Camillo Sitte

Just a couple of random quick-pics...

Beginning to make a difference...

But...Does not your post in fact continue to draw the issue out? The rest of us had already moved on. Doesn't this mean that your desire to get in one last shot trumps your belief that the thread had gotten out of control? How positively hipo...Aw shucks. There I go again. Never mind. Cheers!

Actually the architects had made enough changes to their 'glass box' to meet the "new" conditions such that the GSA gave its approval. It was the judge who used the "too much glass", "shrapnel" points to argue against the design of the Modernist box, which she hated. There was a pretty good article about this in Architectural Record a few years ago. I will try to find it. Cheers.

Sorry, missed this question. This situation is more difficult. There is so much stray light hitting your lens at so many angles that it really robs the image of color saturation and contrast. As you mentioned, a C-PL filter would have done wonders for this image. It looks to me that you used to much shadow/highlight [maybe too much curves] which really skews the colors as you can see. There is so little original contrast here that there isn't much that can be done. I first removed the cyan cast [which several of your images seem to have] which lets more of the real color information through. Then very little shadow/highlight, very slight 'S' curve, and just a little bit of manual levels. While someone might, for example, like the color of the sky in your untouched original the best, it is also adding an artificial cyan cast over the entire image so you have to make a few compromises in order to get an image that, overall, is pretty accurate. If you look at the colors of the various building materials you can see that these are now much more accurate even though some of the sky has been "lost". That is about all that can be done, but it is still a workable image. Your original Your PhotoShop My PhotoShop

Woops. Someone disagreed with someone else about photos in a photo thread. Disagreement causes disruption to the hive-mind. The hive-mind must not be disturbed... *** [Woops, again. Does humor lead to disruption as well?]

Original, untouched. Manual levels, bring in white and black points, adjust gray point for shadows Remove some of the heavy cyan cast from overcast Use a small amount of increase shadow detail and twice that much highlight detail to preserve the 'overcast' look. Increase a bit the saturation of all colors equally moderate sharpening [smart sharpen] for web presentation and finish with a nice but very slight 'S' curve to add some three-dimensionality. ********** [1] original [2] after post [3] darker after post] **********

I was in the middle of composing a response to bande's personal email and I then saw this. 1] bande isn't "beating himself up" and no one is being critical of him. He and I are in the middle of a friendly, polite, and ongoing conversation here that you have just jumped in on. You might want to ask questions before you assume things not in evidence. 2] There are 'right's' and 'wrongs' in dealing with digital photography. Sorry to burst your bubble but that is just the way that it is. Bande's original image, that you say looks just fine, suggests to me that you really don't know much about photography [seriosuly, I am not trying to be offensive, just honest] or you are just trying to not "hurt" bandes feelings. I don't think that bande will be offended as he has laways asked for suggestions. The truth is that all other issues aside bande's original looks as though the image were taken through heavily tinted three-pane insulated window. I for one don't think that that was the "look" he was going for. 3] I did not alter the colors from bande's original one bit. If the colors look altered to you then your monitor is in serious need of calibration, which was going to be my larger point to bande. Some of the barriers in bande's original looked red, others looked orange; my adjustments did not affect the color balance. While my alterations may make the scene look

The GSA under its former director really did sponsor some good architecture. When the Orlando Federal Building was first being designed the new federal building in San Francisco was in our studio at the time. The original design for the Orlando building was a reasonably elegant glass box, particularly for Orlando. However the head federal judge [can't remember her name] who holds a lot of sway over these projects, was this hard core conservative who wanted a Mediterranean/Casa/white stucco/red-tile roof thing. It was her dislike for "liberal" modernism that is responsible for what we have here now.

The thing with a DSLR and CS [or whatever imaging program one uses] is that ideally you are just trying to get back to the original scene. I understand what you say about how the original is closer and all but, while it may have appeared darker, the "new" detail and saturation was there originally as you can't really add those things in post. Look at how much more detail there is in the clouds. I assure you that the human eye could see that detail at the time you made the exposure. Look also at the shadow areas, the trees which are now defined branches and leaves instead of green blobs. That too is the way that it actually was. Most DSLRs have a pretty strong filter covering their imager which tends to rob an image of a lot of depth and sharpness. IMHO it is critical to use post to bring these back to the front otherwise most images look simply fake [unless you are going for your own personal artistic effect]. I have found that white balance is critical [big surprise]. And finding the best conditional WB settings for your specific camera is crucial. I have found that almost every Nikon DSLR [i have a D200, D100, and D50] all work best outside using "Cloudy-2" [unless you WB for each image which would be ideal]. Anyway, just a few thoughts.

