Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Last Supper in Malan Italy
Page <<first <prev 5 of 9 next> last>>
Mar 26, 2022 15:26:02   #
djet Loc: Burbank, CA
 
No problem at all. Do your stuff.

Reply
Mar 26, 2022 15:30:22   #
EJMcD
 
larryepage wrote:
Theres no need for anything close to ISO 32,000. First off, you are only leaving a little over 2.5 stops of dynamic range, so there's not going to be anything left to look at with that choice. Ive never needed anything beyond 2500 using a lens with VR in what appeared to be a terrible worst-case situation.


Amen Larry. I never recall ever shooting anything at ISO 32,000, If I did it was most likely a mistake. I guess it might be somewhat useful for nighttime surveillance work.

Reply
Mar 26, 2022 15:34:23   #
EJMcD
 
djet wrote:
No problem at all. Do your stuff.


Here it is. Just a quick and easy minor improvement. There are probably others with better editing skills than I. Unfortunately, we can't have Leonardo come back for a touch up to his original work.



Reply
 
 
Mar 26, 2022 16:07:10   #
10MPlayer Loc: California
 
EJMcD wrote:
I understand your point of view and am sorry that your experience was disappointing. Personally, I'm addicted to photography and will make every effort to get to the best line of sight when making a photo. With today's digital cameras, I believe it's hard to take a bad photo "and" with editing software (e.g. perspective control, brightness, contrast, color correction) you can improve any image. I don't know what you were shooting with but most modern cameras (like my D5) perform remarkably well in low lighting. And the best digital feature is the delete button. If you're not satisfied with what you get, delete it, adjust your settings and take another shot. Oh and I have 4 daughters, nine grandchildren and some remarkable images of all their sporting events which includes football, baseball, basketball, softball, soccer, volleyball, competition cheerleading, karate, dance class and a few other things that I can't remember. They will all be perfectly preserved indefinitely thanks to digital technology.
I understand your point of view and am sorry that ... (show quote)


Here's an example of what I was trying to say. I had to shoot the image from the side and below. I straightened it and adjusted the transform setting to make it square. It was quite dark in the room with the paintings nicely lighted with museum quality lighting. My camera is a few years old but it still makes nice images. I can't blame my lack of enthusiasm for my images on the camera. It's just that the difference between seeing a beautiful Ruebens painting up close in the museum and seeing a processed photo of it is huge. I'm sure a better photographer with better equipment could do a better job. But even a skilled pro can't bring out the beauty comparable to seeing it in person.

Years ago we went to an impressionist show in Portland, ME and I was blown away by the brightness of the colors and detail in the brush strokes, seeing the artist's works in person. We saw paintings we knew and had seen printed in magazines for most of our lives but until we saw them in person we had no idea how much a magazine photo leaves behind.

My point is, I would rather enjoy the paintings in the moment than spend my time in the museum trying to get the best angle for a photo. That's me. Plus there's the problem of trying to work around other museum visitors who are usually oblivious to you, especially the ones holding up their iPads while their friends mug for the camera, trying to get themselves and the painting in the frame. I gave up when I was trying to get a picture of the Mona Lisa a few years ago and large crowds of tourists were do that. Again, that's me. Maybe you are more patient and maybe it means a lot more to you to get that image captured. I don't have the patience.

original image
original image...
(Download)

post processed image
post processed image...
(Download)

Reply
Mar 26, 2022 16:18:26   #
EJMcD
 
10MPlayer wrote:
Here's an example of what I was trying to say. I had to shoot the image from the side and below. I straightened it and adjusted the transform setting to make it square. It was quite dark in the room with the paintings nicely lighted with museum quality lighting. My camera is a few years old but it still makes nice images. I can't blame my lack of enthusiasm for my images on the camera. It's just that the difference between seeing a beautiful Ruebens painting up close in the museum and seeing a processed photo of it is huge. I'm sure a better photographer with better equipment could do a better job. But even a skilled pro can't bring out the beauty comparable to seeing it in person.

Years ago we went to an impressionist show in Portland, ME and I was blown away by the brightness of the colors and detail in the brush strokes, seeing the artist's works in person. We saw paintings we knew and had seen printed in magazines for most of our lives but until we saw them in person we had no idea how much a magazine photo leaves behind.

