Abbey of Middelburg

[Cem_Usakligil]

This photo demonstrates how good it is to shoot with a camera (Nikon D800) which can capture a huge dynamic range. Using my previous 5DII, I would have to bracket for this shot. This one is developed from a single raw capture entirely in LR5 using exposure/contrast/highlight/shadows/whites/blacks/clarity/saturation sliders. No other processing has been applied, no brushes, no filters, no noise reduction, no sharpening; nothing. The end result speaks for itself. I hope you will enjoy it. Please feel free to C&C.

 

[Maggie Terlecki]

pretty darn impressive, Cem. Lovely photo also.

By the way, I check out your website every now and then and you don't seem to update it anymore. I wish you would.
Maggie

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

pretty darn impressive, Cem. Lovely photo also.

By the way, I check out your website every now and then and you don't seem to update it anymore. I wish you would.
Maggie

Thanks Maggie. I will get down to it soon, I promise!

 

[Maggie Terlecki]

Thanks Maggie. I will get down to it soon, I promise!

oh, good!

 

[Asher Kelman]

This photo demonstrates how good it is to shoot with a camera (Nikon D800) which can capture a huge dynamic range. Using my previous 5DII, I would have to bracket for this shot. This one is developed from a single raw capture entirely in LR5 using exposure/contrast/highlight/shadows/whites/blacks/clarity/saturation sliders. No other processing has been applied, no brushes, no filters, no noise reduction, no sharpening; nothing. The end result speaks for itself. I hope you will enjoy it. Please feel free to C&C.

This is a much more impressive picture than the one I've seen previously as stock here. Yours is richer in color and the delicate leaded glass is far better represented by your timing of the picture and the dynamic range. The stock picture could be improved by multiplying a unadjusted curves layer, but the shadow of the window is still devoid of details of the stone floor.

So, yes, the D800 does better than a picture taken, presumably by a Pro of the same view with an unknown camera. (Surprisingly the stock image has no IPTC info!!!) I'd love to see you now optimize your picture. You might consider brightening the windows and allowing some light to reach the end of the space.

Asher

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

This photo demonstrates how good it is to shoot with a camera (Nikon D800) which can capture a huge dynamic range. Using my previous 5DII, I would have to bracket for this shot. This one is developed from a single raw capture entirely in LR5 using exposure/contrast/highlight/shadows/whites/blacks/clarity/saturation sliders. No other processing has been applied, no brushes, no filters, no noise reduction, no sharpening; nothing. The end result speaks for itself. I hope you will enjoy it. Please feel free to C&C.

Used to own 2 D800's (one "plain", one "E") until 2 weeks ago... I now replaced the "plain" with D4... The DR that all three cameras can record is truly amazing, but at the end, It's D4 that has more usable DR than all 3 of them, this means that if one seeks natural processing with enough "weight" and contrast in both HLs and LLs, the D4 can retain a little more colour info in the deep shadows and is more contrasty (without being "burned") at HLs..., it also retains colour info nearer to the bright source than the rest... Especially if processing is using Capture One with Adobe RGB camera profile, the shadow gradations benefit with all three cameras, but D4 really excels! Colour is also more natural with D4 and appears with more gradations and is (even) better saturated... All the above at near base ISO, above Iso400, the difference starts to be much more noticeable in favour of the D4. Yet, DR performance of all Nikon modern FFs (D600 included) seems to be a step above competition. In really challenging scenes for DR like this one, the D4 would allow for a little more contrasty windows while retaining the outside info and would show more colour in the deep shadows.

Very good shot Cem!

 

[Asher Kelman]

Theodoros,

I'll be on the lookout for a D4 image of the same Abbey interior!



Asher

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

Theodoros,

I'll be on the lookout for a D4 image of the same Abbey interior!



Asher

I'd like that too... but I don't see it happening any time soon... (LOL). OTOH, I don't think I would chose D4 or another FF DSLR to shoot this... Probably I would use a camera with movements and MFDB to avoid correcting distortions on processing... Now if I could use a Cambo 23 Ultima, or a Sinar P3 or a linhof 679 with my Imacon 528c in 16x mode, that would be a gem... In fact I don't know if the DR is more than the geometry challenge in this particular scene... (with all those bricks, windows and domes involved). It must have being a pain for Cem to work on this one...

I wonder what the lens is... it looks like the 14mm f2.8, but I'm not sure... What is it Cem?

 

[nicolas claris]

So Cem, you made the route to Nikon? HAve you kept all your Canon gear?

