Back Modifications (1)
Views 88 Unique 53 Award Shortlist   

York Shambles

By xwang
Shambles, a place that it's difficult for me to get a satisfied image, mainly the contrast of light is very strong in light season, and very dark in the dark winter days..but I like this place very much, so I keep trying..Grin
The photo was taken sometime ago, I had processed one of photo(s) that I took at the same time before.
Frankly, both of them are not satisfying. The one before is too dark, and too much noise on the shadow part, but I like the light on the top, partially it was the reason that I took the photo; This one, the path seems OK, but the top is dull, the light is flat.. they are different settings, this one is brighter one(s).
My question is if it is possible to get the light on this one ,and the shadow as this, with my limited gear, eg. no tripod and flash,as you know that I can't carry them...Grin
MODs and comments are welcome. Thanks for looking.

Tags: Street York Architecture Hdr Medieval Shambles Half-timbered house


nonur 13 18 13 Turkey
12 Sep 2015 11:32AM
Modern people in a Medieval street, a very pleasing image, Jasmine.
LynneJoyce Plus
13 22 101 United Kingdom
12 Sep 2015 11:35AM
I don't see the problem Jasmine, the dark bits are dark, the light bits are light. That's the way it is in this delightful location. This is lovely as was the last one.
12 Sep 2015 12:28PM
I see it as it is Jasmine, a fine image of this lovely place.
Mollycat Plus
8 21 2 United Kingdom
12 Sep 2015 1:55PM
Light and composition works perfectly for me.
Rock 19 10 2 England
12 Sep 2015 4:29PM
You must consider yourself very-very lucky to shots in the Shambles without many tourists !

Grand capture.

Rock of York.
banehawi Plus
17 2.7k 4282 Canada
12 Sep 2015 4:48PM
Both images are done using in-camera HDR. I notice that in this one, you are using a very wide spacing of the exposures, - it looks like +/- 8 stops (1/100 vs 1/800, vs 1/13) which in my mind is way to wide.

In the other shot, you used a closer spread, =?- 4 stops, - still too wide I would think, but you need to experiment a bit more. I would try a +/- 2 stops, or a +/- 3 stops, and no more.

If you have tried this narrower spacing before, let us know how it turned out, and why you are going so wide?

Also, are you using the in-camera HDR, or are you/have you used the three individual shots to make your own exposure, NON HDR?

xwang 12 56 8
12 Sep 2015 7:38PM
Hello Willie,
Thank you for the comments.
This is not in Camera HDR, shot as three frames in camera HDR, but processed the three frames with Photomatix, as the first one, I didn't like the HDR sky so I used the original under-exposed sky instead. I remembered that I set at +/- 3 stops. Normally I set at +/- 2 stops, but it didn't work here, the contrast was too strong.
( I just had another look after you mentioned the stops, I really don't know why the camera setting was like this, set as 1/100sec, with +/-3 stop, the three frames came out as 1/13/100/800sec. I can't trace back the one before, because I had deleted them all.)
BTW, I have too many photos, I don't know what to do with them, I have over 3TB full RAW file, only small amount has been processed. I'm going for an external 5TB hard drive as storage this time... What do you do with them? Is it worth to convert them into DNG file for the sake of 15-20% space or keep them as CR2? Somebody's against to convert, because it wouldn't be "recognizable" by other software, or to say as accurate as RAW... any ideas, Willie?

Thank you all for the kind comments.
dudler Plus
18 1.8k 1895 England
12 Sep 2015 11:20PM
Despite the issues Willie raises, this is nice HDR: subtle and gentle.

I suggest that you accept that a collection of external drives is part of modern photography: I have nearly a dozen around my computer (and backup drives at my sister's house).

I'm sure you can get the effect you want with your gear: you did before. The issue seems to be the way the three frames were exposed. I don't know what you need to change, though, I'm afraid. Willie's suggestions are likely to include the solution!

I think I'd have framed to exclude the windows on the left, but all of the solicitors' sign. See mod for the extra crop on the left.
xwang 12 56 8
13 Sep 2015 12:04AM
Thank you for the MOD and comment, John.
Quote:I suggest that you accept that a collection of external drives is part of modern photography
Sure, but I see this is no end.. I only take photos when I visit places, I use up 1TB within 6 months. This is the problem with digital, we were careful with films, of course you may say that you can delete them...but it's hard when I take them as record, especially the places that are unlikely to be re-visited.
Quote: I have nearly a dozen around my computer (and backup drives at my sister's house).
.. Ha,ha.. I don't have 12 USB sockets, and I don't have a sister..Grin. No, seriously I read somewhere that the external hard drive needs to be kept active, otherwise the file could be corrupted, true or not, I don't know.. that's why I brought a 5TB one instead of 1TB&2TB(s), before I thought if something had gone wrong, I wouldn't have lost much,only 1 or 2TB's files...but if they 'pile-up' one day, it's difficult to keep everyone active... of course, if a large external hard drive goes wrong, more file would be lost.. actually anything can go wrong, I haven't heard any Nondestructive way yet, let me know if you know any...Smile Thanks again.
dark_lord Plus
17 2.9k 795 England
13 Sep 2015 10:28AM
The digital age has ushered in a new paranoia. Nobody was this precious with their film shots. However, if one hard drive goes you will most likely lose thousands of images whereas a few damaged negs or slides can at least be looked at and you shouldn't lose everything unless you were unfortunate enough to be caught up in a flood for example.

Storage can cause issues, yes.
I know some people like to keep everything they take even if they only process a few images to show or upload.
But my approach has always been to be ruthless. Similar shots and those that don't make the grade just get deleted, unless there is an overriding factor. Those that I don't consider worth keeping are never going to get used, so I don't want them as clutter.
Rather ten decent images kept than a hundred also rans.
xwang 12 56 8
13 Sep 2015 11:09AM
Thank you Keith.
True, I am starting to delete this year's ones, that's why these photos get processed now, but most of the time I have never had the time to look at them after uploading them and also I prefer to "cool" them down for a while, because what I "love" so much at the moment I take may lose my favor after a while...Grin But there is a regret sometimes somehow, like the one before, I can't tell Willie the original setting of those three photos anymore, since I had deleted them.
Thanks again.
banehawi Plus
17 2.7k 4282 Canada
14 Sep 2015 5:07PM
You really have to delete most of them I think, as mentioned, - we lot keep way to many of the "almost" category, where we really need to be ruthless.

The camera really did use a spread mush wider than you intended, so perhaps there was a limitation with aperture or ISO that affected it?

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.