Interior, Mission San Xavier Del Bac, Tucson Az

© Stephen Shoff

Interior, Mission San Xavier Del Bac, Tucson Az

Uploaded: September 03, 2013

Description

Exif: F Number: 4, Exposure Bias Value: 0.00, ExposureTime: 1/125 seconds, Flash: did not fire, compulsory flash mode, ISO: 800, White balance: Manual white balance, FocalLength: 70.00 mm, Model: Canon EOS 5D Mark II

Comments

Stephen Shoff September 03, 2013

This image is from a trip to Tucson last year. It is the interior of one of the mission's domes. I'm looking for critique and assistance on the best way to accomplish my goals. The image has some nice light quality but looks flat without any of the architectural contours. I've tried to increase the light directionality as a tool for separating the surfaces and creating depth.

This is a 3-image HDR to get both the brights in the window and the darks in the paintings. After merging in HDR, I saved it as a .tiff file and imported it into ACR. All the edits have been done in ACR. I used about 5 different adjustment brushes to try to shape the light. I have the NIK suite at my disposal along with ACR and CS6.

How could this be done better? #1543094

Stephen Shoff September 03, 2013

For reference, here is unadjusted JPG of the normally exposed image before the +/1 2EV were taken. #10832334

Dale Hardin September 04, 2013

I studied this image for a long time before reading your comments, Stephen. Wasn't expecting the request you made.

My first inclination (no pun intended) was to use the vertical line to level the image and then the distort tool to correct for the resulting horizontal tilt. But that ended up creating a very flat looking image such as painted in pre-renaissance times.

Now that I've read your request, have a couple minor suggestions. I would recommend that you return the light in the window closer to it's original state to maintain that gorgeous color and texture.

After that, use the mid-tone levels adjustment to open the shadows in the ceiling and the right hand fresco. Would have loved to have been on that shoot with you. #10832916

Michael Kelly level-deluxe September 04, 2013

I can't help much since I so rarely do HDR. Dale's minor tweaks sound good. I think Debbie is our resident expert on this type shot and perhaps she will hve some good advice.

The white balance is probably very good on your post but I would warm it up a bit. That is all I can see. #10832994

Debbra Bailey September 04, 2013

Stephen - very interesting shot! The composition made me look around the image for a while. I don't know much about HDR either! #10833158

Kalena Randall September 04, 2013

Stephen, I like this, but I do understand what you are saying about the flatness. Not sure what could be done about it.

I use Nik HDR Pro and it will usually give a good amount to depth and not let a photo look flat.

Sorry! :-( #10833219

Jeff E Jensen September 04, 2013

Well, I'm going to agree with Dale :o) #10833598

Susan Williams September 04, 2013

I really like the original image with the full arch on the right. I defer to Dale's expertise on edits. You've got something very special here, Stephen. I hope you work with it until you get exactly what you want. #10833644

Peter W. Marks September 05, 2013

Do not have the technical abilities to suggest anything here Stephen but would have much enjoyed being here with you like Dale said.
You have led me to read about twenty websites on the 300 year old "White Dove of the Desert". All very interesting. Thanks Stephen. #10833918

Rita K. Connell level-classic September 05, 2013

I am with everyone else don't know much about HDR but from the two I like the original much better but I do think Dale is on the right track and agree this is an image worth working on. very interesting! it definitely holds your interests #10834603

Stephen Shoff September 05, 2013

Dale's recommendations in effect were to undo the adjustments I had made in ACR to try to reinforce the architectural angles.

I've reached the conclusion I can't do what I want to do with this image. Its a nice enough image with lots of interesting detail but the composition doesn't contain enough visual clues to interpret unfamiliar architecture. Selective tonal adjustments can't accomplish the task. I might have had better luck if I'd used a wider angle, but my interest at the time was in the window. I'm inferring that that is why Debbra had to spend so much time looking around the image but Dale's point of pre-renaissance perspective couldn't be overcome.

Just to finish this...I've worked up the original. I think using HDR to retrieve the only slightly blown highlights was overkill. Dale reminded me that I ommitted some of my normal straightening -- I had straightened horizontal but not the vertical. So for this rework I straightened both dimensions for the wall on the left. I think it worked better than Dale described his effort. I've left the left side of the image in for Susan.

Thank you for your time and efforts. #10834620

Michael Kelly level-deluxe September 05, 2013

I think the last post is by far the best shown. I think your going back and ditching the HDR and the straightening made it a more intrigueing image. I think your your interest in the window now comes through this final post. The window now grabs my interest too. #10834647

Susan Williams September 05, 2013

I really like the most recent edit, Stephen. It has an air of authenticity and the light looks very natural, as it was when the image was captured. I also like the inclusion of the curved arch on the right and the idea that there is more to be seen. What a truly interesting place.

#10834664


To discuss, first log in or sign up (buttons are at top center of page).

Get Constructive Critiques

Sign up for an interactive online photography course to get critiques on your photos.


 

Did You Know?

Discussions by Category: You can view photo discussions on various themes in the Community > Photo Discussions section of the site.

BetterPhoto Websites: If you see an orange website link directly under the photographer's name, it's totally okay. It's not spam. The reason: BetterPhoto is the one that offers these personal photography websites. We are supporting our clients with those links.

Unavailable EXIF: If there is no other information but 'Unavailable' in the EXIF (meaning no EXIF data exists with the photo), the 'Unavailable' blurb is not displayed. If there is any info, it shows. Many photos have the EXIF stripped out when people modify the image and resave it, before uploading.


 

The following truth is one of the core philosophies of BetterPhoto:

I hear, I forget.
I see, I remember.
I do, I understand.

You learn by doing. Take your next online photography class.


Copyright for this gallery photo belongs solely to Stephen Shoff.
Images may not be copied, downloaded, or used in any way without the expressed, written permission of the photographer.
Log in to follow or message this photographer or report this photo.