Old Pier Daytona Bch FL - Bob Michaels
A favorite hangout at Daytona Beach back when I was in high school in late 50's-early 60's. It old back then and really shows it's age now. But so do I. Shot on a very bright cool day with absolutely no cloud cover. I exposed XP2 at f11 and 1/4000 and am still losing some of the highlight detail. The scene was very low contrast so I really had to bend the curve. I'm curious, do viewers think this needs even more contrast?
Camera: | Contax G2 |
Lens: | Carl Zeiss Planar 35mm f/2 |
Film: | XP2 |
Exposure: | f11 at 1/4000 |
Flash: | |
Support: | |
Filter: | none |
Adjustment: | strong adjustment of curves, eliminated bird flying in far background which appears as dust spot. |
Posted: | 06-Jan-2003 |
Rating: 8.29 (7 ratings)
Comments
Contrast works for me
I live in Daytona. Went to DBCC when It was a Jr. College and attended the photo school there. Nobody needs to teach you anything about contrast. This picture contains the necessary range from black to white. I would have given you an "A" for this as a print.
advaitin 07-Jan-2003 at 13:41Unplugged version?
This is gorgeous, Bob. I'm curious, though, as I'm on a non-digital bender lately. Can you show us the image as it looked when it came out of the camera? I'd love to see it.
David Morris 07-Jan-2003 at 14:31thanks for comments
David: the unmanipulated original is posted Charles: such comments from someone who attended a school as good as the photo school at DBCC makes me feel good. Thanks. BTW, if you can't figure out this is the south side. It was about 2PM last Sunday.
Bob Michaels 07-Jan-2003 at 20:22Very good.
I really like the geometry here and the angle you composed. Good tones. That XP2 is an excellent choice to help tame the high contrast in this situation.
Richard Sintchak 07-Jan-2003 at 22:03Still like the image
I think the unprocessed image loses the detail and texture of the building without adding anything to the water. Of course, contrast can change the perception of the day, but I'll stick with this version as the most gallery-worthy. PS, the old school ain't what it used to be, but what is?
advaitin 08-Jan-2003 at 07:45-
Charles makes a strong point that it is in the "manipulated" version that reveals the detail and texture present in the actual objects. The "out of the camera" version is perhaps more reflective of the actual scene in some ways but less so in others. This is a good example to illustrate the risk of labeling some images as manipulated and others as pure. There is no such thing as a pure image to be found on this site. As a matter of process all images are manipulated though certainly to lesser and greater degrees.
Bruce McKinney 08-Jan-2003 at 10:01Great shot
Remembers me of the american school (Adams, Strand). Maybe it could be improved by sharpening the handrail on the foreground and strightening the vertical lines.
Carlo Consoli 09-Jan-2003 at 09:51I still wonder...
Bob, thanks for posting the unplugged version. You have captured an extraordinary composition. But. I still think it's cheating. What might have happened if you shot the original at 3 (or more) different exposures, for example? I know, it's easy for me to spend your developing costs. Perhaps I'm going too far on this anti-manipulation thing...
David Morris 09-Jan-2003 at 14:47Cheating?
That would imply that there are some sort of __rules__ that control the photography world. Totally meaningless. If it's on the web, and it was taken with a G1, it has been manipulated. The G1 does not produce pixels. Who are you to say that it's cheating to adjust the image? The scanner itself has built-in exposure and sharpening controls. Is that "cheating"? I submit that the only form of photography that isn't "cheating" is when you view a raw slide or negative. ANY other form is "cheating".
glen 09-Jan-2003 at 15:35interesting commentary
If I'd been printing this in a wet lab, I'd just chosen a very hard paper and accomplished the same thing. I'm pretty much a straight image, old school, guy. Plus, I don't know too many of those Photoshop tricks anyway. It may be interesting to note that I almost never crop an image. Somehow, I think of the need to crop as compensating for a "compositional error". Maybe this comes from shooting a lot of 'chrome many years ago. Absolutely unforgiving. thanks for the comments. I learning a lot here.
Bob Michaels 09-Jan-2003 at 17:27Manipulation
Glen, I didn't mean to get yours or anyone else's hackles up by my use of "cheating". In fact, this word was recently used by a photographer on this site in describing his own photo manipulation. My intent was lighthearted -- sorry if it was misinterpreted. You are quite right in that image manipulation occurs as soon as the film exits the camera body, basically. But as I stated (apologetically?) earlier in the thread I'm on a bit of an anti-digital bender. Nothing wrong with that, I think. Bob Michaels himself captured my gist above in "interesting commentary". And my wife says I'm getting too old... Regardless, I love the image.
David Morris 10-Jan-2003 at 14:38No worries, mate
If we can't have a good argument amongst friends, what's the use of the Internet? :-)
glen 10-Jan-2003 at 15:09Great image. Looking through the windows gives one the since of being there. My kind of shot.
Howard Tyree 08-Mar-2004 at 14:17