sky sky was totally blown) I could just use the natural exposure and blend it with the sky/land exposure for a better IQ.

Please let me know if the artifacts are elsewhere.

I'd really like to get this image right as I would like to print and frame it.

I'm finding that the K-3 files are a bit less forgiving in their 'plasticity' than the k-5 files, and cannot be pushed or pulled around as much without developing some artifacts or granularity, but the details of the K-3 files are stunning.

steve1307 · 03-26-2014, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by wizofoz

The artifacts I think you may be referring to come from me adjusting the exposure on the front of the structure, as it was in deep shade. I bracketed 3 shots, but I didn't stop to check if I had a correct exposure for the front of the house. (which would of course mean that sky sky was totally blown) I could just use the natural exposure and blend it with the sky/land exposure for a better IQ.

Please let me know if the artifacts are elsewhere.

Actually looking at it once more the compression artifacts or jaggies are only showing on my own el-cheapo Toshiba 13.3" laptop screen.
I have the same page open on my work laptop, a rediculously heavy and expensive DELL mobile workstation with a full HD screen, and it looks fine.

Have to admit the clouds do make a much more interesting scene than plain sky.

I went to Silverton 3 times in a week. Once to scout around in the mid afternoon, then the next morning for Sunrise and for Sunset a few days later. Did not see a single cloud.

Gregory_51 · 03-26-2014, 10:56 AM

Hi
An interesting image, nice sky, lighting, framing and location. As for the colors showing up different it's frustrating. It looks fine in LR or PS and even though you've assigned a sRGB color profile to it and your monitor is calibrated, when you upload it to this site or some other site it's completely different. I've often had to delete the posted image and rework it to get the colors to show up reasonably close to what I wanted, very annoying. I'd agree with the others the sky in the first one is much too contrasty with no detail in the whites of the clouds. Because of the color changes I'm not sure what the accurate color is. It's a pain when you have to describe what the color is supposed to be as opposed to just looking at the image. The sky in the repost is much nicer but the building and ground look rather dull and dark. The vegetation has lost most of the green and looks kind of lifeless. Again I don't know what the true hues are but I like the hues and contrast of the building and ground in the first one with the sky from the second post. I don't think anyone else mentioned it but I might straighten the perspective on the building that the wide angle lens has distorted. One of those things that doesn't bother some people but does for me.

Cheers
Greg

**wizofoz** · 03-26-2014, 02:06 PM

Steve, I have another almost identical shot, taken about 2 hrs later when the sun was setting, but the clouds had gone by then. I thought this one was much more dramatic and interesting. Maybe I need to think about a composite.

Greg, cheers, and thanks for he comments. Strangely enough I'm looking at this on an i-pad at the moment and the colours don't look anywhere near as 'fanta' orange as they do on my new Eizo monitor.I agree that the foreground of the first image and the sky of the 2nd image is what I need to aim for. I have another shot at it later today (after work)

I tried to fix the distortion of the building, but that gave me a crop where I either lost he water tank or had a crooked horizon. I thought he distorted building made more sense

BTW I'd be more than happy to make the raw files available if anyone else wants to have a go at solving the problems. I'm sure there is a PP'ing guru out there somewhere who will be able to do it in a snap

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Black & White The Ruin	karma mechanic	Post Your Photos!	2	08-22-2013 11:57 PM
Rain ever ruin your lens?	slip	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	08-14-2013 12:12 PM
Durango Silverton Engine 481	mr tibbs	Monthly Photo Contests	0	06-18-2013 10:53 AM
How to Ruin Your Gear in 5 Minutes (Without Water)	interested_observer	Photographic Industry and Professionals	34	05-12-2013 07:29 AM
Misc mysterious ruin	simple mick	Post Your Photos!	2	10-27-2012 12:36 PM

03-25-2014, 05:52 AM	#2
link81 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: 12822 Photos: Albums Posts: 459	very nice, the top one looks a little "HDR'ey" to me, but i'm not sure why, the clouds are too white maybe. i love the second one, there are so many colors, that at first it looks a little too powerful, but the more i stare at it, the more I look "into" the picture, it just looks so real to me.

03-25-2014, 06:02 AM	#3
Quest4ADV Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: St Augustine, FL Posts: 118	Love them.

03-25-2014, 06:08 AM	#4
wizofoz Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Melbourne, Outer east. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,695 Original Poster	Originally posted by link81 very nice, the top one looks a little "HDR'ey" to me, but i'm not sure why, the clouds are too white maybe. i love the second one, there are so many colors, that at first it looks a little too powerful, but the more i stare at it, the more I look "into" the picture, it just looks so real to me. Thanks for the comment link. This is definitely just a single raw file, no HDR. But maybe I went a little too far with trying to bring out some drama from the clouds. Its interesting to get others perspective. I almost didn't put the 2nd one in, as I don't think it is in the same league as the first one, but you prefer it. Thanks for the input

03-25-2014, 11:08 AM	#5
MadMathMind Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Houston, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,717	The contrast is too hot in the first image. If you look at the clouds right over the structure in the first image, you can see there's a loss of detail in the fringes of the cloud because the contrast has been pumped too high, so what was once a region of high but different white values (say, 245-255) has become all max values (all 255). The second image is much better but a tad too high. Still, if most eyes, especially those who aren't keen on the subtleties of correct contrast, would find it very pleasing

03-25-2014, 12:05 PM	#6
johnyates Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Saskatoon, SK Photos: Albums Posts: 1,345	You've certainly succeeded in making some dramatic photos, esp the first. A bit too saturated for my taste, but I think if you were offering up prints for sale to the general public, you'd have a definite crowd pleaser.

