Architectural Details of Biltmore Estate

[Mike Buckley]

Two photos captured using a P&S camera in December 2004. Converted to black-and-white today.

C&C encouraged, though I have nothing to ask.

[rpcrowe]

Very nice dstail in these images, especially from a P&S camera.

The only slight thing that bothers me (just a tiny bit) about the first image is that the "lightning rod" (?) at the top ends almost exactly at the border of the image.

[jeeperman]

Very nice, Mike. The ornate detail of this building is fantastic. Did you happen to make some close up images of some of that detail, such as the statue in the second image?

[Designer]

Hi, Mike. Thank you for posting these wonderful shots! Strictly speaking, they are not "detail" shots, as they are much too wide to be "details". Also, the first one is not straight.

[Bobobird]

Who says one cannot get great shots with a P&S?

These are great. Clean, sharp, lots of intricate detail, etc etc.

Way back to 9 years ago - wow, you do like to go over your old shots. That bottle was obviously handy and helped.

[Panama Hat & Camera]

Mike,
Very nice pictures (sharp and clear) taken with an old (nowadays) prosumer camera! The first picture is a little tilted.
The old buildings have a special charm and you knew how to take advantage of it.
Antonio.

[JPS]

Hi Mike,
I agree with the guys comments above.
Other than leveling up the buiding as already suggested. In the 1st picture I think there are some dark areas that lose detail and spoil it a 'bit' for me. These are the main enterance (door) and the righthand side of the building.
I adjusted them in PP and think they improved things. I have not posted my version to show you my thoughts for two reasons:
1. You may not want anyone to adjust and re-post your work.
2. I know you are skilled in PP and would make the chages yourself if you thought my comment had any merit.

Thanks for sharing.
Cheers
John

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks to everyone for the comments!

As for the first one being tilted, I have tried leveling it using every imaginable strong vertical and horizontal line in the image. Nothing that I use makes the photo look perfectly straight.

I agree that the lightning rod in the first image gets too close to the top of the frame. My guess is that I simply didn't see it in the small image in the viewfinder (as if there are any viewfinders that display a large image). I considered digitally removing it and decided that would be inappropriate. I considered expanding the canvas and decided that would probably not be worth the time; though it's a pleasing image, it's not worthy of a cover shot.

I also agree that the door in the first photo could allow more detail. However, when I tried bringing it out, it seemed to be too busy in terms of serving as a background for the nearby tourists. I can imagine making a different decision about that on a different day.

Sorry, Paul, but I don't have any close-ups of the decorative stonework or statues.

Jim, you might be right about incorrectly calling these "detail" shots. I don't think there is a standard that helpfully defines when an image is a detail shot and when it isn't.

Bobo, I am in the process of reviewing all of my better keepers and converting the appropriate ones to black-and-white. I had planned to finish that project last year but got caught up in using my makeshift studio. I think I'll complete the project in the next month or two, but my wife will tell you that everything always takes a lot longer than I plan...and she would be right.

Antonio mentioned that these were taken using a prosumer camera. I don't actually remember whether the Nikon P5700 was considered prosumer or consumer. That camera was my initial entry into digital photography.

John, I understand your feeling about the shadow on the right side of the first photo perhaps needing a lift. However, I like the current highly contrasty look, not that I'm an informed viewer of black-and-white architectural photography.