Back Modifications (6)
Views 73 Unique 29 Award Shortlist   

L’Abbaye de Graville

By admphotography    
L’Abbaye de Graville, Le Havre, France.

Tags: France City Church Abbey Burial Landmark Architecture Cemetery Religion Buildings History Tourism Normandie Le havre Worship

WEX Deal: Save £500 on the Sony A7R Mark II


tonyguitar Plus
8 77 37 Canada
22 Sep 2017 2:56AM
Fine vintage stonework and very well composed. Light looks much warmer than the usual 1:26PM. This is lovely yet light at 5:45 pm may have been extra good. TG

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

mrswoolybill Plus
13 2.1k 2236 United Kingdom
22 Sep 2017 9:04AM
This is so typical of the stone architecture of that stretch of coast, flinty hard. It takes me there.

As a general point, F22 wasn't necessary, and takes you into the range where image quality will drop off. Best not to go beyond F16. Remember when you use your lens at its widest angle your depth of field is always going to be very considerable!

I like the fact that you used wide angle with a relatively low viewpoint, it gives the abbey a sturdy, robust feel, a sense of being rooted in the soil. It also brings in those foreground flowers as light relief, so to speak. They soften the impact. I would like to get down even lower, for the flowers to rise up higher in the frame. But that's personal, some people might prefer to avoid them altogether.

My main thoughts are over the mono conversion which does not work for me, the tones are too drab and too samey. The result is flat and 2-dimensional. Look at the histogram for the conversion, everything is in the left side of the graph, so it's all dark to middling, absolutely no light. Sky, church and vegetation are all in the same tonal band.

Increasing tonal range gives a sense of depth, distance. And think about how Old Masters used flicks of white paint, seemingly randomly, to bring a painting to life. That's what this needs.

Remember also that when you add toning you reduce the contrast, you lighten blacks and darken light tones. So you pretty well always need to adjust light and contrast after adding toning.

I think you possibly worked this in Nik Silver Efex, using the Structure slider? It has created quite a marked light halo along the roof edges. That's always a risk.

I've added a modification, worked in Silver Efex. I aimed for a gritty feel because that's what this is about for me. I added contrast for drama, and lightened the blue, green and yellow channels to bring out the stonework and vegetation. I also added a hint of sepia, but no more. It's easy for the effect to turn muddy. It's completely different to your conversion, and may not be what you saw.
banehawi Plus
16 2.2k 4140 Canada
22 Sep 2017 3:16PM
It looks to me as if you have heavily processed your first image?

If so, do you still have a version from the camera with no processing? Could you upload it here, just click the modifications button then upload modification and select it.
Also, the colour profile youve used for this upload is Adobe RGB, you should convert to sRGB before you upload, - it may look different when processed by the site for display.


hi yes ive uploaded the unprocessed version in the mods thanks for all comments very much appreciated
tonyguitar Plus
8 77 37 Canada
22 Sep 2017 8:51PM
Interesting yet the original remains the best. TG
dudler Plus
16 1.2k 1669 England
23 Sep 2017 9:57AM
Some people love the gritty look of your initial image - personally, I usually prefer to let the subject do the talking, and avoid showy techniques unless they actually say something about the subject, increase the way the picture looks the way I felt the sucbject did, if you see what I mean.

I really like the foreground, with the green and blue against the dark soil. In my mod, I lightened the foliage a little by dodging highlights.

And I also corrected the verticals a bit - not completely, as that often looks less natural than a little convergence in tall buildings.

I burned in midtones over the sky to give it more body, more feel - you shot on a quite grey day, which is always a challenge.

I used the Spot Healing Tool to remove a dustbunny in the sky near the top left corner. Dust on the sensor always hsows more when you stop the lens down.

Then I tweaked exposure nad highlights in Adobe Camera Raw.
banehawi Plus
16 2.2k 4140 Canada
23 Sep 2017 4:15PM
Thanks a lot for the original, that helps.

In my opinion, the original benefits with some processing; compared to you first upload though the first one seems overprocessed, and less "real". Thats largely down to personal preference, so take the feedback as simply a different opinion on the processing.I have uploaded a mod using the original

However, there are some general points I would make:

You have a modern 24mpix camera, and the lens your using is a very old design that was designed when less critical sensors were the only ones available; what happens in this case, especially as that lens was never very sharp right from day 1, is that your sensor, being capable of higher resolution, shows up the deficiencies of the lens quite a lot. This is not our first experience of this here with that particular lens, Ive seen it soft and lacking sharpness many times,

Its a shame really as the camera itself is capable of much, much more if fitted with a more modern design; even the more recent IS STM lenses, though not terribly expensive, are considerably better performers. I am a long time Canon user, so I am familiar with their range.

To give you an idea, when doing the mod, I sharpened at 125% to get and acceptable level of detail, and then just barely. Using f/22 makes it much worse, and in testing Ive seen its really poor even at f/11, especially at 18mm. So essentially, you have a sports car, so put premium gas in that tank!




Thanks willie I totally agree about the lens it's one of my worst buys I think I bought the camera brand new with the lens aswell I wish I sought advice first my other lens is a tamron 150-600mm G2 probably not suited for these kind of shots though I am looking at a full upgrade of all my gear soon I was looking at the canon 5dsr I believe it's 50mpix would this be a good camera I also want to use it to do press photography something I'm trying to break into
dudler Plus
16 1.2k 1669 England
23 Sep 2017 9:44PM
50 megapixels is great if your technique and lenses are top notch: not ideal for press work, but excellent for landscapes (on a tripod) and studio work. Press work needs less sheer quality, more speed - Canon users may be able to suggest the right model (well - the 1D is the ideal, of course, but even more costly than the 5Dsr).

If you have that sort of money to spend, I suspect that you should consider Canon's L-series lenses, and not much else. But a simple upgrade to more modern consumer kit will work wonders, for less outlay.
banehawi Plus
16 2.2k 4140 Canada
23 Sep 2017 9:45PM
That 80D is a good camera, and released only this year!. Try the 6D is you want full fame at a sane price, but I would suggest you first try a better lens and see what the 80D can do..
banehawi Plus
16 2.2k 4140 Canada
24 Sep 2017 3:08PM
Canon 1Dx is a sports camera designed for speed and focus accuracy. Try the 6d, older model, - which has a wider dynamic range that the 5D mk2, still available and a great deal. The newer version costs more, but owning a 6D Im not in the least tempted to move to the newer model.

In a recent test of sporting type pro cameras, with testing methodology shown and all results shown, the 1Dx, Nikon D5 and Sony A9 were compared. All are targeted towards fast sports action shooting; Canon has 20 Mpix, Nikon 21, ans Sony 24. All can do 20 frames per second.

The order in which they were ranked as SPORTS/ ACTION cameras was, Canon, Nikon, then Sony.

Tracking focus accuracy was Sony 98%, Canon 94% and Nikon 94%.

With subjects moving towards the camera, Canon 94%, Nikon just failed after a few seconds, (reset then tried to focus from scratch) and Sony could not handle a zoom when the subject was coming towards the camera, failing more than 50%.

Continuous shots without slowing to buffer: Canon 200+; Nikon 120+, and Sony 90+.

Time to clear the buffer and resume full 20FPS. Canon, 4 seconds and never stopped, speed dropped to 10FPS for 4 seconds then buffer was cleared; Nikon 5 seconds to clear 120 shots, no shooting possible when clearing buffer; Sony, 40 seconds to clear buffer, camera unresponsive as buffer cleared.

So despite the glossy reviews, when it comes to camera performance doing whats its designed to do, you have to read the fine print! This is why Canon dominate sports photography, still.


Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.