Seems a pretty good camera this Nikon ! There is still room for details in the dark channel at the bg…

@ Theodoros : 24.0-70.0 mm f/2.8 @ 24 (it's in the IPTC)

 

[Jerome Marot]

In my experience, using a camera with a large dynamic range is both a blessing and a curse. While people interested by the technical aspects of photography wonder that one can get details both in shadows and highlights, the general public appears to prefer images with higher contrast at the expense of burned highlights and crushed blacks.

 

[Asher Kelman]

In my experience, using a camera with a large dynamic range is both a blessing and a curse. While people interested by the technical aspects of photography wonder that one can get details both in shadows and highlights, the general public appears to prefer images with higher contrast at the expense of burned highlights and crushed blacks.

Put it another way, Jerome, the public want to know what's going on and look for shape and gesture rather than the missing detail on the bride's blown-out veil or the grooms black silk lapel lost in uniformity with the rest of the jacket. These details, so important to us, are missed entirely by those who hire photographers, 99% of the time.

In a gallery, however, the range of blacks, quarter tones and mid grays might be appreciated and doted on, but that's another matter entirely.

Still, in this picture of the Abbey, I'd like the windows bolder and some presence at the end of the space, as now it's too dark.

However, Cem's picture, one unaltered shot with the D800 is very impressive. Imagine that bracketed just one stop each way!

Asher

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Thanks everybody for your comments.

I have processed this image on my calibrated monitor and posted late last night. The details at the back were visible but just, that was my artistic intention. This morning I have looked at the image on my tablet and smart phone and the both don't show any details in the darks, the blacks are plugged. So here is another version with some more light in the background and a bit less contrast, hopefully this will show better on mobile devices.

I have then processed another version as suggested by Asher, with more lights in the windows and also in the background.

And finally, I have pushed darks to the extreme just to demonstrate that there really is usable detail in the darks.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi Asher,

...So, yes, the D800 does better than a picture taken, presumably by a Pro of the same view with an unknown camera...

That denomination "pro" means nothing within this context.

...I'd love to see you now optimize your picture. You might consider brightening the windows and allowing some light to reach the end of the space...

I have processed another version as you've asked for, see below.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi Theodoros,

Used to own 2 D800's (one "plain", one "E") until 2 weeks ago... I now replaced the "plain" with D4... The DR that all three cameras can record is truly amazing, but at the end, It's D4 that has more usable DR than all 3 of them, this means that if one seeks natural processing with enough "weight" and contrast in both HLs and LLs, the D4 can retain a little more colour info in the deep shadows and is more contrasty (without being "burned") at HLs..., it also retains colour info nearer to the bright source than the rest... Especially if processing is using Capture One with Adobe RGB camera profile, the shadow gradations benefit with all three cameras, but D4 really excels! Colour is also more natural with D4 and appears with more gradations and is (even) better saturated... All the above at near base ISO, above Iso400, the difference starts to be much more noticeable in favour of the D4. Yet, DR performance of all Nikon modern FFs (D600 included) seems to be a step above competition. In really challenging scenes for DR like this one, the D4 would allow for a little more contrasty windows while retaining the outside info and would show more colour in the deep shadows.

Very good shot Cem!

Thanks for your comments. The D4 has definitely a better SNR (less noise) and slightly higher DR above ISO 400 compared to D800. This is to be expected considering the larger sensel size of the D4. Also the color sensitivity and tonal range are better as shown in the DxOMark tests. Nevertheless, both are very worthy cameras, certainly above all else I have used/seen to date.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

I'd like that too... but I don't see it happening any time soon... (LOL). OTOH, I don't think I would chose D4 or another FF DSLR to shoot this... Probably I would use a camera with movements and MFDB to avoid correcting distortions on processing... Now if I could use a Cambo 23 Ultima, or a Sinar P3 or a linhof 679 with my Imacon 528c in 16x mode, that would be a gem... In fact I don't know if the DR is more than the geometry challenge in this particular scene... (with all those bricks, windows and domes involved). It must have being a pain for Cem to work on this one...

I wonder what the lens is... it looks like the 14mm f2.8, but I'm not sure... What is it Cem?

Given this situation, I too would have preferred using a T/S lens, set the camera on a tripod (this one was hand-held) or even have a go at it with a MFDB. But this is what I got and I wasn't looking for perfection.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Bonjour Nicolas,

So Cem, you made the route to Nikon? HAve you kept all your Canon gear?

