Downtown Presbyterian Church

[michaelhcothran]

Hi guys. While my CFV is "vacationing" in Sweden, I've pulled some old film from the fridge to shoot with. This image is from a local camera club outing last week. It was labor intensive, especially the clean-up required to remove all the dust and grit particles that live on film - even freshly processed film from the lab.
As seems to be the case with my postings, this image appears somewhat soft on this site, but is tack sharp when posted elsewhere. Sorry about that.
Michael H. Cothran
501 CM
40 CF FLE
Fuji Reala color neg @ ISO 100
1 sec @ f5.6
Scanned with my Nikon LS 9000 ED, 8650x8650 pixels, 428 Mb @ 16 bit.

 

[bensonga]

Beautiful image and location Michael. I love architectural photography, interiors and exteriors. I've never seen a church this interesting....could you tell us a bit more about it?

The detail in the scan must be incredible.....great color too. I haven't really used the Digital ICE features of my Epson V750 for dust and scratch etc removal, but I wonder if it would help much. Do you use that feature on your Nikon scanner to minimize the amount of dust removal you need to do in Photoshop?

There appears to be very little distortion with the CF 40 FLE lens. Again....I really like your photograph.

Gary

Hi guys. While my CFV is "vacationing" in Sweden, I've pulled some old film from the fridge to shoot with. This image is from a local camera club outing last week. It was labor intensive, especially the clean-up required to remove all the dust and grit particles that live on film - even freshly processed film from the lab.
As seems to be the case with my postings, this image appears somewhat soft on this site, but is tack sharp when posted elsewhere. Sorry about that.
Michael H. Cothran
501 CM
40 CF FLE
Fuji Reala color neg @ ISO 100
1 sec @ f5.6
Scanned with my Nikon LS 9000 ED, 8650x8650 pixels, 428 Mb @ 16 bit.

 

[michaelhcothran]

Beautiful image and location Michael. I love architectural photography, interiors and exteriors. I've never seen a church this interesting....could you tell us a bit more about it?
The detail in the scan must be incredible.....great color too. I haven't really used the Digital ICE features of my Epson V750 for dust and scratch etc removal, but I wonder if it would help much. Do you use that feature on your Nikon scanner to minimize the amount of dust removal you need to do in Photoshop?
There appears to be very little distortion with the CF 40 FLE lens. Again....I really like your photograph.
Gary

Gary, thanks for your kind response and interest. First, I've included two links below to info and history of the church for you. It has a long history (1816), and is renowned for its Egyptian Revival architecture.

http://www.dpchurch.com/churchhistory.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_Presbyterian_Church,_Nashville

In reference to the Digital ICE, I don't use it for two reasons - it softens the image too much, and slows down scanning speeds substantially.

As for the distortion, I have never detected any barrel or pin cushion distortion with this lens. However, as with all wide angles, line convergence is an issue when the lens is pointed up or down - in this case, I shot from the balcony, so the lens was pointed down, and the vertical lines expanded outwards at the top. To correct this, I used the Free Transformation tool under Edit in PS. I selected Skew, but Distort will also work. Using the Skew tool, I was able to drag the bottom two corners outward at will, one at a time, until the vertical lines were straight. The only way to avoid having to do this is to use a lens with Rise & Fall capabilities. Of course, skewing the image costs you both some loss of pixels AND image area, as the shape of the square image transforms to a trapezoid, and once you crop back to square, you've lost some area where the image was stretched. However, when the scanned resolution is 8650x8650 mpix (equivilent to a 75 mpix camera), one can afford to sacrifice a few pixels!

In fact , if I have time tonight, I will post the original scan showing the line convergence, plus the skewed image.
Michael

 

[michaelhcothran]

For Gary and/or anyone interested, here's the 3 stages I used for correcting the line conversion distortion.
1. original scan, showing vertical line conversion, plus a horizontal slant in the ceiling, to
2. the effect of the Skew tool (Edit>Transform>Skew), straightening all sides, but transforming the original square image to a trapezoid, to
3. the final square crop with post processing.

 

[stever]

The original is better. I like living with reality. Photo$hop is a WOMBAT [Waste Of Money Brains And Time].

 

[bensonga]

The original is better. I like living with reality. Photo$hop is a WOMBAT [Waste Of Money Brains And Time].

I'm afraid I will respectfully disagree....I believe that in "reality" the building was not constructed with converging verticals etc.

