photos - comments/criticisms welcome

On 2/13/2016 11:48 PM, Bill W wrote:
This is the firefighters Hall of Flame museum in Phoenix:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/2j93HY

There is no attempt at art. I'd be interested in any comments on
over/under exposure/contrast/color/sharpening/NR etc.

All were shot at ISO 1600 (I think). And I decided to keep everything
at the original aspect ratio, so some cropping could be better.


I think our images are fine. You have preserved a record of what you
saw, and judging from the comments communicated your vision.
Since you asked for contrast & color info:
I opened in PS, using the camera raw filter I cut back on the bright
lights, made a slight increase in exposure, contrast and black exposure;
then back in PS did a very small levels adjustment. I made the
adjustments to my taste. YMMV

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/BillW1.jpg

--
PeterN

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 10:03:30 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 2/13/2016 11:48 PM, Bill W wrote:
This is the firefighters Hall of Flame museum in Phoenix:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/2j93HY

There is no attempt at art. I'd be interested in any comments on
over/under exposure/contrast/color/sharpening/NR etc.

All were shot at ISO 1600 (I think). And I decided to keep everything
at the original aspect ratio, so some cropping could be better.


I think our images are fine. You have preserved a record of what you
saw, and judging from the comments communicated your vision.
Since you asked for contrast & color info:
I opened in PS, using the camera raw filter I cut back on the bright
lights, made a slight increase in exposure, contrast and black exposure;
then back in PS did a very small levels adjustment. I made the
adjustments to my taste. YMMV

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/BillW1.jpg

To me it's actually a good thing, but I don't see much difference in
your version. I'm admittedly not doing a true side by side comparison,
but it's important to me to know that there is nothing radically wrong
with my processing. That's the basic reason I posted these, and I
appreciate all the comments.

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 09:26:37 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2016-02-13 23:48, Bill W wrote:
This is the firefighters Hall of Flame museum in Phoenix:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/2j93HY

There is no attempt at art. I'd be interested in any comments on
over/under exposure/contrast/color/sharpening/NR etc.

All were shot at ISO 1600 (I think). And I decided to keep everything
at the original aspect ratio, so some cropping could be better.

Given the lighting in the place I'm surprised how warm they look.

I adjusted the WB on a few photos, and then picked one, and copied and
pasted the settings to all of the photos. They were considerably
warmer before that, but I'm sure that one setting was not correct for
every photo.

They
seem a little over saturated to me (under-exposed) but not enough to
really matter - from the raw files that should be easy to adjust.

That might have something to do with the brightness in our monitors.
They look that way to me, too, on one of my monitors, but I have no
idea which of my monitors is "correct". My IPS monitor, the one they
look okay on, is calibrated, but the other one isn't.

They don't seem especially sharp - certainly they would print to 8 x 12"
cleanly enough - but not critically sharp.

18-250 walkaround Sigma lens, and ISO 1600. I did use some sharpening
and masking, but I think I was limited by the equipment and lighting.
I have a better camera and lens for this sort of thing, but hadn't
planned to take any photos, and didn't take much with me.

Noise seems acceptable for
such a print.

I did need some noise reduction.

As photography it suffers the same thing as any such collection - except
for detail closeups, they suffer from clutter around and behind the
subject.

I could probably do some blurring, or gradient filter stuff, but to be
honest, I don't think any of those photos are worth the effort. I like
them, but they're nothing special.

I thank everyone who took the time to look at them, and to comment.

On 2016-02-14 19:52:37 +0000, Bill W said:

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 10:03:30 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 2/13/2016 11:48 PM, Bill W wrote:
This is the firefighters Hall of Flame museum in Phoenix:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/2j93HY

There is no attempt at art. I'd be interested in any comments on
over/under exposure/contrast/color/sharpening/NR etc.

All were shot at ISO 1600 (I think). And I decided to keep everything
at the original aspect ratio, so some cropping could be better.