Seems a pretty good camera this Nikon ! There is still room for details in the dark channel at the bg…

@ Theodoros : 24.0-70.0 mm f/2.8 @ 24 (it's in the IPTC)

Thanks for looking at the Exif data, it is indeed the AF-S 24-70mm f2.8 lens, one of the best zooms Nikon has to offer.

Didn't you know the changes I have made? First, I have sold the Canon gear last year. It was painful to let go of the TSE 24mm lens which was truly a gem. But I was looking forward to shooting with lighter, smaller gear and decided to invest in a Sony Nex7 with assorted prime lenses. It was a wonderful camera, really good. Especially the EVF was one of the best implementations out there, along with an auto zoom in the viewfinder when manually focusing. But I am so used to having a bulky SLR camera in my hands with an optical viewfinder, I could not get used working with the Nex7. It took away my joy of photographing things. One of the main reasons why I photograph is to enjoy the process of doing so, not only for the end results. When that enjoyment wasn't good enough, I have grudgingly decided to go back to the DSLR world. I have sold the Sony gear and this time went for a D800 (since I had no Canon lenses to hold me back). Currently I have only one lens, the 24-70mm. The combo is all I need. If I need a bit more "reach", I can crop the image, with 36MP there is always enough detail to do so.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

In my experience, using a camera with a large dynamic range is both a blessing and a curse. While people interested by the technical aspects of photography wonder that one can get details both in shadows and highlights, the general public appears to prefer images with higher contrast at the expense of burned highlights and crushed blacks.

Fully agreed. On top of that, it makes the post processing an issue when the photographer is not experienced enough with tone mapping techniques or doesn't have the right tools.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Put it another way, Jerome, the public want to know what's going on and look for shape and gesture rather than the missing detail on the bride's blown-out veil or the grooms black silk lapel lost in uniformity with the rest of the jacket. These details, so important to us, are missed entirely by those who hire photographers, 99% of the time.

In a gallery, however, the range of blacks, quarter tones and mid grays might be appreciated and doted on, but that's another matter entirely.

This is very true Asher. Us conscious photographers jump through a lot of hoops to get excellent tonality and most of it is lost completely on Joe Public. Or is that so? I have had many comments on my photographs from laymen that they really enjoyed them while they did not know why exactly. But I have heard comments such as life-like, 3D-like, magical, etc. So apparently the small details do make a difference, even if it is unconsciously.

..Still, in this picture of the Abbey, I'd like the windows bolder and some presence at the end of the space, as now it's too dark.

However, Cem's picture, one unaltered shot with the D800 is very impressive. Imagine that bracketed just one stop each way!

I have given you a new version above. I have also taken brackets just in case, but I did not see the added value of tone mapping them since the one frame contained all the info I needed.

 

[fahim mohammed]

Cem, a wonderful image. And one I would have been proud to have taken.

I personally go for the visual that appeals to me..in terms of dynamic range. I love high contrasts and generally prefer b&w. I leave the visibility of all details ( in most cases ) to be secondary to the visual appeal and focus of the main subject of importance.

But that's just me. And hence I prefer your original image...lovely to look at and visually appealing.

An image covering the full dynamic range, usually does not attract me; reserved maybe for scientific analysis.

Best.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Cem, a wonderful image. And one I would have been proud to have taken.

I personally go for the visual that appeals to me..in terms of dynamic range. I love high contrasts and generally prefer b&w. I leave the visibility of all details ( in most cases ) to be secondary to the visual appeal and focus of the main subject of importance.

But that's just me. And hence I prefer your original image...lovely to look at and visually appealing.

An image covering the full dynamic range, usually does not attract me; reserved maybe for scientific analysis.

Best.

Hi Fahim,

I am aware of your preferences indeed and I also prefer contrast above detail every now and then. That is why the original version was processed as such.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Thanks everybody for your comments.

I have processed this image on my calibrated monitor and posted late last night. The details at the back were visible but just, that was my artistic intention. This morning I have looked at the image on my tablet and smart phone and the both don't show any details in the darks, the blacks are plugged. So here is another version with some more light in the background and a bit less contrast, hopefully this will show better on mobile devices.

Hi Cem,

I agree it is probably better visible on particular devices and under other viewing conditions. However, I really liked the window colors and overall contrast of the original. Maybe a middle ground can be created by using the original, opening up the shadows a bit more, and then add a fair amount of Topaz Clarity to bring back the stone wall structures and overall punchy contrast.