My point is, I would rather enjoy the paintings in the moment than spend my time in the museum trying to get the best angle for a photo. That's me. Plus there's the problem of trying to work around other museum visitors who are usually oblivious to you, especially the ones holding up their iPads while their friends mug for the camera, trying to get themselves and the painting in the frame. I gave up when I was trying to get a picture of the Mona Lisa a few years ago and large crowds of tourists were do that. Again, that's me. Maybe you are more patient and maybe it means a lot more to you to get that image captured. I don't have the patience.
Here's an example of what I was trying to say. I h... (show quote)


Museums are always a gamble and a challenge. You never know how many people choose to go on the same day as you. My policy is to always get there a half hour before the doors open and I never go on a weekend. If you move quick when they open and you know exactly what you want to photograph and where it is located, you've got a good chance of getting a fine image.

Reply
Mar 26, 2022 16:19:53   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
EJMcD wrote:
IMO 12,800 is quite high. I took the photo of my oil painting (see above) but kept the ISO at 800. Of course I don't have the same camera but 12,800 may not be necessary.


You're probably right. That high an ISO is unusual. I needed it to minimize the twitchy behavior of a nervous little bird. However, with a D500 and some care post processing you should be fine. There is a camera category that is notoriously bad at high ISO - those with 1" sensors.

However, it is possible to get decent results, shooting raw and with a little care in post processing.

This image was taken with a Sony RX10M4, 1" sensor. 1/60, F3.5, ISO 6400. It was noisy, but detail retention was decent. Processed as a raw file in Capture One, so if your light level is at least EV3.5 or higher, you shouldn't have any issues with the D500.

.


(Download)

Reply
Mar 26, 2022 16:27:23   #
EJMcD
 
Gene51 wrote:
You're probably right. That high an ISO is unusual. I needed it to minimize the twitchy behavior of a nervous little bird. However, with a D500 and some care post processing you should be fine. There is a camera category that is notoriously bad at high ISO - those with 1" sensors.

However, it is possible to get decent results, shooting raw and with a little care in post processing.

This image was taken with a Sony RX10M4, 1" sensor. 1/60, F3.5, ISO 6400. It was noisy, but detail retention was decent. Processed as a raw file in Capture One, so if your light level is at least EV3.5 or higher, you shouldn't have any issues with the D500.

.
You're probably right. That high an ISO is unusual... (show quote)


I know my D5 is not affordable nor desirable by everyone but I gotta tell ya, it sees well in the dark.

Reply
 
 
Mar 26, 2022 16:55:12   #
twowindsbear
 
EJMcD wrote:
Hi djet: I've never been there to see the original so it's hard for me to get a feel for the dimensions of the wall and how far from which it can be viewed. If attempting to capture the complete image it could easily require the wider focal length of 24mm. Something else for Ray to consider.


Google says:

Dimensions: 15′ 1″ x 29′ 0

Reply
Mar 26, 2022 17:25:52   #
EJMcD
 
twowindsbear wrote:
Google says:

Dimensions: 15′ 1″ x 29′ 0


WOW...if I were planning to photograph it, I'd bring along my 14-24mm.

Reply
Mar 26, 2022 17:38:12   #
EJMcD
 
djet wrote:
My wife and I were there in April, 2019 on a Uniworld river cruise. Our group of about 50 people had our own private viewing. The painting takes up an entire wall. If a large group of people are viewing, you may have trouble getting a good photo.


djet: One more time. For the benefit of the OP please tell us as much as you can about how you took the image of the original painting....camera, lens focal length, ISO, SS, Aperture. distance to the wall, etc.

Reply
Mar 26, 2022 17:50:50   #
Hip Coyote
 
worldcycle wrote:
I may be out of line here, but why? Hundreds if not thousands of photos of practically any masterpiece you may want to view on the internet. Unless of course you want to prove you were there. Then a cell phone selfie does the job quite nicely.

I travel fairly extensively and visit museums where ever I go. It has become very prevalent now that the crowds are at the museum only to appreciate art by taking a photo. You cannot really It is becoming virtually impossible to appreciate great art anymore without hoards of people filing past, pausing only momentarily long enough to take a photo. Why bother going to the museum at all if this what you are going to do when you can sit at home and do a virtual tour?
I may be out of line here, but why? Hundreds if n... (show quote)


We think alike. Like you, my wife and I travel quite a bit. I rarely take photos of a single piece of art. One can easily just get a post card. In fact we buy them just for that purpose.

I will take photos of people enjoying art or perhaps a different perspective of an entire art installation that would not be available. But a single hanging piece of art? Nope.

