View Full Version : Urquhart - Urquart - however it's spelt!
Tugmistress
01-Jun-08, 13:30
Went on another of my night time travels again last night, down to (insert correct spelling here and enlighten me please!) took a few shots of the castle before the lights went out at 11.20pm
let me know what you think
http://community.dcmag.co.uk/photos/tugmistresss_gallery/images/811213/640x427.aspx
http://community.dcmag.co.uk/photos/tugmistresss_gallery/images/811222/640x427.aspx
Tugmistress
01-Jun-08, 13:31
http://community.dcmag.co.uk/photos/tugmistresss_gallery/images/811218/640x427.aspx
http://community.dcmag.co.uk/photos/tugmistresss_gallery/images/811220/640x427.aspx
I love playing with long exposures, i think most of these were about 50 seconds.
WOW!
I really love these pics, and it's great to see the castle in different light. I have been to the castle so many times, and we were actually married there, but I have never seen it at night!
I love the first pic - the colour is brilliant!
Urquhart Castle is such an amazing place, and has some excellent photo opportunities.
Well done! :D
Lovely Pictures have been there many times but have never seen it Floodlit before thanks for sharing
Great shots Tugs - love Urquhart Castle! Lots of colour going on in no 2 and no 3 looks like lots of fires - thanks as ever!
Those are hauntingly beautiful, Tugs. Thanks so much for sharing them with us! :)
They are all beautiful pictures .
I especially like the first and the last photos .
The colour is wonderful .
North Light
03-Jun-08, 11:57
Tugmistress,
Nice photographs, particularly like the 3rd and 4th.
Interesting images Tugmistress. Did you consider using some flash for some fillin light or a long exposure?
An HDR might also have been worth trying.:Razz
Tugmistress
03-Jun-08, 13:50
Interesting images Tugmistress. Did you consider using some flash for some fillin light or a long exposure?
An HDR might also have been worth trying.:Razz
No, i will not use extra light sources when i do long exposures, i will use what is already there. All the shots i took varied from about 45 seconds to about 75 seconds.
This is where you and I differ in our tastes and styles deemac, i find HDR very false, what i produce is one stop out of camera stuff, which is what i prefer, the more realistic look to things.
I am not saying HDR is rubbish, it's just not for me and my taste.
Different horses for different courses lol
HDR (High Dynamic Range) is a technique to counter the mechanical limitations of a camera and try and capture what the human eye does so effortlessly and naturally.
(For the uninitiated) You take a series of shots (normally from a tripod) with different exposures (can also be called "AEB" - Auto Exposure Bracketing). Normally a couple of stops under and over and one in the middle. The three images are then combined to give a much truer more natural range of exposures.
I fail to see why this is "very false" and unrealistic. Its a facility that gives the photographer an image much closer to what the human eye actually sees.
As you say each to their own. I'm not clear why a 75 second exposure is perceived as "natural" (can't think how the human eye achieves this state in nature!!) and a combined (HDR) exposure to widen the dynamic range isn't.
Your images are very good, I just thought some fillin light might have added a more intersting option. I once saw what the Dounreay photographers did with a multi-flash exposure around Thurso Castle at night taken from the harbour.
Tugmistress
03-Jun-08, 19:14
HDR (High Dynamic Range) is a technique to counter the mechanical limitations of a camera and try and capture what the human eye does so effortlessly and naturally.
(For the uninitiated) You take a series of shots (normally from a tripod) with different exposures (can also be called "AEB" - Auto Exposure Bracketing). Normally a couple of stops under and over and one in the middle. The three images are then combined to give a much truer more natural range of exposures.
I fail to see why this is "very false" and unrealistic. Its a facility that gives the photographer an image much closer to what the human eye actually sees.
As you say each to their own. I'm not clear why a 75 second exposure is perceived as "natural" (can't think how the human eye achieves this state in nature!!) and a combined (HDR) exposure to widen the dynamic range isn't.
Your images are very good, I just thought some fillin light might have added a more intersting option. I once saw what the Dounreay photographers did with a multi-flash exposure around Thurso Castle at night taken from the harbour.
A lot of the HDR images i have seen have seemed false to me, exaggerating the clouds around, darkening brickwork stuff like that and i have never seen anything like it in real life.
Yes the 75 seconds the eye doesn't see, but it is true out of camera images with no messing about on a computer, it is a shot from a camera, not an interpretation of it.
To me a photograph is that, a photograph straight from camera, it's a moment in time captured (however long that time is ;) ).
My own personal goal is to capture images and not to 'interfere' with what the camera sees :)
Not seen the shots you refer to any chance of a link if they are on the net?
Tugmistress,
As you say we have different ideas on what photography is all about. I respect your own notion of image capture and the purist path you pursue. (though I wonder how much of it is based on a bad or negative experience with computers and software usage in the past - I know you've commented before about being baffled by some software).
