Backlit Christ

TristanP

I took this the first weekend I had my 717 back in Spetember 2003. We were at a cousin's wedding in Milwaukee (12 hour roadtrip from DE) and I was just starting to learn more than basic photography and the manual controls on the 717. The interior of the chrurch was rather dark compared to the light coming in through the windows, so I had a helluva time not getting it blown out while still getting some shadow detail. I massaged it a little in PS CS - PTLens to fix some wide angle distortion, Shadows/Hightlights, Sat, and USM. I'm mostly pleased with how it came out. Can I get some critique on it?

rutt

I've shot lots of stained glass and it never comes out quite the way I want. I think you have the same problems that I do. What we really need is a scaffold and a level. Your image isn't quite level and/or the camera isn't quite centered. If you visit someplace with famous stained glasss and buy the book, the photographers always nail this. It makes a huge difference.

Very nice vivid colors.

Andy

tristan,

it's nice but it's text-booky to me, y'know? i understand technically you did all you could and technically it's good. but as photographic art it feels sterile.

here's one of my church shots, inside the cathedral of st. john the divine in nyc:

rutt

Well, of course, Andy, you can use art to finesse the issue of making technically perfect shots. Still it's pretty impressive when you see the books they sell at Saint Chapelle or Chartes after trying to shoot technically perfect stained glass pictures. Not that your shot isn't nice...

Andy

rutt wrote:

Well, of course, Andy, you can use art to finesse the issue of making technically perfect shots. Still it's pretty impressive when you see the books they sell at Saint Chapelle or Chartes after trying to shoot technically perfect stained glass pictures. Not that your shot isn't nice...

oh don't get me wrong, john - and tristan too, if i came off the wrong way i apologize. yes i've seen these shots.. and the books are impressive. it's just that when i'm in a place like that, i really try to capture it in a way that i'm not going to find in a book - becuase, more than likely not, my wife has just bought the book

rutt

Somehow I managed to delete my last post.

Andy, no problem. Both your point and your shot are great. But I've tried to do what Tristan was attempting and it really gives your a lot of respect for the people who shoot for those books. It's hard. I met the cheif photographer for the Cleveland Museum of Fine Art in Dan Margulis' class and we nerded out over the difference between shooting for a catalogue vs a poster vs the digigal museum archive. Boy, that was a nerd out even before Dan showed up and wanted to talk about how Cezanne would have to be treated depending on the size of reproduction.

Anyway, I have freed myself from the catalogue shot syndrome. I agree with you, Andy, leave that to the specialists.

Andy

rutt wrote:

Somehow I managed to delete my last post.

Andy, no problem. Both your point and your shot are great. But I've tried to do what Tristan was attempting and it really gives your a lot of respect for the people who shoot for those books. It's hard. I met the cheif photographer for the Cleveland Museum of Fine Art in Dan Margulis' class and we nerded out over the difference between shooting for a catalogue vs a poster vs the digigal museum archive. Boy, that was a nerd out even before Dan showed up and wanted to talk about how Cezanne would have to be treated depending on the size of reproduction.

Anyway, I have freed myself from the catalogue shot syndrome. I agree with you, Andy, leave that to the specialists.

love this shot

TristanP

Thank you both for taking the time to comment. Nice pics from both of you. At the time of the shot, I was trying to learn photography and discover what my new camera was about. My processing skills have improved (I think) since I took the shot, so I just wanted to revisit it to see what I could get out of it. If I knew then what I know now, the shot would have been different.

It was handheld - a tripod and scaffold would have helped immensely to get the "perfect" shot, but you work with what you have, right? I may have other interiors with some of the wedding party milling about, but going through them today, I felt they didn't pass muster technically or creatively.

but as photographic art it feels sterile

No arguments here. I'm feel I'm now at the "I'm pretty familiar with my camera so I can concentrate more on the creative aspect" stage. It's fun and a learning experience sometimes to go back through your previous shots to see what you used to do.