Carl, absolutely love the light in these two (and the interplay of wires/shadows). Could you comment on the technical aspects - any special metering going on here? Also, would a paper print be a direct interpretation of what we see here on the screen? thanks....
Thanks, Lyle. There's nothing special about technique here, just the light. It was around one o'clock on a warm, humid, early summer afternoon with strong but hazy sunlight. Not conditions I normally favor, but it can work really well for pictures of buildings. Because of the hazy diffusion of the sunlight, the shadows are very open and full light and shade are easily within the dynamic range of the Lumix GF1 I was using.
Just checked the RAW files. Both made with the Lumix 20mm lens, the first with -.33 exposure compensation, which actually is my default setting for this camera/lens combination. The second has -.66 compensation, which I dialed in as I was framing the shot because of the larger amount of dark material in the frame. Both got only the mildest of tweaking adjustments in ACR.
Assuming you are looking at a calibrated monitor, the sense of the picture you get should be very close to what a print would look like. To print, I'd change the ACR settings a bit, as always, and would expect the print to be smoother and richer, though less "brilliant" in impression, than the screen presentation. Also, since the native file size yields a 10x13.3" print, you'd be able to see much more detail than you can find in the 1000-pixel-wide web file. I'd expect a 15x20" print to hold up well and provide even more detail and texture.
2 comments:
Carl, absolutely love the light in these two (and the interplay of wires/shadows). Could you comment on the technical aspects - any special metering going on here? Also, would a paper print be a direct interpretation of what we see here on the screen? thanks....
Thanks, Lyle. There's nothing special about technique here, just the light. It was around one o'clock on a warm, humid, early summer afternoon with strong but hazy sunlight. Not conditions I normally favor, but it can work really well for pictures of buildings. Because of the hazy diffusion of the sunlight, the shadows are very open and full light and shade are easily within the dynamic range of the Lumix GF1 I was using.
Just checked the RAW files. Both made with the Lumix 20mm lens, the first with -.33 exposure compensation, which actually is my default setting for this camera/lens combination. The second has -.66 compensation, which I dialed in as I was framing the shot because of the larger amount of dark material in the frame. Both got only the mildest of tweaking adjustments in ACR.
Assuming you are looking at a calibrated monitor, the sense of the picture you get should be very close to what a print would look like. To print, I'd change the ACR settings a bit, as always, and would expect the print to be smoother and richer, though less "brilliant" in impression, than the screen presentation. Also, since the native file size yields a 10x13.3" print, you'd be able to see much more detail than you can find in the 1000-pixel-wide web file. I'd expect a 15x20" print to hold up well and provide even more detail and texture.
Post a Comment