Posted by David Clapp on October 3, 2007 at 12:09 PM
This is the Peak District. I found this image induced an interesting bit of reading that really does make you realise that times were very hard not too long ago.
Well you guessed it, this is a millstone. But what on earth is it doing up here on a ridge? Well it's a good question and one I had to research. Millstones were used for grinding flour and crushing lead ore. The stone is similar to granite but with a smoother feel. It is known as gritstone.
Flat pieces of gritsone are chosen and an outline wheel is drawn over the rock. The size is first traced on one of beds of free-stone, and all the stone about it removed; when the general form is obtained, several horizontal holes are pierced, half a foot into the stone towards its base, according to the intended thickness; dry pieces of wood are driven into these holes, and in a few days swelled by humidity, they cause the stone to split. Then they were shaped and finished, flattened, grooved and centre-holed by skilled craftsmen at the quarry. Lives could depend on their skills -
Dreadfully fractured foreheads, and broken limbs, from the breaking of unsound or over-driven Grind-stones, were extremely common around Sheffield. Getting the huge stones down from the quarry to their purchasers was a major undertaking and many that were never sold can still be seen today lying where they were made, below the gritstone edges. Eeeh but they were happy times weren't they! And now we lose sleep over 1DmkIII AF issues, we're all so soft.
(quoted from Peakland Heritage except the lasy bit about being soft of course)
You can see that weathering has started to pit this stone and given it a wonderful texture. I was immediately drawn to it on the way across the edge as I marched off to get a viewpoint for sunset; I am very glad I got some interesting clouds to add to the drama even after the sun was long gone. I really thought some weather system was brewing, but nothing happened at all.
EOS 5D 17-40 f4L at f8 for 1/2sec & 1/60th ISO 100, a blend of two exposures.
A fine landscape image David, and a fascinating connection to the local history.
The weathering of the stone, and general ruggedness seem perfectly suited to B&W.
As a general question.............what sort of methods are used for seperating various similar tones within a 'digital' B&W landscape image, as this was previously done with filters {and obviously still is amoung film users}. Had this particular image been taken on film, i would have assumed either red or orange
I love the menacing sky in this image, it really helps accentuate the foreground and make the grinding stone the centre of interest.
Do you blend from two processes of the same raw image or two different images. If it is two images how do you deal with moving objects eg branches, grass etc which can change position between the two frames. Also do you have someone, or do you print any of your b&w images, if so I would be interseted in what paper and printer you are using.
Posted by David Clapp on October 3, 2007 at 6:45 PM
Alan said - 'As a general question.............what sort of methods are used for seperating various similar tones within a 'digital' B&W landscape image, as this was previously done with filters {and obviously still is amoung film users}. Had this particular image been taken on film, i would have assumed either red or orange'
Well it does depend how you process it. I have been messing about with Lightrooms excellent Grayscale window, which basically converts the file into B&W but allows you to play with lots of colour sliders to influence the B&W just like a conventional filter (I am only guessing as I have never used them), I think I have only shot 2 rolls of B&W film in my short photographic life). The File converts to RAW exactly the same as using the PS Channel Mixer, but with far greater control. I go simply by look and feel of the image and nothing else, playing by adding and subtracting colours until I fell it is right to convert. This will be done for differing RAW files that contain particular elements I want to enhance, or multiple conversions of the same RAW file, just whatever will improve the shot.
John said - 'Do you blend from two processes of the same raw image or two different images. If it is two images how do you deal with moving objects eg branches, grass etc which can change position between the two frames'
I blend from whatever data I can collect. It has almost gone beyond photography is some respects and has got a bit geeky. I will sometimes blend many many exposures that I gather related to sky patterns, shadow detail, highlight detail, movement etc through the shoot, using NDs (but never grads unless, like trying celery sticks, I want to find out if I still hate them), I try to capture absolutely anything that contains an element, usually all based on the histogram as complete priority and all without moving the tripod or changing compostion if the shot is strong enough. This may take half an hour or 3 minutes, it all depends on the light. Other times I dont sit still at all and its all about composition and then little blending occurs other than two exposures, one for the sky, another for the shadows. Sometimes its both ways of thinking and I am running about like a nutter. Or sometimes I just stand there moaning and do very little and throw stones or just generally pace about.
