Reading mode: Light Dark

Indoor, Outdoor, Pt. I

Go to last post
S

Sharon Engstrom

Forum Pro
Messages
20,359
Reaction score
0
Location
Colville, WA, US
I found a excellent use for Kims 11-22 lens. Mainly the indoors and out doors of buildings, expecially those you can't get very far away from. This is the Craigdarroch Castle in Victoria, BC.



Oops, no exif. Just started using PSPXI and I haven't got it trained up to maintain exif data. I did use a monopod for the interior shots, but no flash. I figured that wide a lens knew how to pull in some light. I did run the indoor pics through Neat Image.



1/80s f/3.5 at 19.0mm iso400



1/100s f/3.5 at 11.0mm iso400

The exterior shot and this next painting were given some treatment for vertical prespective.





Critiques are quite welcome...I'm very new to using this lens (and the camera for that matter). I haven't done indoor shots before, but I did remember some things AH had done with indoor shots.
--
Sharon

http://www.pbase.com/slengst/galleries
E-500; C-5060; C-765
Lenses: 14-54, 50-200, EC-14 and Canon 500D
 
Hi Sharon,

Really like that first shot. It has everything you need and nothing you don't. Exposure looks spot on.

I've had the same troubles shooting indoors. WB is always a problem and the orange cast seems ubiquitous. Nice use of the monopod for keeping things still in low light.

Now then, for no good reason other than I needed a few minutes play time, I took one of your painting images and did a quick run-through in PSE3 (not my usual software) on my work computer (not my usual imaging system) to see what I could do. I do wish PSE had the same arsenal of tools I'm used to in PS CS2, but I did manage to square things up a bit and remove some of the red-orange cast. It also introduced some other anomalies such as a bit more noise and some spotty color issues (not sure if that's limited tools or limited talent), but here is the result. (Please don't take offense. I'm not saying this is any better than your original... just the result of some playtime and a couple ideas that jumped into my head.) :o)



I enjoyed the tour of the castle, by the way. Did you get to Buchard Gardens, by any chance? I've always wanted to go there. Maybe you already posted some shots and I missed them?

-- Typeaux

The only test of an image is the satisfaction it gives you. There simply isn't any other test.

 
I enjoyed these, I don't mind the vertical perspective. The colors seem true and I like the warmth of the interior shots.
--
Lois Ann
C765UZ, SP500, MCON 40, TCON 17
Photography: 'Freezing photons for the future.' or 'Capturing a story in light.'
 
That first shot sure shows the value of a wide angle lens Sharon. I also liked the exposure in the second picture - the stained glass window came out really nice. Good job!
Marc
 
whaaat ? so now you have the 11-22mm as well ?? "someone's" investing in quality glass aren't they ? ;-))

This castle is beautiful - wasn't aware of it at all! Looks like you did a bit of perspective distorsion work on it. You shot it pretty much face-on, but I guess even at wide angle you had to tilt upward a little. (The perspective distorsion tool that I use in PSP 10 crops the pciture to give more or less a square, thus 'squashing' the picture a little.)

Interior shots look OK - and there isn't that much noise at ISO-400 even though its all shade. Tones are rich and detail is good (even on these reduced versions). The series i did here a while back on interiors was maninly about noise control - we concluded that NeatImage was betetr at noise management than PSP10 (which buthered detail and gave artefacts).

--
AH

Optimum tempus garantitum omnibus

 
Hi Sharon,

I like these indoor shots. In particular I like the way you preserved the details in the chandelier and in the windows, while still showing the interior details too.
Regards,
Peter
 
photophile said:
(The perspective distorsion tool that I use in PSP
10 crops the pciture to give more or less a square, thus
'squashing' the picture a little.)
Click to expand...
Hi AH,

I've found that too. Sometimes I resize my images, using 100% of original height and maybe 120% to 140% of original width. I do that first, then apply the distortion tool, and it comes out better, in my opinion. Try it on a shot with something round, such as a clock-face, or a circular window, and I think the PSP version is perhaps not quite right.

