Tricky shot of an old church

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...

so.foxy wrote:
Hi Scott

I agree with the cars in the foreground - they are very distracting
which is a shame because the church is attractive as you say.

I think the wide angle adds something to the photo anyway. Particularly
with the partly clouded sky.

Overall, a good job on a tough picture - but then aren't they the most
satisfying?

H
This church is my test, as I get better I get better photos of it. I
am sure I will be taking many more photos of it over the years,
hopefully with improvement over time. Next time I go to photograph it
I hope the cars will be gone, unlikely to get that lucky.

Scott

Sunset or sunrise...

Sunday morning maybe?

Maybe one step further from sunset, evening?

I like it....

BTW Impressive resume... Sounds very techo!

"Dirty Harry" wrote in message
news:1Y6ff.518779$oW2.214800@pd7tw1no...

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...

so.foxy wrote:
Hi Scott

I agree with the cars in the foreground - they are very distracting
which is a shame because the church is attractive as you say.

I think the wide angle adds something to the photo anyway. Particularly
with the partly clouded sky.

Overall, a good job on a tough picture - but then aren't they the most
satisfying?

H
This church is my test, as I get better I get better photos of it. I
am sure I will be taking many more photos of it over the years,
hopefully with improvement over time. Next time I go to photograph it
I hope the cars will be gone, unlikely to get that lucky.

Scott

Sunset or sunrise...

Nick Zentena wrote:
In rec.photo.equipment.large-format Scott W wrote:
Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
Scott W wrote:

We have a wonderful old church in town, but it is situated in a spot
that make getting a good photo hard.
Today I got one that I am pretty happy with. [...]

What medium format or large format camera did you use?

Well I used a large image area, isn't that what counts?


Depends are you a troll?

Nick

Nope, no interest in trolling. I do have interest sharing ideas with
others, even other who do not always agree with me.

I have many of the same issue as someone shooting LF, A shot takes a
fair bit of time to set up, people look at me odd while I am shooting.
When I am looking for a shoot I am thinking about how I want to handle
the view point, this is what shifting the lens does on a LF camera. I
use a lot of surface area to get my photos, just not all exposed at the
same time. About two years ago I was thinking about getting a LF
camera, but then the one place in town that would process the film
closed, so I had to look for other outlets for my desire to take photos
that can produe large clean prints.

I would hope that many who are shooting LF are doing so for the end
result and not just so they can look cool with a bellows camera. I
image that some might be interested in my photos. I have just started
to really push the resolution up, large prints are getting so cheap
that cost of the prints is no longer a big issue and so this is part of
the driving factor.

Here is another one, sized down a lot, I kind of like this shot and it
might well be my first large (20 x 30 ) print.BTW the trees really do
slant like that, it is not an artifact of the photo.

http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/52292971/original

Clearly in a photo like this there needs to be lots of resolution to
get the texture of the sand right, if it is to be printed large.

This is one of our favorite beaches to go to BTW.

Scott

Bill & Kel Turnbull wrote:
Sunday morning maybe?

Maybe one step further from sunset, evening?

I like it....

BTW Impressive resume... Sounds very techo!

Thanks.

I assume you mean closer to sunset? This was taken not far from noon
and in the tropics the sun is still pretty high even this time of year.
I would have liked the sun to be lower but there are large trees that
start to shade the church not long after I took this shot.

Scott

Lorem Ipsum wrote:
"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...

Focus is the only one you can not,

As if that were not enough. But there are more things a view camera can do
that digital postprocessing cannot.

Do tell us what you have in mind. I had assumed your
original posting ("learn to use a view camera") was
referring to control of perspective. Are you thinking of
some function other than controlling perspective lines?

However, even the focus problem is not solved by using a
view camera. Whether you use a view camera or not, the
lens still has a fixed depth of field for any given aperture and
focal distance. It has been 35 years since I last used a view
camera, but as I recall, tilting or sliding the lens stage to
straighten lines of perspective will not, by itself, bring both
near and far objects into focus.

Then of course there is the simple observation that most of
us don't have view cameras, so learning to use one is of no
help to us. Unless we are either very wealthy, or are
professional architectural photographers, we surely wouldn't
want to buy one.

The problem we all face is to get the best results with the
cameras we have, not to buy special purpose cameras for
every possible shot.

Alan

Alan Meyer wrote:
...
However, even the focus problem is not solved by using a
view camera. Whether you use a view camera or not, the
lens still has a fixed depth of field for any given aperture and
focal distance. It has been 35 years since I last used a view
camera, but as I recall, tilting or sliding the lens stage to
straighten lines of perspective will not, by itself, bring both
near and far objects into focus.
...

It's coming back to me now. Yes, having a movable lens
stage does allow some control of near/far focus in different
parts of the image. I withdraw the above paragraph.

Alan

"Alan Meyer" wrote in message
ups.com...

[...] It has been 35 years since I last used a view
camera, but as I recall, tilting or sliding the lens stage to
straighten lines of perspective will not, by itself, bring both
near and far objects into focus.

Of course the objects have to be separated, but tilts will bring far and
near things into focus.

Then of course there is the simple observation that most of
us don't have view cameras, so learning to use one is of no
help to us. Unless we are either very wealthy, or are
professional architectural photographers, we surely wouldn't
want to buy one.

Chances are you can get a view camera for less than a half-decent digital
camera.

The problem we all face is to get the best results with the
cameras we have, not to buy special purpose cameras for
every possible shot.

The fact of the matter is that most people do not care to explore what is
possible. The chap with $6000 invested in his digital system is usually
pretty much stuck in the groove, committed to spendy upgrades, rapid
obsolescence.

In article . com,
"Scott W" wrote:

I would hope that many who are shooting LF are doing so for the end
result and not just so they can look cool with a bellows camera.

Ha ha we only want to look cool, that's truly funny. 20 years of
carrying 16 + pounds.....Cool :-) All the sh@t I've been through
carrying these cameras cool never really factored that much, but on
occasion it might, I'll take what I can get.

Me thinks the cool crowd leaves the Large camera behind fairly quickly
--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

www.gregblankphoto(dot)com

In article . com,
"Scott W" wrote:

I would hope that many who are shooting LF are doing so for the end
result and not just so they can look cool with a bellows camera.

I hate being conspicuous. I feel like a clown using LF. But I tough it out
to do the job.

Lorem Ipsum wrote:
"Alan Meyer" wrote in message
ups.com...

[...] It has been 35 years since I last used a view
camera, but as I recall, tilting or sliding the lens stage to
straighten lines of perspective will not, by itself, bring both
near and far objects into focus.

Of course the objects have to be separated, but tilts will bring far and
near things into focus.

Then of course there is the simple observation that most of
us don't have view cameras, so learning to use one is of no
help to us. Unless we are either very wealthy, or are
professional architectural photographers, we surely wouldn't
want to buy one.

Chances are you can get a view camera for less than a half-decent digital
camera.

The problem we all face is to get the best results with the
cameras we have, not to buy special purpose cameras for
every possible shot.

The fact of the matter is that most people do not care to explore what is
possible. The chap with $6000 invested in his digital system is usually
pretty much stuck in the groove, committed to spendy upgrades, rapid
obsolescence.

The digital camera I took the church shot with cost me $800 close to
two years ago.

So Lorem, you seem pretty critical about my photo but you have not
really said why. I thought some might object to the lighting or the
cars but this does not seem to be your objection, just what is?

Scott