A building I want to photograph more when I have time and a better

[ET Awful]

wide angle lens.

As is, this is the best I've got of Sander's Theater by Harvard in Cambridge. I chose to go with this perspective since I didn't have sufficient wide angle to capture the entire building:



Maybe I'll get that 12-24 lens I've been eyeballing :).

[Touchdown]

1. That's Gorgeous! You got Photoshop?

It's so beautiful, I hate to criticize, but your color looks a bit cool. If you could remove a bit of blue, those colors will really pop.

Of course I've never been to this building so I could be wrong about the brick color.:shrug:

[DS1]

2. It looks just right for brick buildings around Cambridge

[ET Awful]

3. It does seem a tad cool when viewed in a web browser . . .

It might be a colorspace issue. It looked a bit warmer in Photoshop than it does in a browser.

[DS1]

4. That happens to me a lot when saving jpgs

:)

[ET Awful]

5. That's a tough building to get a full shot of unfortunately.

There's so much crap surrounding it (power lines, street signs, guard rails, etc.) that you either have to keep the stuff in the shot, or drive yourself batshit removing it (I'm not good enough or patient enough to try removing it) :).

[regnaD kciN]

14. What is probably happening...

...is that your photo editing program is using Adobe RGB as its colorspace. When you "save for web" or whatever, it reduces the image to the older standard sRGB :puke: , which was designed back in the days when monitors were capable of fewer colors. I find that images that look great in Adobe RGB generally look disappointing in one way or another in sRGB. :-(

[F.Gordon]

7. This brings up an interesting "discussion" point

I see many photos that "look real" but there is always the suggestion that the color could be improved. When does color pass the realm of reality into something that looks fantastic but doesn't give a true representation of the actual color?
:shrug:

Is it better to try to keep it real or is the way to go.... make it look good to appeal to a broader audience. And.. when does the objective viewer know when the color is or is not correct?

Brain.Melting.Terminal.Shutdown.Overload.Danger Will Robinson.Danger.
:crazy:

[Touchdown]

10. Try using Kodak HD 400 film.

Color so vivid, it almost looks black and white...without the contrast.

Sometimes image sensors, even on the newer digitals is off. In the same vein, the same shot taken at 2pm will have a different color balance than the one taken at 4, evven if the same camera is used. PS helps with that.

[ET Awful]

11. Same with Fuji Velvia. Very vivid, but oversaturated color.

It looks great for landscapes and the like, but does it look real?

[Touchdown]

12. Actually I was being facetous.

HD400 barely has any color at all.;)

[ET Awful]

13. I know nothing about Kodak films :)

I was just talking about Velvia (which I do know) :)

[intheflow]

6. Hey! I've seen a show there!

I saw The Capitol Steps there in '97 or '98. (When I was dating that who didn't appreciate them. x()

I'd never have thought you could get a good shot of it. Like you, city shooting irritates me because there are so many wires and signs in the way. This is just beautiful. It's a beautiful building inside, too.

[RagingInMiami]

8. Some cameras have a "merge" function

As well as some versions of PS, which will allow you to splice two photos. That might work very well in this case.

[ET Awful]

9. The only problem with photo-stitching for panoramas like that is

that it's very hard to get proper alignment of the camera to insure there is no distortion of the view. It's tricky. :)