Lacock Abbey

[Mike Chapman]

 

[vintagesnaps]

You photographed the home of William Henry Fox Talbot - digitally? LOL what, no little black boxes? no mousetrap cameras??

I usually don't care much for HDR because I often find it to be overly processed and artificial looking, but these are nicely done. The first one is well done, I like the sky in that one, and the second one is nice except the subject in the foreground to me borders on that almost artificial look. The third one I like best, I think the perspective is interesting and works well in HDR. I like the composition of the last one but don't think the effect works quite as well with this scene.

I enjoyed particularly seeing your photos of the interior of the Abbey, thanks for posting.

 

[Mike Chapman]

Thank you Sharon for sharing your thoughts I also agree with the last photo didn't think it quite worked, maybe a ND filter and bulb setting would of been a better choice.

 

[TwilitLens]

This is the kind of stuff I'd love to photograph myself. Nice job, Mike! I will agree with Sharon about the last shot: seems a little "overbaked" (as they say), but that's mostly due to the branches against the sky. In my experience, tree branches seem to be the worst offenders. Something about the tone mapping process seems to hiccup and create a halo effect around them. And if your image already sports some chromatic aberration, the situation can get a little ugly.

One small question about exposure #2 (the cauldron): the shot seems to be missing something. Were there any other objects in the room that you could include in the picture as well? I've gotten to the point in my own work where I like to include at least three different objects in any composition just to add some sort of pattern. Human models count, by the way; just be sure not to HDR them...

Once again, love the photos and the setting!

 

[Mike Chapman]

With the cauldron I was just limited to what you see as it was just a empty room, I did try to make the shapes as part of the picture and window of course but other than that I relied on the simplistic approach

 

[Rick50]

I like the 2nd because of the contrast in shapes and colors. Also pretty good hdr.

 

[agp]

First picture - I think the sky is too dark. You want to use HDR to augment what a single photo captures, but not to invert reality. Was the sky really darker than the building?

 

[Braineack]

these all look flat and boring.

 

[Mike Chapman]

First picture - I think the sky is too dark. You want to use HDR to augment what a single photo captures, but not to invert reality. Was the sky really darker than the building?

Thanks you make a good point.

 

[Mike Chapman]

these all look flat and boring.

Well done you must be so pleased.

 

[Braineack]

these all look flat and boring.

Well done you must be so pleased.

The way these are processed they look flat, muted, gray and boring. They all look underexposed and lack any richness in the color. There's no contrast or depth to the shadows--nothing is obviously bright or obviously black.

The histograms suggests there is nowhere near any white in any of these. On the second and third shot where you have blown out windows, the white areas are gray. The blown out sky on the last shot the sky is brown. They look like you added a color opacity layer over top of them.

Given my thoughts on the shots: I'm not pleased at all.

I took your first shot into an online photo editor, I altered the brightness/contrast and levels slightly. Literally made three slider adjustments and I think the shot look MUCH improved:

View attachment 99881

there's now vibrance and contrast. the exposure on the abbey looks good--It has dimension and pops out against the sky, not fade into it.

I honestly believe anyone who said the processing on the shots as you presented them is doing you a disfavor and holding you back.

 

[agp]

I think the above picture is wrong too. Sky is too dark. How can side of the building be so bright when the sky is so dark? That blue streak around 1 o'clock look especially wrong. It might be reasonable to see some stormy clouds, but not reasonable to see a part of the blue sky be black.

 

[Braineack]

I got the same feeling from it too. It seems like it was a decently sunny bright, albeit partly cloudy day when shot, but it was somehow made to look dark, cold, rainy, and dreary out.

 

[agp]

Here's an outdoors HDR for you for comparison. Clouds are white, skies are blue, if I can do HDR, so can you.

 

[tirediron]

these all look flat and boring.

Well done you must be so pleased.

The way these are processed they look flat, muted, gray and boring. They all look underexposed and lack any richness in the color. There's no contrast or depth to the shadows--nothing is obviously bright or obviously black.

The histograms suggests there is nowhere near any white in any of these. On the second and third shot where you have blown out windows, the white areas are gray. The blown out sky on the last shot the sky is brown. They look like you added a color opacity layer over top of them.

Given my thoughts on the shots: I'm not pleased at all.

I took your first shot into an online photo editor, I altered the brightness/contrast and levels slightly. Literally made three slider adjustments and I think the shot look MUCH improved:

View attachment 99881

there's now vibrance and contrast. the exposure on the abbey looks good--It has dimension and pops out against the sky, not fade into it.

I honestly believe anyone who said the processing on the shots as you presented them is doing you a disfavor and holding you back.

OP: Please select an Edit Preference, either "My photos are okay to edit" or "My photos are NOT okay to edit" in your profile page.

Everyone else, given no explicit permission to edit, assume that none exists and do not edit the OPs images.