[Rob Barron]

This is a shot I've had around for a while but I thought I'd go for a mono treatment and see how it came out. I don't do a lot of this but gotta keep Dave happy now and again

This was taken late in the day, sun was dropping and shadows lengthening which is what appealled to me for the mono aspect. Is it a touch too dark? I can't decide so you guys can tell me what you think. Go ahead and give me your C&C

Cheers,
Rob

[JMitchell]

Really like this one Rob, nice contrasty-ness (uh oh, here comes the Meehanator! ), and the sky is great. Slight haloing on the building 'spires' that might detract.

[simpbow]

Looks fine, nice shot Rob.

[Markulous]

Great comp and if I had to be picky, find the sky a little too 'pushed back' (so it gives a slightly 'dropped in' look) and the tree could do with some fill detail

[Rob Barron]

The sky is the real one, not added, but I do agree with Mark, I am not sure why though. Is it because the building itself has very clearly defined lines and so the softness of the sky is making it separate more? Could be.

Try as I might, I can't see the halo'ing on the spires. Can I ask if others are seeing that as if so I am definitely never going to Specsavers again! Seriously, my eyes are not perfect and sometimes I do miss something but I have even tried with my reading glasses and still can't see any halos.

Entirely agree Mark about the fill detail on the tree, it actually has as much as I was able to get back, it has under-exposed due to the brightness of the building even though the sun was not in front of me. I would definitely have gone for it if it was there. Next time I find myself in Brighton I'll have another go - except I hate Brighton with a passion (this being the only building worth visiting for in my opinion) so avoid it like the plague most of the time! Having said that, I seem to recall we have a reg who lives there so I am about to get into big trouble if he sees it! <g>

Cheers,
Rob

[Les Meehan]

Rob, nice image. Having never visited this building (always intended but never did) I may be wrong here but is it really leaning to the right of the image? I suspect it is the convergence from the viewpoint but the main dome part definitely looks to be leaning to me.

As you mention, the wide tonal range has left the shadows a bit vacant but a reshoot can fix that.

Halos, no can't see any halos BUT can see some creative use of photo terminology from Jack! And what the f*** is a Meehanator! Can't help thinking someone is harbouring a liddie bittie resentment somewhere???

Cheers

THE MEEHANATOR - "I'll be back! Jack, you're luggage!"

[Rob Barron]

LOL, look out for the Meehanator, especially if Jack ends up like him, then we'll have the Meehanator 2 <g>

I am not sure about the 'lean' as I can't see it but if I move my head just slightly to the side of central, I see a slight lean but I have a feeling that is partly an illusion because of the angle of the tree in front, not sure.

Oh well, they might have been drunk when they built it too, most people under the age of 25 in Brighton spend their time in a stupor almost permanently <g> I should own up to bias over here, we in Poole/Bournemouth (check this out with Stupot) consider our conurbation to be the best holiday resort in Britain (backed up by tourist numbers ) but the Brightonites (aka quarter of a million dipsomaniacs clinging to a rocky beach! ) think they are. Brighton beach, great name for a place with fewer grains of sand than my egg-timer!

LOL, just kidding, it's resort rivalry alive and well and living on the south coast

If any Brightonites see this, I apologise.

If they don't see this, I stand by every word

[JMitchell]

*GONE* .... even I accidentally double post

[JMitchell]

Originally Posted by Les Meehan

Halos, no can't see any halos BUT can see some creative use of photo terminology from Jack!

I can get away with it, as I'm possibly one of the only frequent posters who regularly uses a darkroom + film! I'm now bored of hearing the words 'tonal range' (I shoot exclusively BW film) ad infinitum

Originally Posted by Les Meehan

And what the f*** is a Meehanator! Can't help thinking someone is harbouring a liddie bittie resentment somewhere???

Evil cyborg Pixalo poster who doesn't like many very high contrast BW prints Resentment? Me? Honestly....some people....

Originally Posted by Les Meehan

THE MEEHANATOR - "I'll be back! Jack, you're luggage!"

[Rob Barron]

Originally Posted by JMitchell

I can get away with it, as I'm possibly one of the only frequent posters who regularly uses a darkroom + film! I'm now bored of hearing the words 'tonal range' (I shoot exclusively BW film) ad infinitum

Errr, not quite Jack! You won this week's Photo of the week with a colour photo and I remember a few others in colour so you don't shoot exclusively BW film!

Tonal range has always been one of the major aspects of photography that concern us, take a look at some of the old books and you'll see it again and again. Different film has different ranges in much the same way as different profiles like sRGB or Adobe 1998 do.

It does though bring up the bigger and more relevant on here of how much terminology is helpful and appropriate. I don't want to take the thread too far off-topic but it's worth considering.

If comments are to be as accessible to everyone as possible, including beginners, some terminology is going to be a hindrance. However, I do not suggest we should not use any terminology as it exists simply because it is important within this field of art and explaining things another way would be difficult. Also terminology is something that is easily learnt and we have a good glossary here on Pixalo for people to look things up if they are interested.

I mean, a technical term that is commonly used is Chromatic Aberation. It has to be used because explaining it every time would be a real pain but it's hard to discuss the merits or otherwise of lenses without alluding to CA at some point given its importance. But prattling on about the inverse square law every time we mention flash distances would, to my mind, be little more than showing off and would not be that helpful to most people, whilst of course the odd thread might require its discussion which is fine.

But if I want my posts to be comprehended easily and helpful to people who are perhaps seeking to learn, then I have to keep my terminology to a minimum. It sort of reminds me of my old preaching tutor when I was at Bible College. He used to always say: 'When you're preaching, don't speak to old Rev Simpson at the front, speak to old Mrs Brown at the back.... and make sure she can understand you!'

Anyway, I'll shut up now and let this thread come back on topic. I would point out that I only went so far off because it was my own thread so wouldn't be upsetting someone else

Cheers,
Rob

[JMitchell]

Woh! Rob! Was that in reaction to my comment!?!?
I didn't mean that I shot exclusively BW film, but I meant within film I shoot exclusively BW! And as for tonal range, that was said in jest, in response to M'nator's comment (), of course I'd use it properly where applicable!
Perhaps it's me causing the offence (/ disgruntlement) now! Uh oh....

[Dabhand16]

Best get yourself up to Boots or Dolland & Aicheson's Rob. I can see very slight halos on the RHS of the curved part of the first three spires from the left.

[Rob Barron]

LOL graham, I have just taken off my glasses, gone right up close and used my 3x magnifying glass and yup, got to