BBQ Pit and Bench with Wagon

[vipgraphx]

One of my recent stays at a hotel offered a BBQ pit to cook on. Here is a picture of the area The bench is well you know to eat on..... The reason I chose these to take was that I really liked the color of the wood and the layout. The background was not as interesting so I cropped in tight. On one side was a parking lot and the other a bunch of electric panels and ac units...


barbqcropped by VIPGraphX, on Flickr

There is not lens distortion on the seat it is actually bowed like that.:lmao:


wagonbench by VIPGraphX, on Flickr

 

[briarder]

I really love your processing ! Do you carry a tripod around w/ you, or do you ususally use in-camera AEB ? How many shots does your camera take ?

 

[vipgraphx]

If I take my camera I take my tripod. I do many handheld shots in daylight or when I am at places bringing my tripod is a hassle. These where 3 AEB shots. My camera takes 3 as it is the D7000 but I will use exposure compensation to go -4-3 +3+4 when needed. If its not time sensitive shooting than I will manually adjust exposures in some cases.

Thanks!

 

[apholbert]

Really like #1. Like the detail in the wood. I have a picnic table like #2.

 

[OscarWilde]

Really nice! And good call not including the "surroundings" these really have a "rustic" feel to them (for lack of a better word, I suppose). Adding a parking lot or power boxes would have definitely ruined that feel!

 

[jamesbjenkins]

OP, what software do you use for processing? I'm trying get this type of clean, natural HDR without everything looking flat. I currently use a combination of LR and HDR Efex Pro from Nik. I like your style in these...

 

[vipgraphx]

^^^^^I use a combo of photomatix, photoshop, nik color effects, topaz adjust and topaz denoise. (note; I don't use topaz that much)

These I used photomatix, photoshop and nik color effects.

and Thanks to all comments!!

 

[o hey tyler]

I personally think that they both need work on composition. There's no real subject in photo #1, and nothing really draws my eye.

Photo 2 is better... But still not terribly grabbing. Perhaps if you'd shot it straight on, perpendicular to the wall. And you also moved the table on the far left out of the frame. It would have made for a much stronger comp IMO.

 

[vipgraphx]

I personally think that they both need work on composition. There's no real subject in photo #1, and nothing really draws my eye. Photo 2 is better... But still not terribly grabbing. Perhaps if you'd shot it straight on, perpendicular to the wall. And you also moved the table on the far left out of the frame. It would have made for a much stronger comp IMO.

No subject in number one, you kidding me? The whole image is the subject , there is a BBQ in each third of the image.I will usually try to be open to your cc, but this time I strongly disagree.

Number 2 I could see that helping if I had permission to re-arrange there sitting arangments but, I did not think to ask.

 

[o hey tyler]

No subject in number one, you kidding me?

No, I am completely 100% serious. I think other veteran shooters would agree with me as well.

Is the BBQ the black thing on the right? If so, it's partially hidden behind the brick structure in the front of the frame. Since this is processed as an HDR (probably also working against it), the tonality doesn't separate the subjects enough. If you had focused specifically on doing a nicely processed HDR of the black BBQ looking thing, that would have been better and all of the other distracting elements such as:

The lamp post
The wheel in the upper right
The smoke stack near the center of the frame
The shelves behind the wheel in the upper right
The fact that the roof appears to be tilting down to the right creating an optical illusion that makes the image appear crooked

I've mentioned this before, and I know you don't believe it, but... Not all images benefit from having an HDR processing done to them. A lot of the time images benefit from having a shorter tonal range to insure that their subjects pop and make themselves known, rather than blend together with similar tonal values and have everything with detail in the image. #2 benefits from HDR, #1, not at all.

 

[vipgraphx]

No subject in number one, you kidding me?

No, I am completely 100% serious. I think other veteran shooters would agree with me as well.