Nice pic! Please forgive the presumption but you are like 95% there. Bite the bullet, buy CS and live happily ever after. Cheers!

Is all part of the 'topping out' ceremony/ritual. It has nothing to do with Christmas; it is just coincidence that it now happens to be Christmas time. Tradition has it that whenever the frame of a large scale project has reached its maximum height [not including antennae, etc.] the iron/steel/concrete workers will place a small evergreen tree [sometimes referred to as a Christmas tree] on the last piece of the structure to go into place, symbolizing the completion of the first major milestone in the project's construction.

Hello, Yes, low-light photography is still tough with digital, even with the best equipment. Keeping noise low and maintaining contrast is difficult. Some newer camers though [both point-n-shoot and DSLR] have really credible 400, 800, and with some even 1600 ISO settings [low noise, good contrast]. As for my images, with my moniotrs, the images I see likely look completley different than what anyone everyone else sees as I manually color balance my monitors [special software and a monitor color meter] thus my images would not have much 'pop' on non-calibrated monitors, they would likely lok a bit washed out. Because of this [and being limited to displays of 72dpi] I added some 'curves' and color saturation in post. On my monitros the altered images look a bit artificial but I imagine that they look "OK" on a typical LCD or CRT screen. As for post in general I try to do as little as possible [levels, a bit of color, curves, and some sharpening] though sometimes an image really needs more attention to shadows and highlights, etc. Here is one pretty much straight out of the camera [very accurate, likely a little 'dull']. And the same image with a bit of post-processing [a bit artificial but with more 'pop'].

Hope you don't mind, I did a little PS on one of your images as I thought it was pretty nice and wanted to try and pull some more detail out...at the expense of noise and a bit of contrast of course.

No "glamour" shots by any means; still just testing out a new camera.

Thanks. I am trying out a new, more compact and lightweight 'travel' camera. I am getting tired of hauling around Europe a D2X or Bronica ETRSi just for memory-type snapshots. It is a Nikon D50 digital SLR. I have to say that for the money Nikon has made very few compromises here. Noise is lower than the D100/D70 [and probably a bit lower than the D2X as well] and all other image parameters are great as well.

A Fall [?] evening in Orlando...

I did not read it that way but I see now that it could in fact be so. My sincere apology if this is the case. Goes to show that one should not post when they are, perhaps, a bit hot under the collar [i am speaking of myself here ]. I will edit my posts accordingly. Cheers.

Lovely personality, and it appears as well that you cannot read... First, where did anyone say that a project would or could go forward without a 'Determination of no Hazard' certificate? Nowhere, that

Lets hope. It almost seems that there really is the beginning of an effort to push the boundaries so-to-speak. It seems that 55W really wants to have the new "tallest" building, perhaps the same for EA. Hey, it really is simple economics; if you want to make a greater profit off of a fixed piece of land you go up, simple as that. I see it all as eventually being down to the economics of supply and demand. If the demand for a 'presence' in the CBD continues, and as plots of actual land become scarcer, it

Not to try and pick too many nits here but the developer does not have to get a "height permit" from the FAA, GOAA, or any other body save [if they choose to regulate such things] the Orlando City Council/Planning Board, regardless of the report quoted. What the developer does need to get from the FAA, as I mentioned earlier, is a 'Determination of no Hazard' certificate and there is much more than a subtle difference between the two. Statutorily speaking the developer just needs to satisfy the FAA that his/her project does not create any safety hazards for ops at KORL. The primary reason for having to obtain this certificate is not to "limit height" specifically but rather to control things like ham radio towers, antennae on tops of buildings, proper lighting for building tops, signage, etc. Now, the FAA might try to argue that a building over 'x' feet high "creates" a safety concern but this is not true. Taller buildings within the Orlando CBD just make the FAA's job at KORL more difficult in that they would have to draw up new approach and departure patterns. The FAA resists taller buildings in the Orlando CBD because of cost and effort, not because of safety. So, say that the FAA does claim a specific height/safety issue for a given project [which to my knowledge they have never officially done before in Orlando]. It would then be incumbent upon the developer to make his or her case that it is in fact not a safety issue that concerns the FAA but rather an economic one. They could/would argue that taller buildings in the CBD are simply a natural progression of development in this area and that the greater public good is served by forcing the FAA to redesign the approach/departures patterns at KORL. To date no developer has done this, as it could possibly require a trial where the developer has to "prove" that no real safety hazard exists. The reason that the height of the SunTrust tower is always cited is not because there is an "official" 441' height limit imposed on the Orlando CBD but simply because that is the tallest building yet given a 'Determination of no Hazard' certificate by the FAA. To my knowledge the original SunTrust developers didn