I was heading home on Tuesday night, when I noticed the side doors of the Nuffield Theatre were open, the ones that give on to the mysterious under-stage world of the theatre techs. It was already pretty much dark, and I was just hitting my stride for the 45 minute walk home, but it was such a nice image that I stopped, took off my back-pack, rummaged around for my camera, and snapped off a couple of shots.
Now, this probably won't impress anyone who is "digital native", but I thought I'd really push out the boat by setting the ISO at 1600. SIXTEEN HUNDRED. In film terms, that's crazy talk. Even so, the recorded data tells me this frame was taken -- hand held -- at 1/10 sec at f/4.5. ONE TENTH OF A SECOND. Again, in film terms, it should be blurred beyond recognition, but the image-stabilized lens (Panasonic 14-45mm kit zoom at 24mm) has done a superb job. What's more, with a bit of highlight recovery and shadow-fill in RAW processing, every bit of this image falls within the captured exposure range, from the neon lit interior to the darkest exterior shadows.
It's a small miracle, and one more image for the slowly-building portfolio of "100 Views of Mount Nuffield". Then I turned round, and saw this:
I think I may be developing a taste for these astringent, night-time colours under artificial lights.
8 comments:
The artificial lighting in the foreground of the second photo is fairly ghastly hued. It's amazing how well our eyes adapt to it - when a camera is not interpreting.
What happened to your port investigations? Was access too much trouble to deal with?
Kent,
Do you not like it? I really like it! But, yes, a mix of artificial light sources is what this is all about -- "corrected", it would look dull (to my eye, anyway).
Yes, ongoing -- but since my kids aren't around so much now, I'm not acting as a taxi as frequently...
Mike
"Gloriously hideous" is what they came up with. I do like the mixture of light and the composition. But the colors are- What they said. Does that mean I don't like it? It doesn't really matter whether I like it or not.
Kent,
"They"?? Have you been and consulted a committee between comments?
I think my eyes are bored with everyday colours, and "hideous kinky" may be the way they want me to go.
Mike
Committees everywhere! I guess you got a consult on the colors too. My thoughts on the colors don't have much to do with your photo, actually. It's more with the engineers who came up with the spectrum range that modern day luminaries output. I gather cost was everything, aesthetics nothing.
Oh right, "they" the eyes. Missed that in our back & forthing about committees.
I love the play between the lit interiors and the glaring or more sober (your previous post, Mike) exteriors. I understand the first image to relate to "experiments" and the second to link to Guido's early days' chemical excesses. I'm missing the third, resolving image, Mike - I suspect that one of the dazzling, floodlit docks' shots would be a candidate?
Or maybe the switch throwing for the Christmas illuminations this evening will provide some inspiration next week?
Debra,
Possibly, though these things rarely resolve themselves in real time or in a linear fashion -- it's just as likely that the ideal companion pieces already lurk in my backfiles somewhere.
One of the pleasures of "sequencing" images is getting a fresh perspective on what your eyes saw once, but your analytic brain has so far failed to register.
Mike
Post a Comment