Is the BBQ the black thing on the right? If so, it's partially hidden behind the brick structure in the front of the frame. Since this is processed as an HDR (probably also working against it), the tonality doesn't separate the subjects enough. If you had focused specifically on doing a nicely processed HDR of the black BBQ looking thing, that would have been better and all of the other distracting elements such as:

The lamp post
The wheel in the upper right
The smoke stack near the center of the frame
The shelves behind the wheel in the upper right
The fact that the roof appears to be tilting down to the right creating an optical illusion that makes the image appear crooked

I've mentioned this before, and I know you don't believe it, but... Not all images benefit from having an HDR processing done to them. A lot of the time images benefit from having a shorter tonal range to insure that their subjects pop and make themselves known, rather than blend together with similar tonal values and have everything with detail in the image. #2 benefits from HDR, #1, not at all.

So your a veteran shooter, ok than you should know that there is more to just one way of doing things and if not your lost in your small small world. If you come into a hdr forum you should expect to see hdr images. I am not posting images outside HDR forums, your comment would make more sense if I was posting every image I take outside of the hdr forum. In my world and many others HDR is one of the BEST ways to shoot but, its our choice whether you like it or not and if you do or don't I could care less of what you think. My eyes see everything in focus it does not see Bokeh and extreme blurred backgrounds and I know yours don't either so in reality HDR does give you more of what your eyes really see. With that said I do enjoy non hdr photos and blurred backgrounds, portraits and so forth. I just happen to also enjoy hdr and thus where I choose to spend more of my time on.

You as a veteran may not like what I do or like this particular shot and agree with what I have said, you are also right there may be other photographers and people, (don't have to be veterans) that do not like my composition and method. Its ok I can live with it and will not loose sleep over it. I will still continue to HDR everything I want and you can just deal with it or ignore it.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

I think O Hey Tyler is just trying to help you, no need to get too defensive. I would agree, the first image has some composition problems, mainly the distractions and perspective. The second is much better with strong subject and less distractions.

 

[o hey tyler]

I am not knocking on you for creating HDR images. I think some images you make as HDRs are actually quite nice. Your processing has improved since you first started posting, and I have no issues with it.

But you didn't really comment on anything that I said in my post. Instead you just defended your right to make HDR images, which was only 10% of what I was talking about when I responded.

The composition (or lack thereof) is what the underlying issue is with photo #1. That's the point I was trying to get across more than the fact that almost all of your images are HDR (which is fine).

 

[vipgraphx]

I am not knocking on you for creating HDR images. I think some images you make as HDRs are actually quite nice. Your processing has improved since you first started posting, and I have no issues with it.

But you didn't really comment on anything that I said in my post. Instead you just defended your right to make HDR images, which was only 10% of what I was talking about when I responded.

The composition (or lack thereof) is what the underlying issue is with photo #1. That's the point I was trying to get across more than the fact that almost all of your images are HDR (which is fine).

So I took a long look at the first one keeping in mind what you said. Even though I may not agree I will always review what people say because that is how I am.

So composition wise I can see where it needs work and could benefit from perhaps a different angle, however sometimes when I look at subjects to shoot its not always with the main focus of one subject but the whole scenery as I saw it. The way the light made the wood glow on the bricks and wood I felt it. I will break rules as for me I don't believe in fallowing every rule every time. I do like Trey Ratcliffs approach to rule of thirds and it is to have something interesting in each 3rd of the photo thus why I decided the perspective. I will note that after reviewing your comments I will agree that I should have brought down my Fstop from F11 to F8 maybe even F5 to blur some back ground. I can see where the lamp post and the BBQ wheel on the left side blend in with no separation and other things you pointed out. With that said I think that I should think about not always shooting at such high F numbers when shooting situations like this. I also think that sometimes taking it all in also works. I have no issues with changing things and if you look hard enough you will always find something that could be different.

I happen to be satisfied with both the shots as is, These shots where more about textures and processing more so than anything else. I also think that first would have benefited with some depth of field but these both are not wall hangers so I will leave it at that. Also keep in mind when shooting on location or in places where you make the best of what you have in front of you I think I did. There was a lot of ugly-ness around this area as it was in the back of the water park. At least I did take the time to crop in and remove those problematic areas.