abandoned airport - C&C welcome!

[theregoesjb]

the red triangular thing is made of some light metal sheeting and spins around with the wind, anyone know what its called? the pole used to have a windsock on it, i wish it still had some of the remains.

anyway, im just starting out so im looking for any advice. I used a canon t2i and a 50mm 1.8 lens

 

[Gazpacho]

I definitely like #1 more than #2. The triangle shape really draws the eye in with its color and texture and it feels like a great introduction to the rest of the image. Awesome stuff, dude!

 

[jmtonkin]

Biggest thing I notice is that they are quite underexposed. Also, I don't like the way the pole divides the second one in half.

 

[theregoesjb]

Biggest thing I notice is that they are quite underexposed. Also, I don't like the way the pole divides the second one in half.

click on the image to see it in flickr, im sure they are still underexposed but they do seem to look darker here

 

[SCraig]

They are definitely underexposed. It can be lightened a full EV without blowing out the clouds but even then the foreground is still somewhat dark. Do you mind if I show a quick edit?

I think it's interesting though. Both the tetrahedron and the pole (which contains the remnants of an old windsock) are used to denote the direction of the wind.

 

[theregoesjb]

Do you mind if I show a quick edit?

not at all, id love the help

 

[SCraig]

not at all, id love the help

OK, I didn't put much time in it. The first is badly underexposed which is not uncommon with that much sky and cloud. Just to show that there is a good exposure in it:

If you look at the histogram of your original shot everything is pushed way to the left indicating that there are few light tones. In fact there is nothing in it that is actually white (255,255,255). I just spread things out real quickly so the shot covers the entire dynamic range. The histogram is your friend and can tell you a great deal about the exposure. Learn to use it and you won't have to worry about wondering whether something is over or under exposed.

 

[theregoesjb]

OK, I didn't put much time in it. The first is badly underexposed which is not uncommon with that much sky and cloud. Just to show that there is a good exposure in it:


If you look at the histogram of your original shot everything is pushed way to the left indicating that there are few light tones. In fact there is nothing in it that is actually white (255,255,255). I just spread things out real quickly so the shot covers the entire dynamic range. The histogram is your friend and can tell you a great deal about the exposure. Learn to use it and you won't have to worry about wondering whether something is over or under exposed.

thanks for taking the time for the edit, it definitely looks better.

The way I understood it is that, when things are too underexposed (or over) then any information outside the histogram is essentially lost, right? Does this mean that, when you say there is good exposure in it, that most of the underexposure still lies within the histogram limits and its safe to spread out the range of exposure without losing much quality?

Also, what did you use to do that edit, if photoshop, what tool/filter ?

thanks again

 

[SCraig]

thanks for taking the time for the edit, it definitely looks better.

The way I understood it is that, when things are too underexposed (or over) then any information outside the histogram is essentially lost, right? Does this mean that, when you say there is good exposure in it, that most of the underexposure still lies within the histogram limits and its safe to spread out the range of exposure without losing much quality?

Also, what did you use to do that edit, if photoshop, what tool/filter ?

thanks again

Technically there can't be anything outside the histogram. The left side of the histogram denotes pure black (RGB 0,0,0) whereas the white denotes pure white (RGB 255,255,255). All other colors fall within that range. What happens with an underexposure is that tones that should have a value somewhere above pure black are underesposed so that their values are pure black. This results in a "Clipping" of elements at the left side of the histogram and forcing some elements to be black that shouldn't be. The same for an overexpsure. Elements that should be darker than white are overexposed so that they actually are white.

In the case of this particular image this did not happen on either end though. The image was slightly "Compressed" in that the darkest tone in the image didn't go all the way to the left and the lightest tone in the image didn't go all the way to the right. I spread the tones so that they did which gave the image a much wider dynamic range. I also lightened everything up by a full EV since it was just plain too dark.

I don't use Photoshop. For these edits I used Nikon Capture NX2 which is my preferred editor.

 

[DiskoJoe]

Is this the only part of the airport left?

 

[theregoesjb]

Is this the only part of the airport left?

They demolished a few of the buildings but the run way is still there, and a couple sealed up hangers, although one looks about ready to fall down. The place has been closed down for i think 12 years now, not too long. Its mostly just overgrown.


the runway



parking lot and one of the hangers

 

[bazooka]

You have 2 stops of underexposure compensation set on your camera. That's why all your shots are underexposed.

 

[dhjallboyz]

I love the first one and i agree they are all underexposed. I love the edit of the red triangle.

 

[rambler]

Thergoesjb, you can use this photo to study the histogram as Scraig has directed. Although the writing of the following explanation does get quite technical, I found the illustrations of what exactly the histogram is reading in the various photos quite helpful.

Understanding Digital Camera Histograms: Tones and Contrast

 

[rambler]

First, here is a question for the moderator! When I include a link as in the post above and then try to include further comments after it, all the words, even if just text, appear underlined and somehow tied into the link. ( I include the link by clicking on the globe icon and then filling in the url in the blank provided) How do I add text after including a link?

Back to a critique of Photo #1. Guess what I found to be a very important part....the title. Without it I would not have immediately recognized that it was an abandoned airport. Knowing that, however, I am keyed in on a lot of "abandonment" themes in the story of your photo. The red platform (which Craig S points out is a wind indicator of sorts?) has peeling paint. The pole is rusted and the cloth of the wind pennant long gone, and tall grass has taken over the landing field.

In composition, that red platform has given us a direct eye line right to the pole and old wind sock holder. What better line than a pointing arrow! The colors are a nice combination of deep blue sky and various brown tones of the grasses. To improve the image Scott G has done the work of increasing the exposure. That really helps to bring out the detail. It does make the sky a little pale to my taste that prefers the darker blue.

#2 Cropping might get that pole out of the center. Also, if you consider that pole your main subject, I would really like to see more of it. It is a bit far away, I really have to look too hard at it in trying to figure out what it is. If you do return to that spot, a close-up view of the top of the pole and another close-up view of just the peeling boards of the red 'arrow' would be good photo ops.

#2 As a composition I would say that your subject matter is a little vague, but overall that airport makes a very interesting scene, nice eye!