• Welcome, Guest! We hope you enjoy the excellent technical knowledge, event information and discussions that the BMW MOA forum provides. Some forum content will be hidden from you if you remain logged out. If you want to view all content, please click the 'Log in' button above and enter your BMW MOA username and password.

    If you are not an MOA member, why not take the time to join the club, so you can enjoy posting on the forum, the BMW Owners News magazine, and all of the discounts and benefits the BMW MOA offers?

Photo Assignment 01/26/08 COMMENTARY/TESTS

As far as the Bakersfield signs go, I take #2. As for the multiple exposure/zoom WOW shots, things must be a lot different down there since the last time I passed through:rocker Don't remember that much going on.

Ben, Franz, S.Dawg:

I really appreciate all the substantive feedback. There's seems to be some consensus among you as well.

My feelings on the BF sign are the same as Franz's. I feel #2 captures the feel/mood of the town. The others might be good for a chamber of commerce brochure, but I'm not sure how honest they are. Still, Ben's reasoning on his choices makes good sense.

You've all give me new insights into my own work. Thanks.
 
I Sense a Pattern. . . .

It wasn't my intention starting out for this group of photos all to be taken at night, but that seems to be the way things have emerged. It almost seems as though one daylight pic in the three would be out of place, but that may just be me.

In any case, another iconic BF landmark is the Fox Theater, which opened on December 25, 1930.

Here are the two views I'm considering:



 
The more I considered it, the more resolute I became that I'd not take a shot of a strip mall, or a new homogenised "town centre". The signs I shot are everysoddingwhere, as more forestation is cut down to build grey or beige/taupe look-a-like executive homes for the Microsoft/Boeing influx. "Low 400s" for a characterless box, in a row of characterless boxes on an estate or characterless boxes. I did ride onto one, to try and get a representation in photographic form. I was disorientated within moments due to the similarity of what was infront, behind and to the sides. Spoiled for banality I ended up not shooting anything, except the signs.

Hope you like the bird pics instead...there's still some green that's not got a, proposal for development, sign nailed to it.

On the cross USA ride, I met an Indian guy, if I recall Cherokee. He said, "First we gave away land to the early settlers. We had so much, it made no difference. Then the next settler came and asked for land because we had given some to his brothers.
One day we looked and saw we had no land left, because we didn't see it going, except in small amounts each time".

I hope the new home frenzy doesn't take away too many small amounts.
 
245759173-L.jpg


This sign pic is better than the one posted in the assignment, so I have no idea why I didn't use it.

245759193-L.jpg


sans geese!

245759311-L.jpg


Very happy with this shot. Is it a mirror or a window? The book gives the answer.

245759282-L.jpg


Prefer this version with the signs corners cut of, to a clearer more clinical shot where they appear.

245759322-L.jpg


Finally, and I had to crop it to get it to work, I like this because of the hand on the counter, the stick and the writing on the wall.
 
I've really enjoyed this assignment. Not only have I had my camera with me, but now my tripod seems to be living in the back seat too.

I was influenced to take a different angle at this assignment after reading a couple of people comment that they didn't feel any connection to their city/town. I thought that I'd like to show the parts of my town that that makes it home; therefor I didn't go for the typical shots that are used to portray the variety of the city, rather, I trudged through the snow to places that I feel at home; for while I live in a small city, what I enjoy about it is the country feel.

Stage at Greely Park, Nashua, NH
2209421847_5ce740ac8f_o.jpg
 
I've really enjoyed this assignment. Not only have I had my camera with me, but now my tripod seems to be living in the back seat too.

Ouch.

Hi Gail. :wave

It's funny; I've been hauling my tripod around for the past ten days or so, too. It rides very nicely but block opening my top-loading bags. Still, it's helped me get some really great images, at least IMHO.

I really like your three shots in the PA thread. Really nice stuff.
 
Canandaigua, NY

I've enjoyed viewing the photos here, thought I'd finally try it myself.

"Boathouses on Ice"
 

Attachments

  • boathousemed.jpg
    boathousemed.jpg
    84 KB · Views: 78
RFC: Request for Comments

So what do you all think of these? All of these are attempts to show something that is instantly recognizable as to their location but with a somewhat different perspective than what one can find any thousands of times.

my_town-1.jpg


my_town-2.jpg


my_town-4.jpg


The first two were shot from the Jefferson Memorial looking across the Tidal Basin at the Washington Monument and White House that form the shorter leg of the Cross laid out by them and the Lincoln Memorial and Capitol Building. While the first has better exposure of the Washington Monument and sky contrast, it’s a bit tilted.