This brings on a question of am I a photographer or a data montager?? Is it ethical or totally unethical? Well I can honestly say I have thought about this....twice (!) and I really dont care for ethics. People used to moan using grads was complete fakery when they first came out years ago (so I have read) saying it was cheating etc etc. Its like blues and 60s guitarists with one amp, one cord and one guitar despising all guitar technology, "its all about the playing boy", well is it crap you drunk, tell that to Daft Punk! In realitive thinking tell it to anyone that ever stitched a panorama. My only line draws when the shot becomes 'illustrative', then I know the computers have taken over. You have to step back go and have a cup of tea and return with fresh eyes. The shot can often take as long as two or three hours of selective adjustments to process, or sometimes ten minutes. I am far happier it it takes ten minutes.
If objects are moving it is often necessary to use one shot that contains the element and blend other shots in around it leaving the moving section alone to do its thing (if that makes sense) It seems Johns comment got me thinking, it leaned towards stitching rather than blending, but the same rules apply. A wheat field blowing in the wind? Well the sky will probably be the only bit you blend to control the contrast, other than that you can expose one shot for the sky and multiple shots for the wheat to capture some nice movement for instance. If the foreground wheat catches the horizon, a silouette perhaps?? Its very subjective.
John said - 'Also do you have someone, or do you print any of your b&w images, if so I would be interseted in what paper and printer you are using.'
No I dont print any work, or very rarely. I have seen my images in magazines lately and been very pleased with the results generally, but home printing just drives me mad. I have an A4 Canon Pixma 5200 gathering dust; it was profiled and worked wonderfully until the cartridges had to be replaced (with the same Canon ink) and its never printed right ever again so I stopped wasting my money and just gave up on prints. I have two pictures in my hallway and I am bored of them, so I guess it might be time to have a third, in which case I will use South West Colour Labs which are only a few miles from my house.
Anyway I hope this clears a few things up for you all, I basically will embrace all technology to step outside the confines and so should you when it comes to data collection (!!). I come from a completely different tangent that many of you as bird shooters but I hope you can relate it all.
As my grandfather was miller, I can connect easily to your image. I probably looked at Bill Brant's and Michael Kenna's photos too much lately, so I would suggest playing with contrast a bit more to bring out dark mood of "unsold millstone".
Cheers,
Marko
Posted by David Clapp on October 4, 2007 at 10:56 AM
I did try this Marko but the problem was that it just didnt suit the rest of the image and it seemed to pop out too much looking too tampered with, this seemd to be the best balance.
Posted by David Kjaer on October 4, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Love the sky and a great conversion to B & W - very very nice!
Discussion
9 repliesWell you guessed it, this is a millstone. But what on earth is it doing up here on a ridge? Well it's a good question and one I had to research. Millstones were used for grinding flour and crushing lead ore. The stone is similar to granite but with a smoother feel. It is known as gritstone.
Flat pieces of gritsone are chosen and an outline wheel is drawn over the rock. The size is first traced on one of beds of free-stone, and all the stone about it removed; when the general form is obtained, several horizontal holes are pierced, half a foot into the stone towards its base, according to the intended thickness; dry pieces of wood are driven into these holes, and in a few days swelled by humidity, they cause the stone to split. Then they were shaped and finished, flattened, grooved and centre-holed by skilled craftsmen at the quarry. Lives could depend on their skills -
Dreadfully fractured foreheads, and broken limbs, from the breaking of unsound or over-driven Grind-stones, were extremely common around Sheffield. Getting the huge stones down from the quarry to their purchasers was a major undertaking and many that were never sold can still be seen today lying where they were made, below the gritstone edges. Eeeh but they were happy times weren't they! And now we lose sleep over 1DmkIII AF issues, we're all so soft.
(quoted from Peakland Heritage except the lasy bit about being soft of course)
You can see that weathering has started to pit this stone and given it a wonderful texture. I was immediately drawn to it on the way across the edge as I marched off to get a viewpoint for sunset; I am very glad I got some interesting clouds to add to the drama even after the sun was long gone. I really thought some weather system was brewing, but nothing happened at all.
EOS 5D 17-40 f4L at f8 for 1/2sec & 1/60th ISO 100, a blend of two exposures.
I love the wat the light foreground contrasts with the dark(er) background.
T
The weathering of the stone, and general ruggedness seem perfectly suited to B&W.
