photos - comments/criticisms welcome

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 16:31:12 -0500, 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?

I don't think there were any restrictions, but I rarely use flash.

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 18:23:24 -0500, Davoud wrote:

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.

Well, this wasn't a photo trip at all. A friend who recently retired
from the Chicago FD wanted to see the place, and I just took some
photos since I had a decent camera in the trunk. I agree that this
wasn't exactly "photography", just some pics of a museum I hadn't
planned to go to. The main reason I posted the link here was for
comments on the technical aspects of the images, color, exposure,
etc., nothing else. But I do appreciate all of the comments -
everything helps.

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 15:38:03 -0800, Bill W
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 18:23:24 -0500, Davoud wrote:

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.

Well, this wasn't a photo trip at all. A friend who recently retired
from the Chicago FD wanted to see the place, and I just took some
photos since I had a decent camera in the trunk. I agree that this
wasn't exactly "photography", just some pics of a museum I hadn't
planned to go to. The main reason I posted the link here was for
comments on the technical aspects of the images, color, exposure,
etc., nothing else. But I do appreciate all of the comments -
everything helps.

Having tried to take photographs in similar circumstances, I know what
to expect. My personal opinion is that you did very well. I was
fascinated by the exhibits.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2/14/2016 6:31 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 16:31:12 -0500, 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?

I don't think there were any restrictions, but I rarely use flash.


There are many places that allow the use of flash, but in a lot of those
places it is disturbing to others.


--
PeterN

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 20:16:15 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 2/14/2016 6:31 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 16:31:12 -0500, 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?

I don't think there were any restrictions, but I rarely use flash.


There are many places that allow the use of flash, but in a lot of those
places it is disturbing to others.

Oddly enough, I'm one of those others, and I think it's rude to use
flash around innocent bystanders. In this particular case, though, the
place was pretty empty.

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 12:04:03 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

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.

Yes, the consensus seems to be that they are normal looking photos.
That's all I needed to know for something like this.

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.

When I first arrived there, a couple of people were wrapping up some
sort of video shoot. Maybe documentary, or marketing. They were
working with the employees.

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 13:05:00 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 15:38:03 -0800, Bill W
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 18:23:24 -0500, Davoud wrote:

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.

Well, this wasn't a photo trip at all. A friend who recently retired
from the Chicago FD wanted to see the place, and I just took some
photos since I had a decent camera in the trunk. I agree that this
wasn't exactly "photography", just some pics of a museum I hadn't
planned to go to. The main reason I posted the link here was for
comments on the technical aspects of the images, color, exposure,
etc., nothing else. But I do appreciate all of the comments -
everything helps.

Having tried to take photographs in similar circumstances, I know what
to expect. My personal opinion is that you did very well. I was
fascinated by the exhibits.

Thanks. I'm glad at least a few people had the time to look at them,
and to post comments.

On 2/14/2016 10:36 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 20:16:15 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 2/14/2016 6:31 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 16:31:12 -0500, 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?

I don't think there were any restrictions, but I rarely use flash.


There are many places that allow the use of flash, but in a lot of those
places it is disturbing to others.

Oddly enough, I'm one of those others, and I think it's rude to use
flash around innocent bystanders. In this particular case, though, the
place was pretty empty.


Me too, that's why I brought it up. And don't get me started on the
inconsiderates who feel they have a right to take dozens of flash
pictures of little Joey on his 10th birthday. Did i mention this happens
in restaurants.

--
PeterN

Davoud:
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.

Tony Cooper:
That's unnecessarily harsh. The intent seemed to me to be presenting
what the museum is like and what is displayed there. Bill succeeded
very well at that.

Sort of. It was not my intent to be harsh in my judgement. Bill W.
attempted to photograph the essentially unphotographable, as we all
have done from time to time. Like all of us, he didn't do very well.
Nothing personal, not his fault, but due to the way the museum exhibits
are displayed. Not a harsh judgement of the museum, either--the
exhibits are presented for visual inspection, not for photography.

I would note that Bill W. said "...I rarely use flash." That, in my
view, is a mistake. Photo-graph=light-picture. A diffuse flash is an
essential element in nearly all of the fine indoor photographs that I
have seen and in a high percentage of outdoor photos, as well. Use of
supplemental light also saves a person from having to shoot at the
sub-optimal setting of ISO 1600. Most digital cameras perform best at
ISO 200. Looking at Bill W.'s Flickr pages I see numerous photos where
diffuse flash was sorely needed. Black automobile engines where no
detail is discernible; motorcycles where only chrome is discernible and
the chassis are lost in shadow; a black Ferrari lost in its
surroundings (ISO 3200) and, as good an example as any, this photo
https://www.flickr.com/photos/48982192@N05/22372162417/, which had no
chance of succeeding without supplemental lighting, if we agree that
"success" in such a photo means clarity, sharpness, even lighting, and
detail in shadows and highlights.

--
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

PeterN:
There are many places that allow the use of flash, but in a lot of those
places it is disturbing to others.

They should get over it. And they do. I use diffuse flash wherever
flash is allowed. Usually a camera-mounted flash, sometimes very large
diffuse flash(es) if space allows (collapsible 2x2' Profoto RFI
softbox, at a minimum, held by my assistant). Add diffusion to the
short duration of the flash and I don't recall ever hearing a
complaint.

Bill W:
Oddly enough, I'm one of those others, and I think it's rude to use
flash around innocent bystanders.

Innocent bystanders? These aren't firearms, they're cameras!
Photography is the most popular hobby in the world, and people are quie
accustomed to cameras and flashes. One also sees flashes at virtually
every event covered by a professional photographer. Not because
photographers are rude, but because they're using what is necessary to
make good photographs.

--
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