Another trick I use in order to judge what works best, is to first creare a duplicate layer of the original image, and apply the distortion and re-sizing corrections to the top layer. Then by toggling the layer transparency, I can easily compare the new version against the original. Plus it sometimes works to avoid cropping, where the sloping edges of the new corrected image reveal the original version below, if it is just concrete or grass in the foreground, I can merge and blend the two layers. This doesn't always work of course.

I also noticed a difference in the way it works moving from PSP-7 to PSP-X. The later version seems to do some strange things, compressing the lower half of the image and stretching the upper part, in a vertical direction. I'm not sure whether one is better or more accurate than the other. I wish PSP-X had an option for choosing either the old or new methods.
Regards,
Peter
 
I forgot to mention - but I'm sure you knew: PSP-X has two different perspective tools.

One is the "Perspective Correction" tool, which gives a quadrilateral which can be aligned with any part of the image, and the program attempts to fix both the horizontal and vertical alignment. It can be good, but sometimes too powerful for me.
The other is under the menu,

Effects-> Geometric Effects-> Perspective-Vertical (or -Horizontal). This is the one I generally prefer.
Regards,
Peter
 
Hi, Tom,
Typeaux said:
Really like that first shot. It has everything you need and nothing
you don't. Exposure looks spot on.
Click to expand...
The joy of RAW is it covers a multitude of sins. The original exposure wasn't right on, but there were no cars or folk in the pic so I decided to doctor it instead of going with the one with the right exposure...but traffic.
Typeaux said:
I've had the same troubles shooting indoors. WB is always a problem
and the orange cast seems ubiquitous. Nice use of the monopod for
keeping things still in low light.
Click to expand...
This is where I have to tell you, sigh, the wall WAS a deep orange! It was not rose.
Typeaux said:
Now then, for no good reason other than I needed a few minutes play
time, I took one of your painting images and did a quick
run-through in PSE3 (not my usual software) on my work computer
(not my usual imaging system) to see what I could do. I do wish PSE
had the same arsenal of tools I'm used to in PS CS2, but I did
manage to square things up a bit and remove some of the red-orange
cast. It also introduced some other anomalies such as a bit more
noise and some spotty color issues (not sure if that's limited
tools or limited talent), but here is the result. (Please don't
take offense. I'm not saying this is any better than your
original... just the result of some playtime and a couple ideas
that jumped into my head.) :o)
Click to expand...
Oh, well, I'm glad you had your fun! Yes, you did straighten stuff up a bit, but I had straightened it up as much as I wanted to. And yes, now there's more noise and I went to a lot of trouble with Neat Image to get rid of the noise and.... Deep sigh! You are banned! Until the next pics. Go to your room, for 20 minutes!
Typeaux said:
I enjoyed the tour of the castle, by the way. Did you get to
Buchard Gardens, by any chance? I've always wanted to go there.
Maybe you already posted some shots and I missed them?
Click to expand...
I went to the gardens the last time I was there, 3 years ago. I had problems getting good pics, then, always the wrong way of the sun or too much contrast or... I didn't go again. I wanted to explore new territory.

Thanks so much for looking and you sincere comments. Hope you don't mind too much if I fun with you a bit. Now, back to your corner!

--
Sharon

http://www.pbase.com/slengst/galleries
E-500; C-5060; C-765
Lenses: 14-54, 50-200, EC-14 and Canon 500D
 
Marc,
mn88 said:
That first shot sure shows the value of a wide angle lens Sharon.
Click to expand...
I expect I could have come close to that with the 14-54, but there might have been more distortion, beyond the obvious vertical prespective, which I corrected in that pic.
mn88 said:
I also liked the exposure in the second picture - the stained glass
window came out really nice. Good job!
Click to expand...
Thanks so much, for looking and your comments.