Continuing in the contrarian theme, I use m43 gear. With excellent IBIS and a rather fast lens, I can shoot relatively low ISOs and do quite ok. The point being one can hand hold an IBIS camera for up (and sometimes more) than a second. Add to that de-noise programs and the photos turn out ok.

I prefer people to be in my photographs...so why not try some longer exposure stuff indoors? To me, a painting on a wall (other peoples' work) is just not something I would want to shoot...but include people in that and its different. IMO, the point is to try to see what other people do not rather than seeing what everyone else sees. I included a few examples.

Finally, leave the tripods home. No museum, church or anywhere else except maybe a garden somewhere is going to allow it. Its only common sense. You are not going to have time, the crowds dont want to deal with it, the docents dont want to deal with it and if you are in a group, they dont want to deal with it. You will find that you walk a lot in Europe...so just take a camera. I know I am kinda preachy on this...but strong opinions! Cheers and happy shooting.

ISO 800, 0.8 second SS, f4 (m43)
ISO 800, 0.8 second SS, f4 (m43)...

ISO 200, 1/6 second SS, f4
ISO 200, 1/6 second SS, f4...

ISO 200, 1/2 second ss, f6.7 (to reduce the light but keep ISO low.)
ISO 200, 1/2 second ss, f6.7 (to reduce the light ...

Reply
 
 
Mar 26, 2022 17:52:33   #
louparker Loc: Scottsdale, AZ
 
Just so you know, it's "Milan" in English and "Milano" in Italian -- not "Malan."

Reply
Mar 26, 2022 18:12:58   #
EJMcD
 
Hip Coyote wrote:
We think alike. Like you, my wife and I travel quite a bit. I rarely take photos of a single piece of art. One can easily just get a post card. In fact we buy them just for that purpose.

I will take photos of people enjoying art or perhaps a different perspective of an entire art installation that would not be available. But a single hanging piece of art? Nope.

Continuing in the contrarian theme, I use m43 gear. With excellent IBIS and a rather fast lens, I can shoot relatively low ISOs and do quite ok. The point being one can hand hold an IBIS camera for up (and sometimes more) than a second. Add to that de-noise programs and the photos turn out ok.

I prefer people to be in my photographs...so why not try some longer exposure stuff indoors? To me, a painting on a wall (other peoples' work) is just not something I would want to shoot...but include people in that and its different. IMO, the point is to try to see what other people do not rather than seeing what everyone else sees. I included a few examples.

Finally, leave the tripods home. No museum, church or anywhere else except maybe a garden somewhere is going to allow it. Its only common sense. You are not going to have time, the crowds dont want to deal with it, the docents dont want to deal with it and if you are in a group, they dont want to deal with it. You will find that you walk a lot in Europe...so just take a camera. I know I am kinda preachy on this...but strong opinions! Cheers and happy shooting.
We think alike. Like you, my wife and I travel qu... (show quote)


Yeah, that's why they make chocolate, vanilla, strawberry and sometimes neopolitan for those who can't make up their mind. We all get to choose what we like to do and spend our money as we see fit.
I'm pretty sure we've established a tripod is not a viable option. Personally, I don't know of any Art Museum that would permit the visiting public to set up a tripod. If they did, it certainly wouldn't hold the camera still because everyone would be tripping over it.

Reply
Mar 26, 2022 18:32:38   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
Ray, the big question is, considering the restrictions, why do you feel a need to photograph this artwork. I should think just the thrill of being there and seeing it would provide a lifetime of great memories. If you need to bring home a photograph, why not just purchase a postcard? Perhaps I'm just being too practical.
--Bob
RayS wrote:
I'm going there in May. Many sites say photography (without flash) is acceptable for private use only. I will be shooting with my Nikon D500. Any ideas about exposure including ISO would be welcome. I will also have my IPhone 6s with me as backup.

Reply
Mar 26, 2022 18:33:43   #
Hip Coyote
 
EJMcD wrote:
Yeah, that's why they make chocolate, vanilla, strawberry and sometimes neopolitan for those who can't make up their mind. We all get to choose what we like to do and spend our money as we see fit.
I'm pretty sure we've established a tripod is not a viable option. Personally, I don't know of any Art Museum that would permit the visiting public to set up a tripod. If they did, it certainly wouldn't hold the camera still because everyone would be tripping over it.



Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 9 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.