03-25-2014, 12:19 PM	#7
wtlwdwgn Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Billings, MT Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,838	The first does appear to be a little over PPd and the whites are somewhat blown out. A little less contrast would help here. The second is just right. The colors are reminiscent of the SW USA. Just my two cents.

03-25-2014, 06:18 PM	#9
link81 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: 12822 Photos: Albums Posts: 459	Love it. The depth is huge.

03-25-2014, 09:23 PM	#10
steve1307 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Sydney Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,130	I agree i think the first one has a bit to much contrast and sharpening. The other more subtle version of it is better (all though there is some compression artifacts viewing it on PF on my screen anyway). The orange colour isn't really abnormal with some of the skies that you can get out there. I went to Silverton a couple of years ago (September 2012) with the Sunrise and the Sunset in virtually the same directions as in mid-March. I found that Sunrise worked better than Sunset for the light falling on the landscape. At sunrise the light from the horizon falls directly on the land in the town area. Really nice light At sunset the town section seemed to be in shadow from the sun setting over the distant hill (in a small "hollow" to describe another way). I had to pull up the shadows a lot. Kinda disappointed after such a brilliant sunrise (worth getting up a 4am for)

03-25-2014, 11:16 PM	#11
wizofoz Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Melbourne, Outer east. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,695 Original Poster	Hi Steve thanks for the comments. As you can see from the exif, this was taken at 5:21 pm, sunset was not for another couple of hours. I retired to the shade of the nearby pub for an hour or so after taking a series of shots and came back at sunset, but the dramatic cloud had all drifted away by then and to repeat the first shot in the direction of the distant hills would only have a blank sky. The 2nd shot was obviously taken at sunset. The artifacts I think you may be referring to come from me adjusting the exposure on the front of the structure, as it was in deep shade. I bracketed 3 shots, but I didn't stop to check if I had a correct exposure for the front of the house. (which would of course mean that sky sky was totally blown) I could just use the natural exposure and blend it with the sky/land exposure for a better IQ. Please let me know if the artifacts are elsewhere. I'd really like to get this image right as I would like to print and frame it. I'm finding that the K-3 files are a bit less forgiving in their 'plasticity' than the k-5 files, and cannot be pushed or pulled around as much without developing some artifacts or granularity, but the details of the K-3 files are stunning.

03-26-2014, 09:00 AM	#12
steve1307 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Sydney Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,130	Originally posted by wizofoz The artifacts I think you may be referring to come from me adjusting the exposure on the front of the structure, as it was in deep shade. I bracketed 3 shots, but I didn't stop to check if I had a correct exposure for the front of the house. (which would of course mean that sky sky was totally blown) I could just use the natural exposure and blend it with the sky/land exposure for a better IQ. Please let me know if the artifacts are elsewhere. Actually looking at it once more the compression artifacts or jaggies are only showing on my own el-cheapo Toshiba 13.3" laptop screen. I have the same page open on my work laptop, a rediculously heavy and expensive DELL mobile workstation with a full HD screen, and it looks fine. Have to admit the clouds do make a much more interesting scene than plain sky. I went to Silverton 3 times in a week. Once to scout around in the mid afternoon, then the next morning for Sunrise and for Sunset a few days later. Did not see a single cloud.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-26-2014, 10:56 AM	#13
Gregory_51 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: London, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 343	Hi An interesting image, nice sky, lighting, framing and location. As for the colors showing up different it's frustrating. It looks fine in LR or PS and even though you've assigned a sRGB color profile to it and your monitor is calibrated, when you upload it to this site or some other site it's completely different. I've often had to delete the posted image and rework it to get the colors to show up reasonably close to what I wanted, very annoying. I'd agree with the others the sky in the first one is much too contrasty with no detail in the whites of the clouds. Because of the color changes I'm not sure what the accurate color is. It's a pain when you have to describe what the color is supposed to be as opposed to just looking at the image. The sky in the repost is much nicer but the building and ground look rather dull and dark. The vegetation has lost most of the green and looks kind of lifeless. Again I don't know what the true hues are but I like the hues and contrast of the building and ground in the first one with the sky from the second post. I don't think anyone else mentioned it but I might straighten the perspective on the building that the wide angle lens has distorted. One of those things that doesn't bother some people but does for me. Cheers Greg

03-26-2014, 02:06 PM	#14
wizofoz Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Melbourne, Outer east. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,695 Original Poster	Steve, I have another almost identical shot, taken about 2 hrs later when the sun was setting, but the clouds had gone by then. I thought this one was much more dramatic and interesting. Maybe I need to think about a composite. Greg, cheers, and thanks for he comments. Strangely enough I'm looking at this on an i-pad at the moment and the colours don't look anywhere near as 'fanta' orange as they do on my new Eizo monitor.I agree that the foreground of the first image and the sky of the 2nd image is what I need to aim for. I have another shot at it later today (after work) I tried to fix the distortion of the building, but that gave me a crop where I either lost he water tank or had a crooked horizon. I thought he distorted building made more sense BTW I'd be more than happy to make the raw files available if anyone else wants to have a go at solving the problems. I'm sure there is a PP'ing guru out there somewhere who will be able to do it in a snap