This is the church of St. Thurial in the heart of the village with the same name. The main road through the village separates the church and the graveyard but I liked this view which links them together.
This image is SOOC and is part of my ongoing OCOLOY project - you can read more about it in my profile.
Sky is nice. I'd have tried for a little more detail in the shadows, but as you aren't editing...
Does Fuji have anything resembling the Nikon "Active D lighting?" That could have helped with some detail in the shadow in such stark light. It's exactly the light that Nikon Active-D lighting was designed to handle in-camera.
@frankhymus Thanks Frank and yes, Fuji does have three levels of Dynamic Range adjustment - I have it set at auto. It's easy after the event to see where you might have done something different but not so easy when you're peering at the camera screen in bright sunlight. In fact the 'fault' is my own because my in-camera settings boost both highlight detail and shadow depth because I have settled on a high-contrast B&W style for this year - I like the drama it creates in an image.
Like the contrasting textures in this shot - from the stone cross in the foreground to the puffy clouds in a Spring sky. Equally striking is how the light segues from sombre on the left to a freshness with the light coloured church walls setting off the graves and the floral tributes in the sunshine.
@vignouse Ah. Goes to show that there is so much more that is available to the final image than what the camera registers "natively." The eye, for instance, and the brain as the image processor behind it, can make dynamic adjustments that are impossible for a camera without an editor to help out.
This is so lovely in B&W. I like the stark contrasts in light and shadow. The other thing I like is not the photo so much, but the intimacy between the cemetary and the town. Not seen so much here unless the town is very old.
@vignouse@frankhymus I think your exchange is very interesting. It implies there is an aesthetic virtue in maximising the dynamic range because you can. Is there, I wonder? Personally, I like the clipped shadows in this as it is.
@jasperc You make an interesting point Jasper: technically perfect representation versus artistic interpretation. For me - and my B&W photography largely confirms it - I would generally choose artistic interpretation over technical perfection. My in-camera settings for the Ocoloy project were chosen with that aspect in mind: I view the image in the EVF in B&W, adjust the exposure until I like what I am seeing and take the shot... hopefully, I will end up with a punchy B&W image. If I'm not sure, I will bracket and choose the one I like best after viewing on my calibrated 27" monitor. Even on processed shots I don't worry too much about the highlights and shadows, I'm more inclined to favour lots of detail in the mid-range tones. I guess,if you like, I am developing what might be said to be the Vignouse style! @frankhymus
@jasperc@vignouse Interesting thoughts. But it's not me right at the moment.
For me, I like to avoid severe clipping either at the top or bottom of the histogram. Not so much because I can with today's cameras and editors without HDR brackets most of the time, but I like nicely wrought fine detail on a subject It's not that I don't like "punchy" B&W, I do, and not just B&W. I think much of my stuff shows that.
For a photograph, this means for me that if something is "in focus" or "sharp", then it's detail I want to render as best I can and tell the story. If something is not in focus, background or backdrop not the subject, then I am more than happy to clip detail, and indeed will often resort to extra blurring or de-sharpening to achieve that. But even there I find clipped "tone" (running off the histogram at either end) a distraction - in a subject, why is it that I don't see the detail, and in a background/backdrop why is my eye being pulled to the tonal extremes away from the subject?.
Well, that's my (perhaps idiosyncratic) approach right now.
@vignouse@frankhymus@jasperc Interesting back and forth, I guess it does highlight that there is not a right way of doing it. I know I push the dynamic range sometimes quite hard especially the shadows, but that is what pleases me.
Does Fuji have anything resembling the Nikon "Active D lighting?" That could have helped with some detail in the shadow in such stark light. It's exactly the light that Nikon Active-D lighting was designed to handle in-camera.
is very good
histories all in one space.
For me, I like to avoid severe clipping either at the top or bottom of the histogram. Not so much because I can with today's cameras and editors without HDR brackets most of the time, but I like nicely wrought fine detail on a subject It's not that I don't like "punchy" B&W, I do, and not just B&W. I think much of my stuff shows that.
For a photograph, this means for me that if something is "in focus" or "sharp", then it's detail I want to render as best I can and tell the story. If something is not in focus, background or backdrop not the subject, then I am more than happy to clip detail, and indeed will often resort to extra blurring or de-sharpening to achieve that. But even there I find clipped "tone" (running off the histogram at either end) a distraction - in a subject, why is it that I don't see the detail, and in a background/backdrop why is my eye being pulled to the tonal extremes away from the subject?.
Well, that's my (perhaps idiosyncratic) approach right now.