The third shows just the White House and more of the interior of the Lincoln with more tourists in an attempt to show the contrast of what's nice about living in DC (the history and buildings) and what can be something a down side, i.e. the plague of tourists that make visiting downtown a real PITA!

my-town-test001.jpg


my-town-test002.jpg


my-town-test005.jpg


The next three (above) are night shots of the Capitol at night, (DuH!) but again they seem to suffer from a slight tilt. (note here: a P&S with cross-hairs like the DSLR would be really handy!) These are attempts to show something that is instantly recognizable as being in DC, but with a somewhat fresh view, though I am sure they are not totally new, by any means. They also don’t incorporate the contrast as do the first three (inclusion of the dangnab tourists clogging everything up)! I had hoped to capture some shots of these or other landmarks with some of the street people to illustrate the contrast of whats good and bad in DC, but due the cold there just weren’t any around, so I had to settle on the next best thing, the dang tourists! Ha Ha!

my-town-test003.jpg


And lastly a night shot of 14th street as it transects The Mall looking north at one of the Gubberment buildings that line The Mall. Not as instantly recognizable perhaps, unless you live here, but still typical of the architecture of the many buildings lining The Mall. All these are with the P&S, for the night shots I used a full size tripod, I imagine I looked kinda funny with this iddy-bitty camera on big tripod, but it was that lying on my belly on the cold, cold ground to use the little 4 inch mini-pod that I generally use with the P&S!

RM
 
I've enjoyed viewing the photos here, thought I'd finally try it myself.

"Boathouses on Ice"

That is an excellent first go, nice sky and the ice is very evident, something I'm finding is not always easy to capture.
Glad you decided to join in the fun. Add two more of your home town or enviorns and remember to post your three final submissions in the other thread HERE

Again, Welcome!

RM
 
So I have some issues that I'm not sure I can correct with the camera...

While I'm not an expert, I know that in the "old days" of film, you could control the contrast and saturation of the image by controlling aperature and shutter speed. Even using different film manuafacturers made a difference.

Using my digital, I have been unable to control the contrast or saturation in the same way. If I control the aperature, all I do is control the depth of field and the shutterspeed just stops the action- or not. I haven't really tried going to full manual to see what differences I can get there, but I've played with some long exposures in dark places and liked the final product.

Anyone have tips or ideas?

BTW I've edited some of the pictures I submitted for the project, and like the edited results much better than the originals.

If you'd like to CC these, please, I could use the help.

Here's one I didn't even submit because of several reasons:

Sonoma+018.jpg

I find it too dark (yeah, I had forgotten to adjust it back to 0EV). The contrast is poor, and the distortion from the lens is pretty obvious. This may be a product of my framing the shot, but I find that my little point and shoot tends to exaggerate perspective.

So I changed it in Photoshop (I use Elements):

Sonoma+017+copy.jpg


I used "skew" to straighten the left side of the theatre, to get it more or less vertical but it sees to introduce a "lean" to the buildings which I need to go back and straighten. I adjusted the contrast and like the final product a bit better. I suppose with further editing I may be able to get the buildings upright.
 
Sonoma+033.jpg


I submitted this one. It looks diagonally across a vinyard rather than straight down the rows. Again, as in the last set, the camera is level, but because of the perspective the image appears tilted- also, the left side of the image is "up hill" so technically the camera is level to gravitational force, not the terrain. I like the colors and the contrast isn't bad. An interesting thing about this shot is that everything seems to be slightly out of focus. I can't find the focal plane (I belive it was infinity), perhaps because it's so busy?

Sonoma+033+copy.jpg

Rotated and cropped. I think I went a bit overboard on the contrast now that I'm seeing it close to the original.
 
Hey RocketMan

Ok, I like the dark silhouettes inside the memorial. It accentuates the nameless, faceless masses that are a PITA to y'all. It's very effective, it could be anyone. Also, the second shot of the capital looked to me like I was standing on a runway and the Capital 747 is on approach.
 
Picture This!

You guys are doing such a fabulous job...we've decided to incorporate a new photo opportunity of sorts in the Owners News.

Check the homepage for the guidelines, and get your photos published!:brad
 
You guys are doing such a fabulous job...we've decided to incorporate a new photo opportunity of sorts in the Owners News.

Check the homepage for the guidelines, and get your photos published!:brad

Kool Beans! SNC1923 pointed it out me just a bit ago.

headline in today's Wash. Post "Photo Forum takes over BMW ON!" Ha Ha!

RM
 
You guys are doing such a fabulous job...we've decided to incorporate a new photo opportunity of sorts in the Owners News.

Check the homepage for the guidelines, and get your photos published!:brad

Love it, Mandy. It's a neat idea and I expect we'll get a lot of good/humorous images from this prompt. I'm already planning mine . . . .
 
So I have some issues that I'm not sure I can correct with the camera...

While I'm not an expert, I know that in the "old days" of film, you could control the contrast and saturation of the image by controlling aperature and shutter speed. Even using different film manuafacturers made a difference.

Using my digital, I have been unable to control the contrast or saturation in the same way. If I control the aperature, all I do is control the depth of field and the shutterspeed just stops the action- or not. I haven't really tried going to full manual to see what differences I can get there, but I've played with some long exposures in dark places and liked the final product.

