# Restoring an old forge - Photos.



## Steve Smith (5 May 2009)

I was helping my Sister and her partner cleaning out an old forge on Sunday, which he has just taken on.  I took the opertunity to take some photos, as he want's to document the restorarion for a website he's setting up (he'll be doing this for a living eventually!)  So a mix of general and artsy pics   Comments/criticism welcome 

Right side - Forge 1:






Left side - Forge 2:





Work bench:





Random:


----------



## LondonDragon (5 May 2009)

Really good photos mate, like the artistic side of them and the angles and composition are great too  
Congrats


----------



## Steve Smith (5 May 2009)

Thanks mate!  I really like the leaf photo personally, and the ivy silhouette.


----------



## Nelson (5 May 2009)

leaf one for sure


----------



## Tony Swinney (5 May 2009)

Great pics of a cracking location Steve - theres some really nice textures in the brickwork and roof structure  

Tony


----------



## ceg4048 (5 May 2009)

Steve,
         Photo 1 suffers from poor cropping technique as you have blown out the highlights at the left side window pane and there is lost detail on the table immediately beneath that window. So that should have been fixed either by cropping, by recomposition or by pre/post processing exposure adjustment. It's a cardinal sin to blow out highlights at a peripheral section of the composition because it tends to draw the eye away from the main composition, kind of like having a bleach stain on your best shirt. You could have also done a better job of arranging those poles to accentuate height, maybe placing them together or angling them towards/away from each other at the top to accentuate the "A" frame shapes of the timbers and roof line.

A similar situation occurs in Photo 2, this time on the right hand side. You could play with losing the right 1/3 of the frame or at least do something interesting with the bricks on that table. You have also lost detail in the left side wall so an exposure compensation should have been made here. Another interesting thing you can do if you have remote lighting would be to illuminate the insides of those ovens/fireplaces. even an incandescent light or well plased torch would give a nice effect and greater interest (something to consider for future shots I guess).

Photo 3 does a better job compositionally as the washed out details in the window panes is actually interesting as it provides a white backdrop to the vertical/horizontal frame pattern, but it could do with a 1/2 stop or so adjustment. You'd have to play with it to avoid losing too much detail in the shadows below. Again, I would have moved the light colored objects to the darker areas and the dark bricks to the lighter areas to create more contrast and interest. This would do well in monochrome.

Photo 4 is OK except you broke cardinal rule number 2 by having out of focus data in the foreground. This also can be very distracting but at least it has pleasant bokeh. This might have been mitigated by stopping down to get better depth of field.

You can see how much more pleasing Photo 5 is compared to Photo 1 when that blown highlight is out of the frame. The exposure is more reasonable although it could be dialed down some more. The person's back and hair is starting to wash out. I'd probably crop out the left third in this shot to shift the focus of the composition to the person framed by the door and ceiling.

I like Photo 6 except, again, you've blown highlights against the wall. Another excellent candidate for monochrome. Is that a particle beam generator mounted on the left wall? if you monochrome the shot it doesn't stand out so much - or recompose. Not sure what equipment you're using so it's unclear what kind of control you have over exposure, but it's a definite weakness in these shots. 8) 

Err..not sure what to make of that final shot mate. Could be sheer genius in the impressionist mold....or not.  
Cheers,


----------



## Tony Swinney (5 May 2009)

Blown out highlights and shallow depth of field are great - really help create the life in the picture   

Tony


----------



## Superman (5 May 2009)

I wish I knew half of the stuff Clive is talking about.
Other than taking photos of my tank, I'm still point and click.


----------



## ceg4048 (5 May 2009)

Err....Clark check this page. Almost any selection you make will be a winner but item 8 used is a good buy:
Amazon.co.uk Ansel Adams Books

Item 3. "The Negative" explains The Zonal System, upon which just about every modern camera's metering system is based.

Cheers,


----------



## Steve Smith (6 May 2009)

Thanks for the replies guys 

Clive, I'll digest your suggestions when I've got time to read them fully (at work at the mo) and go back to the RAW files and have a play about   As for composition, I was pretty much snapping pics without moving anything.  Things are lying as they were, and as they'd been placed buy whoever was tidying/cleaning.  If I'd of had time it might of been nice to arrange some stuff but it didn't occur to me at the time   Also, the room was full of soot and dust in the air   

I'll post some re-edited photos using some of Clive's suggestions in the near future


----------



## Dan Walter (6 May 2009)

Looks like an interesting project Steve,  I wish I was lucky enough to be given the opportunity to get involved in a similar restoration.  It really makes me wonder where people find these types of projects!? 

