Mission San Miguel with the X-E2

Just to put up a reasonable quality JPEG, here is the bell tower at
Mission San Miguel shot with the X-E2 and the 18-55mm f/28-4.0.
Note the threatening sky about to not break the drought.
https://db.tt/1eb6TCD8

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 6/18/2015 8:43 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Just to put up a reasonable quality JPEG, here is the bell tower at
Mission San Miguel shot with the X-E2 and the 18-55mm f/28-4.0.
Note the threatening sky about to not break the drought.
https://db.tt/1eb6TCD8


Nice image, just a few comments: It is a bit too entered for my taste.
If you like the centering, then try a different aspect ratio. I made
some slight rotation, made contrast a touch less, added a bit more
structure, and a subtle vignette. I also cloned out a small bush on the
right.
Here is my result, (at full resolution.)


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSF0547-Duck.jpg

--
PeterN

On 2015-06-19 02:34:33 +0000, PeterN said:

On 6/18/2015 8:43 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Just to put up a reasonable quality JPEG, here is the bell tower at
Mission San Miguel shot with the X-E2 and the 18-55mm f/28-4.0.
Note the threatening sky about to not break the drought.
https://db.tt/1eb6TCD8


Nice image, just a few comments: It is a bit too entered for my taste.
If you like the centering, then try a different aspect ratio.

I wasn't particularly concerned with overall composition at that stage,
but that is a reasonable crop.

I made some slight rotation,

For this image and subject that was a mistake. The tower is not
particularly symetric, probably due to Franciscan supervised
construction by Salinan indians, in 1797.
The asymetry leads to an optical illusion trap for horizontal and
vertical line perfectionists. Your rotation now has the tower leaning
to the left.

I used the same subject a couple of years ago when the SI was still
active, and back then I presented it as a horizontal and vertical line
enigma. Tony was active in that discussion.

made contrast a touch less, added a bit more structure, and a subtle
vignette. I also cloned out a small bush on the right.
Here is my result, (at full resolution.)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSF0547-Duck.jpg

Otherwise not too bad.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2015-06-19 02:51:33 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 22:34:33 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 6/18/2015 8:43 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Just to put up a reasonable quality JPEG, here is the bell tower at
Mission San Miguel shot with the X-E2 and the 18-55mm f/28-4.0.
Note the threatening sky about to not break the drought.
https://db.tt/1eb6TCD8


Nice image, just a few comments: It is a bit too entered for my taste.
If you like the centering, then try a different aspect ratio. I made
some slight rotation, made contrast a touch less, added a bit more
structure, and a subtle vignette. I also cloned out a small bush on the
right.
Here is my result, (at full resolution.)


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSF0547-Duck.jpg

That's just a crop, Peter. It is only slightly less centered because
there is less in the photo.

You two, on this image, have a difference of opinion on what the
subject should include. The Duck's image shows a bell tower that is
isolated from any other significant structure. Your image is a
close-up of the bell tower.

I wasn't worrying about a compositional crop at that stage, just
presenting th capability of the camera.

The question to be asked (not begged)

Correct, we are not engagd in a circular argument yet. ;-)

is "What do you want to show in an image?". A bell tower in its
surroundings, or a bell tower?
Personally, I'd include the wider view because it shows the bell tower
out there removed from anything else except the wall.

Dont read to much into my intentions yet.

Skipping over the good aspects, my only thoughts of change from the
Duck's image would be to clone out those two spiky things in the
distance on the right. Unlike the bigger spiky things in the
foreground, they don't add anything.

Perhaps, if that eventually pleases the eye.

I'm a little disturbed at the non-vertical horizon. Not the distant
horizon, but the horizon of the structure itself. However, the bell
tower may lean slightly to the right and it's not matter of the camera
being tilted. The bell tower is old, and old things sometimes lean.

You might recall this very discussion several years ago, back in the
days of the SI when I presented the same subject as a horizontal and
vertical line problem due to the primitive 18th century adobe
construction which seemed to be devoid of level, vertical, and parallel
lines anywhere.

Like the Tower of Pisa, some things shouldn't be straightened in post.

Yup! Peter's rotation has it leaning to the left.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 20:22:36 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

For this image and subject that was a mistake. The tower is not
particularly symetric, probably due to Franciscan supervised
construction by Salinan indians, in 1797.

Oh, lordy. Will we ever hear the end of Franciscan bashing on this
group? It's like every other post. How do you know that some of us
don't identify as Franciscan?

On 2015-06-19 05:15:55 +0000, Bill W said:

On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 20:22:36 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

For this image and subject that was a mistake. The tower is not
particularly symetric, probably due to Franciscan supervised
construction by Salinan indians, in 1797.

Oh, lordy. Will we ever hear the end of Franciscan bashing on this
group? It's like every other post. How do you know that some of us
don't identify as Franciscan?

Why? Were you one of Junipero's crowd in California?

