Coal Chute

Hi All,

A year or so later, the old coal chute at DeKalb Illinois still stands tall. It was supposed to be demolished a while ago, but I suspect the railroad's budget has consigned this project to one of those files way in the back of the cabinet.

I have no complaints.



Tom Robbins

Hi, Tom,

Tom Robbins said:

Hi All,

A year or so later, the old coal chute at DeKalb Illinois still stands tall. It was supposed to be demolished a while ago, but I suspect the railroad's budget has consigned this project to one of those files way in the back of the cabinet.

Click to expand...

Exquisite!

Hi Tom,

When I first looked at it, my first two thoughts were, the building is the subject and it lacks contrast.

With the environment around, the shot is fairly busy, but I think that despite that, the image works well because the building is so much taller than the surrounding scrub and it holds my interest because it of its unusual shape. Well worth photographing.

In relation to the contrast, at the moment it seems to me that it lacks something that is white and something that is black. Everything in the shot looks grey, but because the full range of tones isn't used, to my eye it looks a little hazy.

I'd be interested to hear why you chose to do it that way. I would normally use the full range of tones, so it's always interesting to hear an alternative perspective.

Overall for me, it's a very nice image.

Regards,

Peter

Thanks for the comments Doug and Peter,

This was photographed using a Canon 5D with a sensor modified to IR. Your observation regarding tonal range is understood Peter, but the choice of black and white points was a deliberate attempt at subtlety. Monochrome is a retreat from saturated color, moderate tonal range is a retreat from hammered end points.

It's a subjective thing.

Tom

Tom,

This is an outstanding photograph. The fine gradations in the clouds is balanced by the detail drawn in the naked branches of the trees. The left mid cloud strcuture might be brought out more, but if not, that does not matter as the image works.

The building is remarkable pushing up against the sky. The repeated angles and open spaces gives the impression of giant surrealistic creature with legs astride in the landscape.

Is this 5D with a filter or actually modified in a factory so if so which one?

Also what filters are in front of the sensor now and did they give you a new focus scale adjustment for IR?

Asher

Tom,

I really like the way the light, coming from the right, accentuates the slender, flat dimension of the rising tower.

I think the tower appearing above the clouds adds drama too! Beautiful.

Hi Tom

Liking that shot a lot, you put it well in the frame, the tonality is very nice, with the deep black.
I have been wondering, if its been done with a pimped DSLR or a infrared-film.

One question, though:
The sunny side of the building looks to have the same dimension as the shadow one. Is this intended?

Personally, I' kinda thinking a building is like a human's portrait, therefore the sunny side (the tunnels pointing to it) beeing the face, the shadow beeing the side of the head.

What would have happen, if you'd putten the cam a bit further to the right?
So I did a quick and dirt edit, © by Tom Robbins:

Ed and Michael,

Thanks for the comments! The quick and dirty edit was subtle, Michael.

Asher,

I bought a Canon 5D body when it first came out, and eventually it wound up with some AA filter damage. The early models were susceptible to this, and changes were made to bodies manufactured later. The camera has been out of warranty long ago, and I decided not to argue the issue with Canon service. Some have done so successfully, others not. Life's short, so I bought a second 5D and sent the original to LifePixel to have the AA filter replaced by a filter made for near-infrared. I've always wanted to experiment with IR, and this was as good an excuse as any.

I haven't used any lens filters with this set up. Simply out of habit, I manually focus for everything with this camera, so can't comment on AF performance. As far as I can tell, manual focus through the viewfinder matches that seen at the sensor, but I haven't yet shot anything wider than f/5 or so.

Metering with an IR converted 5D is sorta' kinda' like what you'd expect with a stock body, but I've encountered some situations where the RGB histogram served as a better guide to exposure. Don't yet have enough experience with IR to predict the tricky conditions, so lots of chimping is done after each exposure.

Some lenses are better suited to IR than others. For whatever reason - might be subjective lens coating or lens element group spacing - some lenses see the IR light bouncing off the sensor and reflect it back. The result is seen in the resulting photo, and is called a "hot spot". My Canon 50mm f/1.4 and 28-70 f/2.8 zoom were unusable due to this. The el-cheapo 50mm f/1.8 works great, however. My trusty 135mm f/2 also works great; it was used for the coal chute. Lists of good/bad IR lenses are easy to find on the web.

Processing RAW files from an IR-modified DSLR is another can of worms, and it's a very big can. I have found some converters and work flows are better than others, but I've been at it for only several weeks. It's way too early to reach any conclusions.

I've had a blast riding the IR learning curve.

Tom