Thanks for posting these images Michael! I really appreciate seeing the transformation from initial image capture to the final image. I will have to explore these capabilities of Photoshop for some of my own images taken with any of my medium format cameras...in lieu of using a view camera.

What a fascinating church. I really enjoyed reading the history of it. Thanks again for sharing those links and the image.

I only wish I could see a print of this image someday.....hint, hint....if you'd ever like to participate in one of the bi-monthly color print exchanges I co-ordinate. We're just finishing up a 13x19 inch print exchange this month. This image would have been a real winner!

Gary

 

[HSPluta]

Thanks for the image, the details of the church, and the mini-class on skewing an image. I can't wait to try this myself. I really miss the movements of LF, but judging by your work this may get me back close to what my images should be.

Best,
Harry

 

[xpannl]

Looks great!

 

[john_r_smith]

There are very good perspective correction tools in Elements 6 onwards, but unfortunately they only work in 8-bit depth, not 16.

John

 

[stever]

There are very good perspective correction tools in Elements 6 onwards, but unfortunately they only work in 8-bit depth, not 16.

John

I knew there were more good reasons to dislike Photo$hop!

Steve

 

[bensonga]

I knew there were more good reasons to dislike Photo$hop!

Steve

It's surprising the number of people who won't use computers for any purpose....after all, the only REAL form of written communication is a handwritten note, passed from one person to another. This digital "text" sent over god knows what sort of ether is just a corrupted form of the true written word.

Given your purity of photographic vision and practice, I'm surprised that you lower yourself to this form of digital communication Stever.

Gary

 

[wbulte]

It's surprising the number of people who won't use computers for any purpose....after all, the only REAL form of written communication is a handwritten note, passed from one person to another.

Gary

You obviously never had to decipher my handwriting..

 

[bensonga]

You obviously never had to decipher my handwriting..

If it wasn't obvious, my comments were written (typed) with a very tongue in cheek humor in mind.....although there was also a semi-serious point to be made.

Gary

 

[michaelhcothran]

I knew there were more good reasons to dislike Photo$hop!
Steve

Curious - Is your distaste due to the fact that Elements only allows you to work in 8 bit mode, or are you simply against technology in general?

If the former, you have to realize that Elements is a $99 condensed version of the full $650 PS CS4. Obviously, there are going to be aspects that are omitted.

If the latter, I will presume that you are lacking in digital post processing skills. Otherwise, I can guarantee you wouldn't "hate" it. PS is too difficult to learn by yourself, unless your name is Thomas Knoll, Bruce Fraser, Jeff Schewe, or a very few others. Try studying/reading some online tutorials, or even take some classes. It's here to stay, and if you plan to continue your photographic interests, you need to become more familiar with, and versed in the direction that photography is heading.

Preferring reality is one thing, but dishing PS has nothing to do with it. As Gary stated, your "vision" of reality is more "unreal" than what you are trying to condemn. My "photoshopped" version of the Downtown Presbyterian Church is closer to the "truth" than the original film. Not to mention, the PS version holds more detail than a wet print could ever dream of.
Try it. Embrace it. You just may like it. You may find detail hidden in your own negatives that you never knew existed.

Michael H. Cothran
Nashville, Tennessee

 

[wbulte]

If it wasn't obvious, my comments were written (typed) with a very tongue in cheek humor in mind.....although there was also a semi-serious point to be made.

Gary

It was obvious But you really should see my handwriting

 

[stever]

It's surprising the number of people who won't use computers for any purpose....after all, the only REAL form of written communication is a handwritten note, passed from one person to another. This digital "text" sent over god knows what sort of ether is just a corrupted form of the true written word.

Given your purity of photographic vision and practice, I'm surprised that you lower yourself to this form of digital communication Stever.

Gary

I use digital for remote sensing on a spacecraft. I can see a use if the customer wants the image before it is taken. There is also a use for people who cannot compose an image with a camera and they must move things around to improve the composition.

I have Gimp which I use for picking out faces from group digital photographs, which were emailed to me, for a genealogy which is on the computer. The photographs have to be viewable but due to the size are not heavily detailed. I learned how to use Gimp, which is like Photo$hop but better priced, with a book and a little practice.

Since I get my exposures right and bracket on rare occasion in unusual lighting situations, and I can compose a photograph properly without an artificial aid, I see very little reason to use either product.

When film is no longer available, the digital backs are a full 56mm by 56mm, the backs cover the full color gamut, black & white on a back has the life and soul of film, and the price for a digital back is $500 get back to me about my using digital backs then.

Steve