Blair Mill Sheave Tower - Spring

[Manfred M]

We spent the weekend in the Kitchener-Waterloo area and the weather cooperated and I was able to get out a couple of times to shoot the Blair Mill Sheave Tower. This is the third set in the spring. The snow is gone and the first hints of new green colours can be seen poking through the ground.

These shots were taken fairly early in the morning; this image was shot about 09:00 in the morning; a bit past "magic hour", but when the sun warmed up a bit and was high enough to cast shadows on the mill.

This was my first serious bit of shooting with the Nikkor 24mm f/3.5 PC-E lens, so no perspective adjustments were necessary in post.


BMP-SPRING01




This was also the first time I was out playing around with my new mFT Panasonic GX7. The shot shows the tripod with my D800.



BMP-SPRING02



BMP-SPRING03




BMP-SPRING04




BMP-SPRING05




BMP-SPRING06



BMP-SPRING07



The Fall and Winter series are:

Fall: Sheave Tower - Blair Mill
Winter: Sheave Tower - Blair Mill - Winter series


I expect I will be posting some more shots as I process them over the next few days

[Shadowman]

Nice seasonal follow up.

[tbob]

The series is quite intriguing. It is fascinating to monitor the change over the seasons

I looked back over the series and in fall and winter you got shots almost directly across from the tower. Is the ground too soft now?

[Manfred M]

The series is quite intriguing. It is fascinating to monitor the change over the seasons

I looked back over the series and in fall and winter you got shots almost directly across from the tower. Is the ground too soft now?

The ground was quite soft indeed (and I have the muddy boots to prove it), but no, I have those shots. I just haven't gotten around to running those shots through Photoshop and posting them yet.

[John 2]

Really like the composition of the first one Manfred. That's a nice shot. Interesting (given the debate of the last few days) that there is not much difference in the apparent (I choose my words carefully) quality between the two shots. There is also a colour difference. I prefer the first for that also because it looks more natural. Is that down to the cameras or as a result of the changing light?

[Manfred M]

John - Thanks for the comments.

The first image is actually a hand-blend of three bracketed images shot at -2 0 +2 stops, i.e. same dynamic range as what one would normally build into an HDR image, without the computer / software messing everything up. I tweaked all three RAW files to get each one looking its best before stacking and blending them.

The sky is blended from the -2 stop image and the sheave tower has a touch of the darker colours as well. The trees and bridge on the right were lightened using the +2 exposure image. I think I am going to go back and do a bit more in process sharpening on that part of the image.

The second shot is a single image, also from a RAW file, that more or less corresponds to the middle image, also a RAW file, and just a bit of sharpening, adding a touch of a vignette, etc. Frankly, at the size displayed here, I would be shocked to see any image quality differences as both images are downsized. On the other hand, when I upsample these to the large print size (17" x 22") that I usually use, there is simply no comparison.

At normal viewing range, the full-frame image is sharp and the tonality comes through beautifully, but the mFT image is definitely showing signs of over enlargement and pixelation, again as expected. In spite of having a sensor that is about a 1-1/2 years younger than the D800 (it was announced in Feb 2012 and the GX7 in Aug 2013), size does really make a difference. The Nikkor 24mm f/3.5 PC-E is also a much better lens than the Lumix 14-140mm (f/4 - f/5.8), even though the shots were taken in / near the "sweet spot" range of both lenses.

Again, this is really the reason for my careful response in the whole sensor size / camera discussion. When posting a downsampled image that has been converted to sRGB on the web, the advantages of a full-frame (or larger) camera are largely negated by the limitations of the smaller format. In fact, to oversimplify, the only advantage in the final result of a larger versus smaller sensor camera posted on the web is really the impact of background blurring due to the shallower DoF.

[Downrigger]

Very nice, Manfred, and thank you for the technique background of how you made this. I tried out the PC-E for a few days and liked it - bright and sharp, before opting for the simpler and more versatile 16-35.

The image blending worked well. I wonder if there is a plug-in for LR for blending since I would like to work with that, but can't with only the LR/Nik software that I am using and I agree that the (Nik) HDR tends to take you somewhere other than where you wanted to go.

[John 2]

John - Thanks for the comments.

............ Frankly, at the size displayed here, I would be shocked to see any image quality differences as both images are downsized. On the other hand, when I upsample these to the large print size (17" x 22") that I usually use, there is simply no comparison.

Again, this is really the reason for my careful response in the whole sensor size / camera discussion. When posting a downsampled image that has been converted to sRGB on the web, the advantages of a full-frame (or larger) camera are largely negated by the limitations of the smaller format. In fact, to oversimplify, the only advantage in the final result of a larger versus smaller sensor camera posted on the web is really the impact of background blurring due to the shallower DoF.

I couldn't agree more Manfred - hence my careful use of the word "apparent". Horses for courses.

[John 2]

John - Thanks for the comments.

............ Frankly, at the size displayed here, I would be shocked to see any image quality differences as both images are downsized. On the other hand, when I upsample these to the large print size (17" x 22") that I usually use, there is simply no comparison.

Again, this is really the reason for my careful response in the whole sensor size / camera discussion. When posting a downsampled image that has been converted to sRGB on the web, the advantages of a full-frame (or larger) camera are largely negated by the limitations of the smaller format. In fact, to oversimplify, the only advantage in the final result of a larger versus smaller sensor camera posted on the web is really the impact of background blurring due to the shallower DoF.

I couldn't agree more Manfred - hence my careful use of the word "apparent". Horses for courses.

[Manfred M]

Very nice, Manfred, and thank you for the technique background of how you made this. I tried out the PC-E for a few days and liked it - bright and sharp, before opting for the simpler and more versatile 16-35.

The image blending worked well. I wonder if there is a plug-in for LR for blending since I would like to work with that, but can't with only the LR/Nik software that I am using and I agree that the (Nik) HDR tends to take you somewhere other than where you wanted to go.

Mark - unfortunately, the technique I use requires layers and layer masks (and clipping masks, although I did not use any on this image, yet); something that Lightroom does not (and probably cannot) support.

[Downrigger]

Mark - unfortunately, the technique I use requires layers and layer masks (and clipping masks, although I did not use any on this image, yet); something that Lightroom does not (and probably cannot) support.

Thanks, Manfred. The open source "Enfuse" is out there and seems to have some decent press - I wonder if there is any experience with it here.

[Manfred M]

Mark - I downloaded Enfuse and played around with it for a bit.

The good news is that is avoids the "problems" of HDRI / tone mapping, although these can be avoided by using these tools more subtly. I've seen some examples of HDRI that are absolutely sublime; but these unfortunately are the exception, not the rule.

The bad news is that a computer algorithm is still making some of the decisions. There are a few users here of CiC that seem to be quite happy with it. If you are using Lightroom, you do have to use something that merges multiple images into a single image.

As a Lightroom user, I think this will be a good option for you to try, but as a Photoshop user, I don't see any real advantage to me as I have a far more sophisticated set of tools I can turn to.

[AndrewMcD]

I'm really enjoying this project and the accompanying discussions of processing. This level of PP is beyond my skill (I struggle to just understand what y'all are talking about) or software capabilities (LR5) but excites me with the possibilities. I like this idea of revisiting a location periodically, I need to find an appropriate subject. Looking forward to seeing what the summer images bring!

Andrew

[AndrewMcD]

I'm really enjoying this project and the accompanying discussions of processing. This level of PP is beyond my skill (I struggle to just understand what y'all are talking about) or software capabilities (LR5) but excites me with the possibilities. I like this idea of revisiting a location periodically, I need to find an appropriate subject. Looking forward to seeing what the summer images bring!

Andrew

[Mike Buckley]

So glad to see the third installment of the series. Highly enjoyable!

[bnnrcn]

Hi Manfred. #1 looks wonderful and thanks for the explanation about it. I like the composition of #2 with your tripod too

[Downrigger]

Manfred - thank you very much for your information about enfuse. Very helpful. I suppose I could now move on into Photoshop, instead, but am a bit intimidated by the though that I could have even more capacity to manipulate my images. LR/Nik seems like a lot, already.

[Mike Buckley]

Mark,

Using Photoshop Elements would be both relatively inexpensive and easy to learn how to use only for making a composite of multiple images. That's the only thing that I use Elements for and it's a welcome addition to my tool set when I have that need.

[Brownbear]

Hi Mark,

I just did my first merge using LR Enfuse (posted in the editing section). Indeed it is easy to use and the results are natural looking. If you view that thread you will see my first try merging exposures in Photoshop CC, and an HDR version. From my first experience I can see the appeal of using LR Enfuse and the benefits of doing so in Photoshop CC (selective control but harder to do). All new to me so that is all I can share.

Thanks, Manfred. The open source "Enfuse" is out there and seems to have some decent press - I wonder if there is any experience with it here.

[Manfred M]

I had a bit of time so I processed a few more of the spring shots of the sheave tower at the beginning of this thread.