I would suggest that photography has always been a 2 stage process. The first being the actual capture (ie the taking of a photo in the camera) the second developing the film and exposing paper in the darkroom which could be a true art in itself. (I'm politely ignoring E6 processing to positive slide/film here!!)
Today of course the vast majority now have a complete digital image path with bitmap editing software replacing the "wet" darkroom stage. For me this is where most of the fun and creativity can be had.
There will always be room for both camps (as well as the pure film/darkroom based photographers). I will try and post the Thurso Castle image tomorrow (I also now recall a Camster Cairns image done the same way).
Keep up the good work.:Razz
Tugmistress
03-Jun-08, 20:08
Yeah i suppose you hit the nail on the head in saying 'purist' ;) and you are totally correct i struggle with computer software on editing, not for want of trying either but i just don't personally like the results.
I love a lot of the shots you 'create' deemac so you keep it up too .... i just don't have a creative side i suppose lol.
as you say there will always be room for both sorts, and i'll keep looking at them both :D
North Light
03-Jun-08, 20:18
Ermm, puts on helmet, flak jacket and pops head above the parapet,
Tugmistress,
I think we have to be very careful what we call "true images", in the case of JPEGS all digital cameras take the raw data from the imaging sensor and process it to produce the final image, an on board computer does this processing, the programmers defining what a straight out of the camera shot is, it is quite normal for this to include a boost in contrast and saturation to produce a punchier image. The user can then with many cameras bias this processing to give an end result they like.
Another option is to take RAW files from the camera, and produce a final image using an imaging program on a computer, this does tend to give the photographer better control over the final image, and should produce a higher quality image. The joys of photography are that it can be enjoyed at every level, but I do think we should be very careful about what is defined as correct or true images.
When it comes to HDR imaging I think it is helpful to understand what "High Dynamic Range" is really about.
There is no such thing as a correct exposure from a camera, there will always be compromises to allow for the Images sensor's inability to record the range of brightness that a human can see. At present the best DSLR sensors are capable of recording the same range of brightness as colour negative film, this is approximately 2/3rds of the range a human can detect.
This range is called the dynamic range, at present this can be extended by the use of combing different exposures of the same image to produce a single image with an extended dynamic range (HDR). How natural the resulting image appears is down to the operator of the program, at it's best the final image would look totally natural, but other effects can be created and are no less an art form than "straight" shots.
Extending the dynamic range a sensor can record is one of the major areas of camera development at the moment it will be interesting to see how this develops over the next few years.
Have a wander through the images in this flickr group, some are too obvious but you will also find some beautiful work
http://www.flickr.com/groups/realhdr/
enjoy
Jamie
dives below parapet
Northlight - thanks for the link, some great stuff here.
At the end of the day its all about whether you like an image or not. Personal choice. How it was produced should be irrelevant.:)
Tugmistress
03-Jun-08, 20:51
You don't need your flak jacket jamie lol
ok my brain is very simple, i like things simple.
ie i take a picture, if i don't like it i delete it, if i like it i keep it. I don't mess with them, whatever the camera does is beyond me, i just keep what comes out of the camera.
i use manual settings, i take a shot, i look at the led screen, if i don't like what i see i alter the exposure time. most of the time i use f8 or f11 but have used f1.8 in the past, i usually do landscape type stuff so the higher f numbers suit my shots.
if i get a ratio of 10% of shots that i take that i like i feel like i have had a succesful time :)
as said before, different horses for different courses, and yes 'some' hdr shots look great, but i still think in my own opinion a lot look 'false'.
everything is subjective and to personal taste :D
North Light
03-Jun-08, 21:12
Deemac,
I entirely agree with the comment about how you produce an image being irrelevant, ironically this is what put me off camera clubs back in the 80's.
Tugmistress,
The beauty of photography as a hobby is that it can be enjoyed at any level.
Here are a couple of HDR's I did last winter, hopefully not over done!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3219/2301290663_d291a99395.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/north_light/2301290663/in/set-72157603545796963
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2233/2200529550_c740234d85.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/north_light/2200529550/in/set-72157603545796963
Tugmistress
03-Jun-08, 21:58
A couple of good shots there north light, the second one gets my vote ;)
Margaret M.
04-Jun-08, 02:55
Great pics,Tugs. I prefer a photo that captures the colours just as I see them. Although many of the shots that have been enhanced (probably not the correct word) look stunning, they don't look true to life, in my opinion.
North Light
04-Jun-08, 12:50
Tugmistress and Deemac,
If you are interested in some more beautiful HDR work have a look at Claudia Domenig's pages on flickr:-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdomenig/
Her use of HDR is outstanding.
Jamie
Tugmistress and Deemac,
If you are interested in some more beautiful HDR work have a look at Claudia Domenig's pages on flickr:-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdomenig/
Her use of HDR is outstanding.
Jamie
Thanks for the info.
High class quality stuff. Very inspirational. By the looks of it she has fabulous scenery available for capture and lots of talent.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.