The Dumpsters of Oberlin 18
June 14, 2017
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
This entry was posted on June 14, 2017 by Linda Grashoff. It was filed under Built Environment, Dumpsters and Trashcans, iridescence, Surfaces and was tagged with abstract, dumpster, Oberlin, photography, rust.
Romancing Reality 
Very nice!
LikeLike
June 14, 2017 at 4:57 AM
Thank you, Peter. More dumpsters to come.
LikeLike
June 14, 2017 at 9:57 AM
of course! keep them coming 🙂
LikeLike
June 15, 2017 at 2:58 PM
Thanks, Peter. I will. I’ve heard that these things don’t last too long, so maybe when I’ve made the rounds of all the dumpsters in Oberlin, I’ll be able to start over and find newly interesting ones.
LikeLike
June 15, 2017 at 3:14 PM
Ah yes, the circle of life 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 15, 2017 at 4:29 PM
This looks a little like a detail shot of my old 1971 Chevy Vega!
LikeLike
June 14, 2017 at 7:39 AM
Must have been a beautiful car. 😉 Did you photograph it?
LikeLike
June 14, 2017 at 9:55 AM
I’m sure there are some old Kodachromes around in my darkroom. I didn’t keep very good records in those days.
LikeLike
June 14, 2017 at 3:02 PM
The dumpsters are back. Hurrah! The colours are bright and you’ve contolled the highlights very well Linda
LikeLike
June 16, 2017 at 3:08 AM
Thank you, Andy. I’m happy you are happy about the dumpsters. I recently discovered that I have been underexposing many of my photographs. Now I am chimping more often and making the necessary corrections in camera. Still, I rely on Lightroom to do a big part of the job of controlling highlights. Even when the camera’s histograms say they are not blasted out, Lightroom shows them to be. So glad to have Lightroom.
LikeLike
June 16, 2017 at 2:22 PM
I find it hard to read the histograms in camera and tend to rely on the camera display option that shows the image with the highlights ‘blinking’ if the highlights are blown. In Camera Raw I can correct highlights, but to my eye they often still appear to be blown on screen although Photoshop claims they are not. Getting the exposure 100% right is never easy.
LikeLike
June 16, 2017 at 5:37 PM
I used to only look at the blinking highlights window. I was taught —many years ago—to expose for the highlights and print for the shadows. That’s why I thought I was usually doing OK if my highlights didn’t blink. It was a surprise to see a month or so ago that just because the highlights didn’t blink didn’t mean the exposure was as good as it could be. Where I really relied on the histograms heavily for the first time was when I shot the wisteria. I think they worked out pretty well, so I’ve tried to remember to check the histograms since then. You’re right, though. Getting the exposure right is never easy. If it were I wouldn’t be such a fan of Lightroom.
LikeLike
June 16, 2017 at 8:24 PM
Interesting discussion. Sometimes I find myself leaving something that’s a bit blown out because the effect feels right. It all depends, but certainly it’s good to have control when you want it. Yesterday I looked again at a photo of a very old truck I took on a trip to Oregon last month – I’d already processed it, but when looking again I thought maybe it would be better if the front wheel wasn’t totally buried in shadow. So I dialed up the shadows and black in LR and it was so much better. Like almost all my travel photos, it was taken quickly, so TGFLR! 🙂
LikeLike
June 18, 2017 at 5:02 PM
Yeah, in the white “version” of the photo I posted of the wisteria a while ago the white background was totally blown out. And that’s how I wanted it. Happy about your redo of the truck! I give up about TGFLR. My Googling got me as far as its having something to do with Instagram, but beyond that I’m clueless. Or maybe it’s not even beyond that.
LikeLike
June 18, 2017 at 5:21 PM
I made it up – instead of TGIF TG for LightRoom. Sorry!
LikeLike
June 20, 2017 at 1:39 PM
Aw, Lynn! I never would have guessed that in a million years. But I agree: TG for Lightroom!
LikeLike
June 20, 2017 at 7:27 PM