Deep Fried
Established
I always get asked the same questions. These are all X100, shot raw at -1.00 EV processed in LR 3. And no I didn't use a tripod this time either 
Let me know what you guys think. My intention is to capture tonal relationships. I happen to choose derelict houses because they give me something for the landscape to create tonal relationships with. The brightness of the harsh prairie sky can only be seen as harsh when one views it glaring on something for example. I find that old broken buildings also show the power of the landscape; man's creations are not winning the battle....
Let me know what you guys think. My intention is to capture tonal relationships. I happen to choose derelict houses because they give me something for the landscape to create tonal relationships with. The brightness of the harsh prairie sky can only be seen as harsh when one views it glaring on something for example. I find that old broken buildings also show the power of the landscape; man's creations are not winning the battle....
back alley
IMAGES
what tripod did you use...
very nice, as usual!
very nice, as usual!
back alley
IMAGES
just a crazy thought...but it might be beneficial to see a colour rendition as well...for comparison...
Deep Fried
Established
back alley
IMAGES
but the alberta blue sky along with alberta white clouds can be unreal at times...
BobYIL
Well-known
Hmmm.. good to know..
Deep Fried
Established
yes, true. The better the blue is, the better the gray is though.
one more for comparison. I really don't think I would have made any of these images if I had known they must be colour. For example, had I been out with a camera loaded with velvia, I would have shot entirely different subjects. I intended B&W from the beginning. When I shoot family snapshots, I think in colour and then as such don't often convert to B&W.
one more for comparison. I really don't think I would have made any of these images if I had known they must be colour. For example, had I been out with a camera loaded with velvia, I would have shot entirely different subjects. I intended B&W from the beginning. When I shoot family snapshots, I think in colour and then as such don't often convert to B&W.
Deep Fried
Established
thomob
Established
beautiful photos!
v_roma
Well-known
These are really great. Why the -1EV? Just highlight protection?
Deep Fried
Established
basically yes, it blows highlights in scenes like this. It's really no different than any other camera; that is to say you learn the quirks of how how it meters and combine that with preferences on how one processes film or digital files and you develop working methods. Generally speaking I always have it set to -1 or -2/3 all of the time.
v_roma
Well-known
I was just surprised by how much you were underexposing but it certainly makes sense in scenes like the ones in the photos above (i.e., bright sunny days). And the X100 files are certainly malleable enough (at low ISOs at least) that you can bring out the detail in even very dark shadows. Thanks and, again, very nice work.
Deep Fried
Established
The other benefit to underexposing is that you get density in the sky. You really do have to underexpose the sky in order to get the blue to appear as it looks; and I also need that deep blue to get the grey tones in the sky that I want.
Aside from all of that, I also think the meter on my X100 is off by 1/2 to 2/3 of a stop based on my tastes and how the raw files convert in Lightroom. It's just part of really learning a particular camera and making it do what you want. No different than learning the quirks of any particular camera/film/developing combo.
Aside from all of that, I also think the meter on my X100 is off by 1/2 to 2/3 of a stop based on my tastes and how the raw files convert in Lightroom. It's just part of really learning a particular camera and making it do what you want. No different than learning the quirks of any particular camera/film/developing combo.
v_roma
Well-known
Yes, makes sense. I don't usually underexpose since I can typically pull back quite a bit with the X100 in post-processing but, to be honest, there are times when I do get some ugly blown highlights that I can't recover and I rarely get those deep blue skies except when using a polarizer. If you don't have anything against filters, you should try using one (the cheaper linear kind works fine for mirroless cameras). In addition to helping quite a bit with skies, it also removes some glare/reflections from glass, foliage, etc and might help with the kinds of shots you're going for (not that you seem to need any help ).
).
peterm1
Veteran
Deep Fried
Established
Yes, makes sense. I don't usually underexpose since I can typically pull back quite a bit with the X100 in post-processing but, to be honest, there are times when I do get some ugly blown highlights that I can't recover and I rarely get those deep blue skies except when using a polarizer. If you don't have anything against filters, you should try using one (the cheaper linear kind works fine for mirroless cameras). In addition to helping quite a bit with skies, it also removes some glare/reflections from glass, foliage, etc and might help with the kinds of shots you're going for (not that you seem to need any help
I have never used a polarizer, but you are right it would probably be beneficial for me. What kind exactly should I be looking for?
Deep Fried
Established
Very nice Peter. I like the soft feathery look of the palm leaves
v_roma
Well-known
I think SLRs require circular polarizing filters for AF and metering to work properly (that's my understanding, at least). Mirrorless cameras like the X100 can use the relatively cheaper linear polarizer variety. The one I got for mine was a B+W (49mm Linear Polarizer Multi-Resistant Coated).
