Ooooh... I could sit there for hours. Wonderful shot. Do you know what time frame the hall was built?
Thank you. Yes, it's a wonderful spot. It seems a long way from anywhere, yet it's just half an hour's walk from the nearest village.
Crackpot Hall is a farmhouse, dating from the 1700s, with barns - for animals - attached to both ends of the building, and sharing the same roof-line. There were lead mines nearby, which provided as much much employment in the area as farming. Ironically, it was mining subsistence that destroyed Crackpot Hall, and it was abandoned more than 50 years ago.
John, errr... Professor. Of course, I always love your landscape style - very timeless feeling, lovely colors, sometimes popping, but other times subtle, almost pastel-ish. In this particular shot (and I've seen it in others, but it seems more pronounced here) it appears as if you've done some noise-reduction. It just seems smeared, somehow... or some might describe it as very, very slightly water-color painted. I'm just curious if maybe I'm not just seeing things (what with the old-age and all affecting my once-pristine eyesight...
) or if I'm onto something here...? Pray, tell...sir. .
Most of the pix I've been posting on MR have been taking with one camera/lens combination: Nikon D200 & the 'kit' 18-70mm. This could be a limitation, though, for me, it seems to be fine: ie one less thing to think about when I'm taking pix.
I appreciate that lenses deliver slightly different 'qualities': more than just the change in focal length, etc. So my pix probably share a 'look' because they're nearly all taken with the 18-70. Because I sell my pix through a picture library (Alamy), I shoot on a tripod. This seemed to be the best way to meet Alamy's technical criteria with what most people would call an inferior lens. The tripod, too, would be a limitation for many people, but I've grown to enjoy the way it frees me up when I'm shooting. I often 'lock in' a composition, and shoot a series of pix over, say, an hour: more like shooting a film of an event than individual pix.
The lens wouldn't win any prizes for sharpness, but, with a tripod and appropriate apertures, I try to get the best out of it. So it's critical focussing and no camera shake (something that's hard to guarantee, hand-held, even with more expensive lenses). Also, I try to further the illusion of sharpness by, say, showing the subject lit against a shadowed background. If a pic
looks sharp, then, to all intents and purposes, it
is sharp...
For landscape pix I like part sun/part cloud conditions, which naturally provide more colour saturation (it's the difference, say, between a spotlight and a bare bulb hanging from the ceiling). So, Phil, my pictures will share a 'look' even before I start thinking about developing a personal style. I don't do any noise reduction, because, shooting at 100 ISO, there isn't any noise. And my PP is limited to tweaking the sliders in Aperture (shadow, contrast, exposure, saturation) as little as possible.
I don't know about the 'water colour' effect you mention, though the use of light and shade in my pix might make them look a bit 'painterly'.
I've expanded my kit with the addition of a 50mm 1.8, which gives a different 'feel' topic: something lighter, more etherial. And certainly sharper. It's just taking me time to get used to it.
It's fun to try something new; but it's also fun to get to know a simple camera/lens combo, so I can be more mindful of the scene in front of me than the equipment. I don't want to get into the mindset of assuming I'd take better pix if only I had a newer camera, faster lens, etc. When the pix don't come out as I want, the weak link in the photographic chain is likely to be
me...