Photo's are pretty good, much better than my shakey hands could take.. i guess practise makes perfect   

Dan


----------



## Dave Spencer (6 May 2009)

You are a hard taskmaster, Clive.  

Steve, your pics scream B+W to me.

Dave.


----------



## Mark Evans (6 May 2009)

for the reason's clive speaks about (blown highlights) this is why i shoot up to 2 stops under exposure in RAW.

 it's fatal to try and get a correct exposure, you'll be there forever trying to get it. even at 2 stops under, you'll never loose detail in the shadow areas.


----------



## aaronnorth (7 May 2009)

whenever i underexpose and edit it, noise always appears  

i love the 1st shot, although perhaps a bit bright.


----------



## Steve Smith (7 May 2009)

Thanks 

I think some of this is down to viewing it on different monitors and such.  I noticed when I looked at the photos on my laptop at home the first one looked a little bright.  I must read up on monitor calibration and all that stuff at some point


----------



## Mark Evans (7 May 2009)

aaronnorth said:
			
		

> whenever i underexpose and edit it, noise always appears



it's only advisable with RAW files. if you do it with jpegs you'll suffer noise i'm afraid


----------



## ceg4048 (8 May 2009)

saintly said:
			
		

> aaronnorth said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I reckon that's a function of that particular camera sensor as well as it's jpg algorithms. It also depends on whether you select jpg basic versus jpg fine, or if you select a low file size jpg setting. ISO settings also play a role, higher ISO=higher noise. I shoot -2 to -3 stops exclusively in jpg and I don't suffer this, neither in the deep blacks, midtones nor in the highlights. 8) 

Cheers,


----------



## Mark Evans (8 May 2009)

true Clive, ISO is key to what you've just explained. Also though, remember the data you've got with a JPEG is compressed, but you do have the option of how much compression you give it....low medium high quality.

RAW is the basic unaffected/uncompressed  file, hence the ability to "play" more with a file. but as Clive says, if you choose everything correctly, you'll capture a good image with J-peg, but for me I'd rather not worry about certain parameters and worry about that later, knowing i have the image in RAW

i suppose....in a strange kinda way, a bit like EI dose more....worry less   

but as Clive suggests, for jpeg shooters, choose the lowest ISO you can get away with and highest jpeg setting your card will allow (without you being limited to the amount of shots you can take in a time span) you'll do good.

goodness i shot jpeg for an age, it's just that RAW gives you more....tons more! for me RAW, is clives CO2  8)...thats how good RAW is


----------



## Joecoral (8 May 2009)

saintly said:
			
		

> for me RAW, is clives CO2  8)...thats how good RAW is



Amen brother Mark!


----------



## Steve Smith (8 May 2009)

I always shoot in RAW   I usually use full manual, just to force myself to play with settings, but most of these were shot on semi-auto RAW to be honest, and then I've played about with levels and such in RAWShooter Essentials 2005


----------



## Joecoral (8 May 2009)

I'm not quite up to your level yet Steve, usually stick to aperture priority mode, usually serves me well enough.
Always shoot in RAW tho, adjust levels/wb etc in Digital Photo Professional, the into PS Elements to crop, add frame/signature etc.


----------



## LondonDragon (8 May 2009)

SteveUK said:
			
		

> RAWShooter Essentials 2005


Is there any diference in the 2006 version which also seems to be free?


----------



## Steve Smith (8 May 2009)

I found that the 2006 version seemed to have lost some functionality, and just didn't give you as much freedom.  It may also be that they changed how stuff works a bit and I haven't figured it out.  I now make sure I have several copies of 2005 installation files, as I can never seem to find it for download anymore 

I can make it available if you want it mate


----------



## LondonDragon (8 May 2009)

SteveUK said:
			
		

> I can make it available if you want it mate


I never shoot in RAW and I guess I should really, if you can send it to me I would appreciate that, thanks


----------



## oldwhitewood (8 May 2009)

I never shoot in RAW, in fact I have never tried it, maybe I should. I try now to concentrate more on the composition and the idea behind the picture rather than the technical bits, but I'm like that with everything 

I liked reading Clives comments too, a lot of the time when people give you feedback on your work they never really give you a proper opinion but he's gone right in there. It's also beneficial for everyone.

For my part I really liked your images.


----------