I do not want to impose my vision on your image, afterall it is your image, but I've noticed that we do happen to often share a common postprocessing preference.

Just some food for thought.

Cheers,
Bart

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi Cem,

I agree it is probably better visible on particular devices and under other viewing conditions. However, I really liked the window colors and overall contrast of the original. Maybe a middle ground can be created by using the original, opening up the shadows a bit more, and then add a fair amount of Topaz Clarity to bring back the stone wall structures and overall punchy contrast.

I do not want to impose my vision on your image, afterall it is your image, but I've noticed that we do happen to often share a common postprocessing preference.

Just some food for thought.

Cheers,
Bart

Good idea Bart, I will work on it right away!

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

Thanks everybody for your comments.

I have processed this image on my calibrated monitor and posted late last night. The details at the back were visible but just, that was my artistic intention. This morning I have looked at the image on my tablet and smart phone and the both don't show any details in the darks, the blacks are plugged. So here is another version with some more light in the background and a bit less contrast, hopefully this will show better on mobile devices.

I have then processed another version as suggested by Asher, with more lights in the windows and also in the background.

And finally, I have pushed darks to the extreme just to demonstrate that there really is usable detail in the darks.

Out of the three, I prefer the last one, but I would like to enhance whites further so that the light trough the windows appears more contrasty and I would enhance the blacks too to the degree they appear as in the second one.... I agree with Asher that the light coming through the window should be more punchy! I have the opinion that if the shot is processed with less DR..., it will only loose unnecessary info... yet, the result will be (even) more "photographic".
Also, I have a feeling that this shot is best to be processed with Capture One, this should improve both tonality and contrast on the windows further... Perhaps with a little extra work, some light beams (or a sense of them) will be able to appear...

@Jerome, in recent Nikons the ability to record more DR, doesn't force someone to use it... IMO there is two kinds of DR, the one the sensor can record and the (obviously personal) usable DR... I do also only care on what I find usable as you do, but what is usable is there only after the image is processed... For example, with most of MF, usable DR is considerably more (to most photographers taste) than any FF DSLR, while recent FF Nikons appear to record a bit more on the sensor...
From this POV, one doesn't have to end up with a "dull" picture (as I think you implement) to achieve max possible DR... Recent Nikons do beat the Canons in usable DR too... OTOH, some of them (D4 to be exact) can both record impressive DR (maybe a bit less than D800 at first sight), but after processing for natural "punch" in HLs and LLs, it manages to retain both the correct contrast and detail (and colour too as a consequence), ...yet with impressive DR extension, that improves over D800 if the later is processed to achieve the same look.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Good idea Bart, I will work on it right away!

Here is the version processed in Topaz Clarity. Looking more like it.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi Theodoros,

Out of the three, I prefer the last one, but I would like to enhance whites further so that the light trough the windows appears more contrasty and I would enhance the blacks too to the degree they appear as in the second one.... I agree with Asher that the light coming through the window should be more punchy! I have the opinion that if the shot is processed with less DR..., it will only loose unnecessary info... yet, the result will be (even) more "photographic".
Also, I have a feeling that this shot is best to be processed with Capture One, this should improve both tonality and contrast on the windows further... Perhaps with a little extra work, some light beams (or a sense of them) will be able to appear...
......

I have used the LR to convert the raw image because of it's large user base to make my point about the large DR capture capability of the camera. Normally, for any image which deserves better processing I tend to use Capture One Pro or DxO (in case the lens aberrations pose a challenge). Out of the 3 (LR, C1, DxO), LR is my quick & dirty tool to publish on the web and anything which goes to print gets the C1 treatment as a preference.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Here is the version processed in Topaz Clarity. Looking more like it.

Hi Cem,

Not that it matters, but I like it very much. The colors of the window glass have kept their saturation, the shadows have better visibility but are still dark, as in real life, and the stone structures have maintained an 'old' look, but not overly grungy.

A very nice and balanced result that will probably also hold up at full output size. It demonstrates the benefit of having a lot of DR that allows better post-processing because it can be based on actual information that was captured.

Thanks for sharing it.

Cheers,
Bart

 

[Jerome Marot]

Put it another way, Jerome, the public want to know what's going on and look for shape and gesture rather than the missing detail on the bride's blown-out veil or the grooms black silk lapel lost in uniformity with the rest of the jacket. These details, so important to us, are missed entirely by those who hire photographers, 99% of the time.

