<<< o >>>on a summer's evening 30 comments + add yours

Well, yesterday's was pretty much a straight shot; today's isn't ;-)

This is another HDR (high dynamic range) image, and I do appreciate that these aren't to everyone's taste but, as you know, I do quite like vaguely surreal images.

focal length
shutter speed
shooting mode
exposure bias
metering mode
image quality
RAW converter
8.43pm on 25/7/06
Canon 20D
EF 17-40 f/4L USM
17mm (27mm equiv.)
aperture priority
C1 Pro
3x2 + Blackpool Tower + HDR + piers [North pier] + fylde coast [scenic]
comment by RichS at 08:30 PM (GMT) on 30 July, 2006

Wow, love it.

comment by John Packman at 08:55 PM (GMT) on 30 July, 2006

Fantastic. I really like that it's shot from the water.

comment by micki at 09:16 PM (GMT) on 30 July, 2006

Yes, but this isn't over done, as so many are. It's been beautifully processed, a lovely image!

comment by Jounalius at 09:44 PM (GMT) on 30 July, 2006

Great shot, albeit I like this one more:



I've been reading a lot of this HDR imaging and I'm about to try it tomorrow, hopefully :) They look they'd be something unreal. In a good way :p

Keep them coming!

comment by AbsolutelyN at 10:58 PM (GMT) on 30 July, 2006

Great colours and reflections, I love the angle this has been taken from.

comment by ROB at 11:13 PM (GMT) on 30 July, 2006

Superb and I agree surreal. The water almost looks like plastic. The perspective of the couple walking off the beach are my favourite component of the scene, maybe its the surreal coming back as they look too big for the rest of the detail.

And great work on the processing; not a hint of HDR halo anywhere.

comment by Keith at 11:30 PM (GMT) on 30 July, 2006

Thanks for this and virtually all your other images. I think this is great.



comment by [ PIXEL VIKING ] at 12:43 AM (GMT) on 31 July, 2006

Your post-processing skills are a big help (I guess) espcially when it comes to controlling HDR images. Your exif data don't say anything about the number of images that went into this - looking at the water, it looks as if you processed one raw file three times and then merged in Photomatix (instead of merging three or more individual shots) - or am I wrong? The pastel colours are great by the way - I crave more HDRs from you :)

comment by PlasticTV at 01:49 AM (GMT) on 31 July, 2006

Beautiful sunset! i couldn't tell it's a HDR, but i readily recognize the long pier to the left as the site of another of your HDR taken a while ago. :)

comment by Geoff at 03:27 AM (GMT) on 31 July, 2006

I think the scale of things looks really strange in this shot. That tower must be absoltuely huge.

on another note, the links in the photos to go to the previuos day's photo is still playing up.

comment by flying cow at 03:38 AM (GMT) on 31 July, 2006

i love the colours

comment by EssPea | Photography at 03:58 AM (GMT) on 31 July, 2006

Very surreal.

comment by CrankPhoto at 05:08 AM (GMT) on 31 July, 2006

Good use of HDR with the surreal colours and shadows being filled. There's just a bit of fuzz in the focus that probably came through very slight camera vibration between exposure shots.

CrankinPhoto is now CrankPhoto. See the new site.
You're being Cranked!

comment by Andre Malagodi at 06:42 AM (GMT) on 31 July, 2006

The shot is very balanced and I wonder if you added some diffusion to the image or it is some minor vibration during the shot?

comment by navin harish at 07:04 AM (GMT) on 31 July, 2006

I have a very very old book about photography by Kodak and the colous of this image are very much like the colours of that book. Interesting shot.

comment by ling at 09:48 AM (GMT) on 31 July, 2006

i like this.
It looks like it's a very old picture, stored away in some album!

comment by SteveO at 09:59 AM (GMT) on 31 July, 2006

Really nice this, i like the HDR, did you reduce the saturation from within the HDR program or photoshop? It seems to work well in keeping it looking vaguely real.

comment by thomas at 10:15 AM (GMT) on 31 July, 2006

like the pastell-colours in this shot. the colours seems like colours of old images. the perspektive is very nice.

comment by djn1 at 11:01 AM (GMT) on 31 July, 2006

Jounalius: yes, I prefer that one too :-)

[ PIXEL VIKING ]: this was constructed from one RAW file processed twice (one 'normal exposure', one over-exposed by two stops), so you were nearly right.

Geoff: the tower is 518' 9" tall. Btw, I did try to email you regarding the problems you're having with the links. Could you get in touch and let me know exactly what the problem is?

CrankPhoto: see my comment to PIXEL VIKING. The reason it looks a bit soft is that a) I didn't want it to be razor sharp (so didn't apply much sharpening to this version), and b) there was a bit of atmospheric haze that evening.