Anyone have tips or ideas?

I'll have a go.

Off the top of my flattish head, I don't think there's anything you can do to film with an aperture/shutter speed that you can't do to digital. I don't think manipulating either of these parameters would influence saturation or contrast in and of itself. You COULD influence either, however, to some degree, with exposure. And that would be true with digital as well--probably not identical, but in the same ball park.

MANY photographers underexpose their images to boost saturation, to make colors appear more rich. This can be accomplished by exposing manually and simply rolling up your shutter speed or down your aperture. This underexposure is usually only 1/3 of a stop, so it's best to do it with the +/-EV setting (I think all cameras have this). In the old days, people would set their ASA (now called ISO) to 125 even though they were shooting ASA 100 film.

Many digital cameras offer the ability to alter contrast and saturation in their menus. You can boost it, lower it, whatever. Fancier cameras allow you to set this as a custom function to be deployed when needed. Others (like my 40D) incorporate these changes into the menu under the guise of taking "portrait," "landscape," etc. shots. Each has its own contrast/saturation setting ideal for this type of photo. I had the saturation permanently pumped on my Rebel XT. Haven't found that necessary on the newer camera.

On the more mechanical end of things, if you are using a DSLR, a polarizing filter and/or lens hood is your best friend for boosting both contrast and saturation.

Finally, most people accomplish boosting contrast/saturation in PhotoShop, LightRoom, iPhoto, etc.
 
So what do you all think of these? All of these are attempts to show something that is instantly recognizable as to their location but with a somewhat different perspective than what one can find any thousands of times.

my_town-1.jpg


my_town-2.jpg

Of the two shots above, which are nearly identical, I vastly prefer number two. Whereas number one is a unique view of a familiar subject, number two is that and it tells a story. A familiar scene is being enacted here, and it bolsters the hidden witness feel that the viewer has when looking at the image.


I posted a couple of shots, one close up and the other far, in my set this week. Bricciphoto suggested to me that the wide shot was better as it adds a sense of atmosphere and that the viewer can see the subject in its context. I thought that was good advice, but I can't apply it here. The first photo just seem bisected to me by the lights. It's a neat shot, but it doesn't work because the receding lines distract. The close-up, however, is a dramatic, very well-exposed image. Seeing it divorced from its context is less problematic, I suppose, because it is so familiar a subject.
 
I'll have a go.

Off the top of my flattish head, I don't think there's anything you can do to film with an aperture/shutter speed that you can't do to digital. I don't think manipulating either of these parameters would influence saturation or contrast in and of itself. You COULD influence either, however, to some degree, with exposure. And that would be true with digital as well--probably not identical, but in the same ball park.

MANY photographers underexpose their images to boost saturation, to make colors appear more rich. This can be accomplished by exposing manually and simply rolling up your shutter speed or down your aperture. This underexposure is usually only 1/3 of a stop, so it's best to do it with the +/-EV setting (I think all cameras have this). In the old days, people would set their ASA (now called ISO) to 125 even though they were shooting ASA 100 film.

Many digital cameras offer the ability to alter contrast and saturation in their menus. You can boost it, lower it, whatever. Fancier cameras allow you to set this as a custom function to be deployed when needed. Others (like my 40D) incorporate these changes into the menu under the guise of taking "portrait," "landscape," etc. shots. Each has its own contrast/saturation setting ideal for this type of photo. I had the saturation permanently pumped on my Rebel XT. Haven't found that necessary on the newer camera.

On the more mechanical end of things, if you are using a DSLR, a polarizing filter and/or lens hood is your best friend for boosting both contrast and saturation.

Finally, most people accomplish boosting contrast/saturation in PhotoShop, LightRoom, iPhoto, etc.

I've generally skipped all the different "mode" (landscape, portrait,etc) on the cameras based on mostly ignorance I suppose. I'll have the check them out. From what I can tell by manipulating the "EV" on my camera is it only serves to change the exposure less than a "stop" or shutter speed. The images appear the same, just brighter or darker... the contrast doesn't look to change much. I can manually manipulate both the aperature and the shutterspeed, but again, it only seems to adjust the brightness of the exposure and not the contrast or saturation.

I guess I'll have to look more closely at the G9 before I drop the cash.
 
Canon A710IS

Boney,

I looked your camera up on dpreview.com.

From the review/spec sheet, I can't tell if you can manipulate contrast or saturation (I suspect not).

HOWEVER

You do have some interesting settings. In the "shooting" mode you have portrait and landscape. I suspect this is just a depth-of-field preference, but it may adjust the parameters in question as well.

Under "My Colors" you have a "vivid" setting. This should certainly boost your saturation. this combined with -1/3EV should produce a noticeable difference. Maybe give it a try.
 
Back
Top