--
Sharon

http://www.pbase.com/slengst/galleries
E-500; C-5060; C-765
Lenses: 14-54, 50-200, EC-14 and Canon 500D
 
Paul,
JimRockfordII said:
wow thats one gothic looking place, nice captures, what a great bit
of architecture...nice capture...paul
Click to expand...
It was an odd sort of castle. The original owners were "new wealth", late 1800's, coal company. They went way out of their way to try to impress folk. Unfortunately, the castle was pretty near stripped bare in the 1900's and a lot of the furniture, etc, are period pieces used to replace the originals. Still it was fun to see and try to photograph.

Thanks for looking at these and your comments.

--
Sharon

http://www.pbase.com/slengst/galleries
E-500; C-5060; C-765
Lenses: 14-54, 50-200, EC-14 and Canon 500D
 
Hi, Shane,
SMBooth said:
Well shot Sharon, do you find the 11m that much more useful than
the 14mm in that sort of photography?
Click to expand...
Thanks, Shane. I really don't know if it that much more useful or not. The lens was just on loan from Kim for that vacation and I haven't had a chance to check them out side by side. After all, a lot of the shots were in the range of the 14-54, but there should have been a lot less distortion, as that's what the 11-22 is supposed to provide. I also think it has a lot more light an color, overall. But I want to try some side by side shots before I send it back, next week. I don't want to fall in love with it if I don't have to. They do cost a bit of $$$.

--
Sharon

http://www.pbase.com/slengst/galleries
E-500; C-5060; C-765
Lenses: 14-54, 50-200, EC-14 and Canon 500D
 
Lois Ann,
Lois Ann said:
I enjoyed these, I don't mind the vertical perspective. The colors
seem true and I like the warmth of the interior shots.
Click to expand...
Thanks so much. I think the colors are true. Its not always that easy to tell in RAW. The pics, out of camera, were quite dark and showed little interior detail. Lightening them up, etc., caused a lot of noise but Neat Image too most of that out and left pretty good detail.

Thanks for looking at these and for your comments.

--
Sharon

http://www.pbase.com/slengst/galleries
E-500; C-5060; C-765
Lenses: 14-54, 50-200, EC-14 and Canon 500D
 
Marion,
Marn said:
wow those are really cool shots... i like the old buildings .. they
look so cool .. love the interior..
Click to expand...
Thanks so much. I like some neat old buildings, but there sure aren't any around here. There are some in Spokane, but I haven't had the time to explore them.

Thanks again for looking and your comments.

--
Sharon

http://www.pbase.com/slengst/galleries
E-500; C-5060; C-765
Lenses: 14-54, 50-200, EC-14 and Canon 500D
 
Abid,
photophile said:
whaaat ? so now you have the 11-22mm as well ?? "someone's"
investing in quality glass aren't they ? ;-))
Click to expand...
No, no! Kim loaned it to me just for this vacation trip. It has to go back. New ones are a bit out of my price range, just now, and this one isn't for sale.
photophile said:
This castle is beautiful - wasn't aware of it at all! Looks like
you did a bit of perspective distorsion work on it. You shot it
pretty much face-on, but I guess even at wide angle you had to tilt
upward a little. (The perspective distorsion tool that I use in PSP
10 crops the pciture to give more or less a square, thus
'squashing' the picture a little.)
Click to expand...
I couldn't get very far away from the building at all, because if close in parking and where I was - was significantly down hill from the level of the base of the building. I used the vertical prespective tool in PSPX for the adjustment. Yes, by the time you crop out the black at the bottom of the pic, you wind up with a square photo as opposed to the 4/3rds we are used to.
photophile said:
Interior shots look OK - and there isn't that much noise at ISO-400
even though its all shade. Tones are rich and detail is good (even
on these reduced versions). The series i did here a while back on
interiors was maninly about noise control - we concluded that
NeatImage was betetr at noise management than PSP10 (which buthered
detail and gave artefacts).
Click to expand...
I didn't even try noise reduction in PSPX, I just used Neat Image.

Thanks for looking at these and for you comments.

--
Sharon

http://www.pbase.com/slengst/galleries
E-500; C-5060; C-765
Lenses: 14-54, 50-200, EC-14 and Canon 500D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top