Andre: see above ;-)

Navin, ling and thomas: yes, it does have a rather dated feel to it.

SteveO: I used Photomatix, and from what I can remember I left that saturation at the default level of 40%.

comment by JD at 11:21 AM (GMT) on 31 July, 2006

it does have that instant HDR feel to it (which is no surprise),
but what is a surprise is the GIANT people on the right hand side of the image!

you mentioned the tower being 518' 9" tall, well these pepes must be at least 90' 2"tall, or its a distance mirage thingy... I like to think its the latter ;)

I love the top half of the picture but I'm undecided about the bottom [sea area]... not sure if its the lack of sharpness or whether DOF could have helped it?

comment by Roy at 11:43 AM (GMT) on 31 July, 2006

Very appealing. Others have picked up on the slightly 'retro' look that this has and when I first saw it I was immediately reminded of the wonderful work of John Hinde at Butlins - Our True Intent is All For Your Delight (tried to put a link in here but your comments system doesn't seem to let me any more! -


Also, the box for entering comments is only a couple characters wide in Firefox and Opera (PC) but just wide enough to type in on IE. I tried your stylesheet reset but still no luck.

comment by mooch at 01:50 PM (GMT) on 31 July, 2006

The new site looks cool. I note however that part of your gallery features graffiti. I am right in the presumption that this too can be licenced/sold. The original string of conversation I recall being 'this is just being recorded'. Selling the work on seems a little, well, money from someone elses work, be it public or private?

I don't know, this isn't meant to be a molotov cocktail lobbed into a house type question but I am not sure if I would be too chuffed to have my work, honed over time, sold on for someone elses gain and was the point I made at the time. Only being placated by the "reportage" type vain of commentary.

I agree with the second site though, definitely need to move away from a blog format when selling work. Currently having mine built. I like the layout.

comment by djn1 at 02:13 PM (GMT) on 31 July, 2006

mooch: I've been thinking about graffiti, in the context of the commercial side of chromasia, and I guess that my own view is that graffiti is a little different from other forms of art. Put it this way; I'm both the author and owner of my photographs, but a graffiti artist is normally only the author – it would be rare for him or her to be able to claim ownership. For example, if a graffiti artist ardorned the front of my house with one of his or her works I'd have no qualms about painting over it: I own my house, not the artist.

Anyway, the bottom-line, for me at least, is that I don't think this is a problem. I'd be happy to hear other people's thoughts on the topic though.

comment by kbs at 04:03 PM (GMT) on 31 July, 2006

Sorry if I've missed the answer to this along the line, but I'm used to setting Chromasia images as desktop wallpapers -- and I'm noticing today that it no longer works. I right-click, set as background, and all I get is a white screen. Thoughts/suggestions? Thanks...

comment by mooch at 05:02 PM (GMT) on 31 July, 2006

Um, well, strictly that isn't the case. Banksy has four books of his work, published and very much popular. There are far more subjects, most of which you are competent at capturing. Why graffiti?

The argument I was expecting was in terms of architecture etc as in, that is someones work but I/you may take the credit for the photograph. I am still grappling with my argument but the crux is. I would not walk into the tate modern 'interpret' ( i.e. shoot at a certain angle, have people milling about an installation) a piece and then expect to sell it on. I am not picking a fight but rather it is something I feel uncomfortable with. I am trying to understand the feeling but still feel morally that I am right. A turner hanging in a gallery, shot and then sold, well, you just wouldn't see it would you, it is art in it's own right.

Does that sort of clarify my opinion further?

comment by /\/\J at 05:33 PM (GMT) on 31 July, 2006

wow, really just amazing!

comment by Steff at 06:00 PM (GMT) on 31 July, 2006

Nice, Nice and Nice... I really dolike the waves and the colorcombinaion in the buildings who reflect the sun. Perfect picture! Love it!

comment by djn1 at 08:35 PM (GMT) on 31 July, 2006

Thanks everyone.

kbs: it's a byproduct of the new navigation coding. I'll see if I can find a way around it.

mooch: I think we're probaly going to end up differing on this one and maybe it would be better to save the conversation for another day. I'll try and find some graffiti later this week and we can start this discussion again.

comment by Tibs at 11:22 AM (GMT) on 2 August, 2006

This a good shot.

HDR is a good thing as long as its used in a manner that doesn't make it OTT. Subtle HDR works best IMO.

Brilliant shot, Blackpool City council should buy it off you

comment by Nick Lewis at 11:37 AM (GMT) on 2 August, 2006

HDR does indeed produce slightly surreal results but thats where photography meets fine art IMHO which isn't a bad thing.