The guy given the job of establishing this mission, was Franciscan
Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen along with his side kick Father Juan
Martin. Apparantly neither on of them packed a level or plumb-line.
When the the Mexicans occupied in 1834 the missions were scularized and
the Spanish Franciscans were sent packing.

In 1846 Petronillo Rios and William Reed took over the property and ran
it as a ranchero. Two years later there was a mass murder of Reed and
all in the household. The killers were a deserter from the US Army at
Fort Levenworth and two US Navy deserters, who were joined by another
deserter from NY, and an indian who rode with them.

Eventually a posse caught up with them near Santa Barbara. Three (the
two navy guys and the indian) were killed in the chase, and the three
army men survived and were brought to trial. They were sentenced to
hang, but The Commander at the Monterey Presidio, Colonel Mason (Fort
Mason in San Francisco is named for him) questioned the authority of
the temporary court at Santa Barbara. So Lt. Edward Ord (of Civil War
and Fort Ord fame) travelled to Santa Barbara with 9 soldiers and the
three were executed by firing squad.

In 1859 President Buchanan returned the mission buildings to the
Catholic Church and it was occupied and administered by the Franciscan
Friars of the Province of Santa Barbara to this day.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2015-06-19 03:33:52 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2015-06-19 02:51:33 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 22:34:33 -0400, PeterN
wrote:
On 6/18/2015 8:43 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Just to put up a reasonable quality JPEG, here is the bell tower at
Mission San Miguel shot with the X-E2 and the 18-55mm f/28-4.0.
Note the threatening sky about to not break the drought.
https://db.tt/1eb6TCD8


Nice image, just a few comments: It is a bit too entered for my taste.
If you like the centering, then try a different aspect ratio. I made
some slight rotation, made contrast a touch less, added a bit more
structure, and a subtle vignette. I also cloned out a small bush on the
right.
Here is my result, (at full resolution.)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSF0547-Duck.jpg

That's just a crop, Peter. It is only slightly less centered because
there is less in the photo.

You two, on this image, have a difference of opinion on what the
subject should include. The Duck's image shows a bell tower that is
isolated from any other significant structure. Your image is a
close-up of the bell tower.

I wasn't worrying about a compositional crop at that stage, just
presenting the capability of the camera.

The question to be asked (not begged)

Correct, we are not engaged in a circular argument yet. ;-)

is "What do you want to show in an image?". A bell tower in its
surroundings, or a bell tower?
Personally, I'd include the wider view because it shows the bell tower
out there removed from anything else except the wall.

Don't read to much into my intentions yet.

Skipping over the good aspects, my only thoughts of change from the
Duck's image would be to clone out those two spiky things in the
distance on the right. Unlike the bigger spiky things in the
foreground, they don't add anything.

Perhaps, if that eventually pleases the eye.

I was thinking that something such as this might be subject
appropriate, and in an odd way evocative.
https://db.tt/ZpXGXTgQ

I'm a little disturbed at the non-vertical horizon. Not the distant
horizon, but the horizon of the structure itself. However, the bell
tower may lean slightly to the right and it's not matter of the camera
being tilted. The bell tower is old, and old things sometimes lean.

You might recall this very discussion several years ago, back in the
days of the SI when I presented the same subject as a horizontal and
vertical line problem due to the primitive 18th century adobe
construction which seemed to be devoid of level, vertical, and parallel
lines anywhere.

Like the Tower of Pisa, some things shouldn't be straightened in post.

Yup! Peter's rotation has it leaning to the left.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 23:02:21 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-06-19 05:15:55 +0000, Bill W said:

On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 20:22:36 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

For this image and subject that was a mistake. The tower is not
particularly symetric, probably due to Franciscan supervised
construction by Salinan indians, in 1797.

Oh, lordy. Will we ever hear the end of Franciscan bashing on this
group? It's like every other post. How do you know that some of us
don't identify as Franciscan?

Why? Were you one of Junipero's crowd in California?

The guy given the job of establishing this mission, was Franciscan
Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen along with his side kick Father Juan
Martin. Apparantly neither on of them packed a level or plumb-line.

Yes, I remember them well. Drunks, both of them. That's why nothing's
straight. I tried to warn them...

Savageduck wrote:


I was thinking that something such as this might be subject
appropriate, and in an odd way evocative.
https://db.tt/ZpXGXTgQ

That's a much more appealing image, it looks kinda smooth. T'would be better
still without the tacky border!

--
sid

On 2015-06-19 14:32:17 +0000, sid said:

Savageduck wrote:


I was thinking that something such as this might be subject
appropriate, and in an odd way evocative.
https://db.tt/ZpXGXTgQ

That's a much more appealing image, it looks kinda smooth. T'would be better
still without the tacky border!

Were you thinking of something, more along these lines?
https://db.tt/8YcD8Lp0

--
Regards,

Savageduck