In a gallery, however, the range of blacks, quarter tones and mid grays might be appreciated and doted on, but that's another matter entirely.

I don't think that this is what is really going on.

First you are opposing galleries and public taste. Even if it sometimes looks a bit as if their tastes were opposed, it does not work this way. Galleries sell to the public and therefore cater to their tastes.

Second, and contrary to what you wrote, the public is sensitive to blown-out highlights and has always been. Remember slide film.

What I meant is that there can be two objectives in making an image. One is to make an accurate, mechanical, almost scientific, reproduction of reality. For this more dynamic range is sufficient. Another is to transcribe light levels as humans need to experience them to enjoy the scene. A completely different thing. Film, especially slide film, had quite limited dynamic range, but it felt better.

My post was just intended as a warning to Cem. I got a camera with one of these wonderful Sony sensors 4 years ago and discovered that I could indeed do single capture HDR before anybody talked about it. Generally speaking, it is not a good idea.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Thanks Jerome for the clarification. It seems you like the sensitivity curves of film better to give the contrast and expression of the scene.

As to your response to my comments, I do agree about the galleries also "reflecting public taste", but that's only part of the story. The "public" for the gallery's fine photography market is much smaller and far more demanding. Also, the personal involvement in the actual picture content if indirect. As a result, there's a narrower view of the photograph for collection as opposed to that for mementos as in wedding or event images.

In the gallery, the human values in the picture is joined by the esthetic appreciation of a well-made photograph with knowledge of and connection to previously recognized great photography. The quality of the photograph is valued, looked for and appreciated, in addition to the standing of the artist and gallerist.

However, for social events and especially weddings, (beyond certain formal shots), the flair and joy of the event trumps technical considerations that we fuss about here. I have considerable experience with the opinions in both situations and they are very different. What brides and their mothers want is the same as the needs of the PR director - bold clear snaps of fun in the moment to remind folk of the wonderful time they had. It's very personal! Of course the stellar photograph added by a Dawid Loubser, Maris Rusis or Cem Usakligil would be appreciated by more than a few, but hardly noticed by most folk that make decisions.

And yes, if the brides dress had spots blown out, but the magic of the event was magnetic and persuasive, likely as not, no one would even notice! They are not after a "photograph" in most cases, but a proof that they gave their daughter a wonderful wedding!

Asher

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Jerome,

Second, and contrary to what you wrote, the public is sensitive to blown-out highlights and has always been.

A number of years ago there was a demonstration in some forum (perhaps even here) with two shots of mild wind-tossed surf). In one shot the highlights (and they only occurred in the tiniest areas of the wave tips) were blown out; in the other shot not.

The difference between the overall "niceness" of the two shots was stunning. Yet by examining the two shots, I could not discern at first what one had and the other did not.

I'm reminded of a time in which a colleague and I were buying various pieces of (mostly World War II vintage) military surplus radio and telephone equipment. They all had the traditional photo-etched brass nameplates held on with small screws (usually several on each unit).

Many of the units were not really "grungy", but they still looked a little "unsharp". We didn't really want to put the effort into an overall cleaning up of their front panels.

But we realized that they mostly had a small "fillet" of grease and dirt on the panel just at the edge of the nameplates.

We found that if we removed the nameplates, wiped the panel where they went with solvent (to remove the little "fillets"), and replaced the nameplates, that the units immediately looked much "sharper".

Today, in homage to that, Carla and I often speak of "cleaning around the nameplate" for some subtle little act of tidying up that has great leverage on the overall perception of a piece of furniture or such.

Taking care of blown highlights is like that.

What I meant is that there can be two objectives in making an image. One is to make an accurate, mechanical, almost scientific, reproduction of reality. For this more dynamic range is sufficient. Another is to transcribe light levels as humans need to experience them to enjoy the scene. A completely different thing. Film, especially slide film, had quite limited dynamic range, but it felt better.

Well said.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Chris Calohan II]

I think everyone is on the right course but riding different horses. Jerome is the closest to my initial thoughts on the making of this image and I see Cem's own edits having a better impact than the original posting.

The blown out highlights will always sit badly with me, especially since they are easy to control either by bracketing or in a LR/CS6 adjustment layer.

In the end though, it is how we each see a vision and as that, each of us will interpret it differently - every single time.

My take was to get enough detail at the end of the hall to leave the mystery but not have it go black. As well, to give a better differentiation on the panes of stained glass and to give a bit more pop to the color within the hallway perhaps accentuating the shadow patterns.