As a general question.............what sort of methods are used for seperating various similar tones within a 'digital' B&W landscape image, as this was previously done with filters {and obviously still is amoung film users}. Had this particular image been taken on film, i would have assumed either red or orange
Anyway, a super shot
Alan
Do you blend from two processes of the same raw image or two different images. If it is two images how do you deal with moving objects eg branches, grass etc which can change position between the two frames. Also do you have someone, or do you print any of your b&w images, if so I would be interseted in what paper and printer you are using.
Again a lovely brooding image, superbly executed.
John Lee
Well it does depend how you process it. I have been messing about with Lightrooms excellent Grayscale window, which basically converts the file into B&W but allows you to play with lots of colour sliders to influence the B&W just like a conventional filter (I am only guessing as I have never used them), I think I have only shot 2 rolls of B&W film in my short photographic life). The File converts to RAW exactly the same as using the PS Channel Mixer, but with far greater control. I go simply by look and feel of the image and nothing else, playing by adding and subtracting colours until I fell it is right to convert. This will be done for differing RAW files that contain particular elements I want to enhance, or multiple conversions of the same RAW file, just whatever will improve the shot.
John said - 'Do you blend from two processes of the same raw image or two different images. If it is two images how do you deal with moving objects eg branches, grass etc which can change position between the two frames'
I blend from whatever data I can collect. It has almost gone beyond photography is some respects and has got a bit geeky. I will sometimes blend many many exposures that I gather related to sky patterns, shadow detail, highlight detail, movement etc through the shoot, using NDs (but never grads unless, like trying celery sticks, I want to find out if I still hate them), I try to capture absolutely anything that contains an element, usually all based on the histogram as complete priority and all without moving the tripod or changing compostion if the shot is strong enough. This may take half an hour or 3 minutes, it all depends on the light. Other times I dont sit still at all and its all about composition and then little blending occurs other than two exposures, one for the sky, another for the shadows. Sometimes its both ways of thinking and I am running about like a nutter. Or sometimes I just stand there moaning and do very little and throw stones or just generally pace about.
This brings on a question of am I a photographer or a data montager?? Is it ethical or totally unethical? Well I can honestly say I have thought about this....twice (!) and I really dont care for ethics. People used to moan using grads was complete fakery when they first came out years ago (so I have read) saying it was cheating etc etc. Its like blues and 60s guitarists with one amp, one cord and one guitar despising all guitar technology, "its all about the playing boy", well is it crap you drunk, tell that to Daft Punk! In realitive thinking tell it to anyone that ever stitched a panorama. My only line draws when the shot becomes 'illustrative', then I know the computers have taken over. You have to step back go and have a cup of tea and return with fresh eyes. The shot can often take as long as two or three hours of selective adjustments to process, or sometimes ten minutes. I am far happier it it takes ten minutes.
If objects are moving it is often necessary to use one shot that contains the element and blend other shots in around it leaving the moving section alone to do its thing (if that makes sense) It seems Johns comment got me thinking, it leaned towards stitching rather than blending, but the same rules apply. A wheat field blowing in the wind? Well the sky will probably be the only bit you blend to control the contrast, other than that you can expose one shot for the sky and multiple shots for the wheat to capture some nice movement for instance. If the foreground wheat catches the horizon, a silouette perhaps?? Its very subjective.
John said - 'Also do you have someone, or do you print any of your b&w images, if so I would be interseted in what paper and printer you are using.'
No I dont print any work, or very rarely. I have seen my images in magazines lately and been very pleased with the results generally, but home printing just drives me mad. I have an A4 Canon Pixma 5200 gathering dust; it was profiled and worked wonderfully until the cartridges had to be replaced (with the same Canon ink) and its never printed right ever again so I stopped wasting my money and just gave up on prints. I have two pictures in my hallway and I am bored of them, so I guess it might be time to have a third, in which case I will use South West Colour Labs which are only a few miles from my house.
Anyway I hope this clears a few things up for you all, I basically will embrace all technology to step outside the confines and so should you when it comes to data collection (!!). I come from a completely different tangent that many of you as bird shooters but I hope you can relate it all.
Many more shots to come without a doubt.
As my grandfather was miller, I can connect easily to your image. I probably looked at Bill Brant's and Michael Kenna's photos too much lately, so I would suggest playing with contrast a bit more to bring out dark mood of "unsold millstone".
Cheers,
Marko
David
Interesting thread too.