I think our images are fine. You have preserved a record of what you
saw, and judging from the comments communicated your vision.
Since you asked for contrast & color info:
I opened in PS, using the camera raw filter I cut back on the bright
lights, made a slight increase in exposure, contrast and black exposure;
then back in PS did a very small levels adjustment. I made the
adjustments to my taste. YMMV

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/BillW1.jpg

To me it's actually a good thing, but I don't see much difference in
your version. I'm admittedly not doing a true side by side comparison,
but it's important to me to know that there is nothing radically wrong
with my processing. That's the basic reason I posted these, and I
appreciate all the comments.

It's all good. Stick with what you have done.

That type of museum is not conducive for the casual visitor taking
documentary shots.
Much better if you have a special commission from the museum where they
are prepared to position exhibits for documentary photography, but I
doubt that those curators have thought of taking things that far.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:49:01 +0000, newshound
wrote:

On 2/14/2016 4:48 AM, Bill W wrote:
This is the firefighters Hall of Flame museum in Phoenix:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/2j93HY

There is no attempt at art. I'd be interested in any comments on
over/under exposure/contrast/color/sharpening/NR etc.

All were shot at ISO 1600 (I think). And I decided to keep everything
at the original aspect ratio, so some cropping could be better.

Looks well worth a visit! Interested to see a number of UK items, also
loved the use of hydrants for supporting the chains. (Not competent to
comment on the tech stuff!)

Yes, they do have a lot there, much more than I included in my photos.
You can go here for more info: http://www.hallofflame.org/.

On 2016-02-14 15:03, Bill W wrote:

18-250 walkaround Sigma lens, and ISO 1600. I did use some sharpening
and masking, but I think I was limited by the equipment and lighting.
I have a better camera and lens for this sort of thing, but hadn't
planned to take any photos, and didn't take much with me.

I'd suspect hand holding was more the issue than the lens.

--
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with ****ty luck."
..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02

Bill W:

This is the firefighters Hall of Flame museum in Phoenix:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/2j93HY

There is no attempt at art. I'd be interested in any comments on
over/under exposure/contrast/color/sharpening/NR etc.

All were shot at ISO 1600 (I think). And I decided to keep everything
at the original aspect ratio, so some cropping could be better.

I take it they don't allow the use of strobe lighting?

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 2016-02-14 16:31, Davoud wrote:
Bill W:

This is the firefighters Hall of Flame museum in Phoenix:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/2j93HY

There is no attempt at art. I'd be interested in any comments on
over/under exposure/contrast/color/sharpening/NR etc.

All were shot at ISO 1600 (I think). And I decided to keep everything
at the original aspect ratio, so some cropping could be better.

I take it they don't allow the use of strobe lighting?

It would look horrid with strobe lighting unless you had very large
softboxes and/or additional BG lighting to kill harsh shadows.


--
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with ****ty luck."
..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02

Bill W:
This is the firefighters Hall of Flame museum in Phoenix:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/2j93HY

Davoud:
I take it they don't allow the use of strobe lighting?

Alan Browne:
It would look horrid with strobe lighting unless you had very large
softboxes and/or additional BG lighting to kill harsh shadows.

True that softbox (impractical) was the first thing to come to my mind.
I have two Profoto B1's with various modifiers. But I wonder if two
flashes like my Canon 600EX-RT's with diffusers (I use Gary Fong's
products) might not do an acceptable job. BUT, that requires an
assistant to hold one of the lights.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

Davoud:
...softbox (impractical)...

Tony Cooper:
When I visited the Orlando Fire Museum (which charges an admission
fee) I would have been rather perturbed if someone was there with
softboxes and other lighting equipment.

Well, I did say that softboxes (and by implication, other large
modifiers) were impractical.

The museum isn't that large,
and the exhibits don't leave a lot of room to spare.

And that's one of the problems with Bill W's photos. Those machines are
too complex, too busy in their structures to be rendered clearly with
similarly complex machines in the same frame. It would be necessary to
make arrangements as you said and go in with backdrops of some sort to
isolate the subjects. Failing that, I wouldn't attempt to photograph
such scenes--been there, tried that, failed just as Bill W. did.

If you want to bring in extensive equipment, then make arrangements
for a photo shoot at a time when customers are not present.

Exactly so. Often impossible to arrange without credentials.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm