The Steinway

eoren1

Had a chance to photography an almost 300 year old mansion that houses the town's art association in between exhibits. I love their Steinway piano and finally had an empty room to shoot.

1


2


3

DaddyO

Nice clean set of images. Neatly done #3 has a bunch of really nice
details going on for the composition aspect selected.

eoren1

Thanks Michael. It's funny but, with the light in the room, I could not see any reflections in the lid until I put the shots through the Photomatix machine. I was very pleasantly surprised. That detail shot was touch to compose but I like how it turned out.

DeVerm

Eyal,

#1 is my favorite. I keep wondering what is to the right outside the frame... I think the location would do great for a wider angle or even pano!

Also, I think your bracketing went down to -2 exp.comp.? -3 or -4 might have given a better look through the windows with fuller colors of the buildings across the street. I'm still not done experimenting with the bracketing sequence when these hot windows are in the frame.

rob marshall

Eyal

I really must visit New England some day. Marblehead looks a nice place. I'm surprised that a building of that size was built at the start of the 1700s. It doesn't seem all that long after America was settled. I might have wheeled the piano across to the right a bit to hide the radiator - but then I'm always getting into trouble with things like that, so I shouldn't be a bad influence on you.

eoren1

Thanks Nick and Rob
This was shot at -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3. I have found that, with the 3 bracket limits of the Canons, 2 sequences gets me the full DR without worrying about movement or changes in light. I agree -3 would have softened the highlights in the window. I opted for the +3 to get all the details in the piano (and the bonus reflection).
As for wheeling the thing around, I was nervous enough opening up the lid on a 150 year old piano

DeVerm

eoren1 wrote: »

Thanks Nick and Rob
This was shot at -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3. I have found that, with the 3 bracket limits of the Canons, 2 sequences gets me the full DR without worrying about movement or changes in light. I agree -3 would have softened the highlights in the window. I opted for the +3 to get all the details in the piano (and the bonus reflection).

Yes, you need the +3 too. I have started shooting 9 shot brackets from -4 to +4 and time is indeed the enemy. The fastest way I found to do this is tethered with EOS Utility, live view (gets the mirror up) with it's special manual focus. For this Steinway scene, a 3rd bracket shot (or just an extra -3 shot) would have had no trouble with movement and light is never really a problem with the darkest underexposed shots of the sequence.

I am positive that it's also possible to darken the windows using PS or LR. I have been testing that too, with both the final image and with a single bracketed shot before merging (as RAW edit in LR). I didn't find the best way to do that yet; need to do it more and compare results.

EDIT: In LR, make a virtual copy of the -2 shot, take it to develop mode, adjust exposure -1 (making it -3). Incl. this extra "exposure" with the export to Photomatix. This gives me same results as time consuming edits with brushes and masks.

I'm envious at the scene you got to work with... it's a great shot

ciao!
Nick.

eoren1

Thanks Nick
I should add that I sometimes will shoot wider ranges. I'll post a different shot in a bit that went to +5 (manual). I have done 12 bracket shots as well:
http://wednesdaysinmhd.com/2011/01/26/from-the-attic-of-abbot-hall/

DeVerm

eoren1 wrote: »

Thanks Nick
I should add that I sometimes will shoot wider ranges. I'll post a different shot in a bit that went to +5 (manual). I have done 12 bracket shots as well:
http://wednesdaysinmhd.com/2011/01/26/from-the-attic-of-abbot-hall/

That's just great :-) I love these shots and using hdr to get these results.

ps. the photo's under that link change brightness when my mouse cursor hovers over them?!

ciao!
Nick.

eoren1

If you click on the photo after hovering it opens up in a Lightbox style view

kdog

Great looking shots, E. Very well done.

Overfocused

We have one from the 80's... and they really haven't changed in design much! lol. I like the reflections shot concept a lot too. It's not clear in the wide shots whether or not you're wanting us to look at the piano, the building, or both. Your title says Steinway piano, so I'll respond to that being the subject of the photos.


For critique, I will say the compositions don't really pull me into the photos and definitely don't suck me to the piano. Technically the pictures are well exposed and have great DOF and are clean, but the photos don't really say "It's all about the piano - look at the piano!" They say "I'm standing around in a room and there's a piano in here and... hey this is a neat room. Nice chandelier! How old is this place?" I find myself wanting to wander around the room.

Having lived with a Steinway for 24 years, visually speaking the curves and ivory of Steinways are what really make you want to play it. If you're going to get close, try to elevate the allure of the photo's composition to equal the allure of the pianos' shapes so you get sucked in by the composition as well as the beauty of the piano itself and find yourself wanting to play it and not just look at it. I've messed with our steinway briefly and once I got a picture that made me want to play it I knew I achieved what I set out to do. You've got great ideas, and now you just need to ask yourself if the composition commands attention to the piano, and does it make you want to play it (give it allure)?

It doesn't matter what suggestions I've given either, as long as you can make it grab you and pull you in. That's the goal of art after all! I can post the photo I took if you want, I just don't want to hijack the thread or be all "HA heyy this one's better let me post that!" but it really does give the feeling of making you want to play... I can't play worth a damn and it still makes me want to


*one thing I forgot to mention specifically, that I think is more important than anything else first... try changing your perspective. The height your camera is at is what everyone sees. Make it abnormal and it becomes much more interesting, rather than the 'standing around' point of view.

eoren1

Wow Overfocused (sorry -can't find your real name) - thanks for the detailed critique! If anything, your quote:
"I'm standing around in a room and there's a piano in here and... hey this is a neat room. Nice chandelier! How old is this place?"
Is more along the lines of what I was going for...the title should have been The Steinway and the Mansion!
As background, I have given myself the task of photographing our town in order to learn about it (lived here 3 years and still get lost). Along the way, I have had opportunities to shoot subjects that others have not. I recently was juried in as a member of the Arts Association who call this mansion home. They display art in all the rooms and rotate them once monthly. I recalled seeing this room empty before and wanting to shoot it so I came in on a 'change art day' and had the entire room to myself.
I started off doing just what you said. Shot different angles of the piano. But then I realized I really wanted to show off the room so that someone could see it on my site and say "Wow, what an amazing room, I need to see that for myself". As for shooting this at max tripod height, I agree with you that compositions from other angles are often preferable but, in order to get the details and reflections of the inside of the piano, I was stuck at this particular height. For the chandelier shot, I would have been stuck with horrible perspective distortions if shot lower to the ground.
I'll post more from this place in another thread momentarily.
I really appreciate your suggestions and detailed critique.
Thanks again
E

Link to the other shots from the mansion: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=1624678#post1624678

Overfocused

eoren1 wrote: »

Stuff

Ah well then you did really well then


I was fully in the artist mindset not historian at all, lol