I'd like to send you all link to some amazing photography in Detroit, by Ryan Southen who is currently a college student.  I've seen some amazing pictures of the D, but his work is jaw dropping.  Check them out here:

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/southen/

I agree, the HDR adds a whole new quality to the photographs.  I've been meaning to try it, but I guess it's kind of complicated.  I heard new cameras will have an HDR feature soon, so no more photoshop merging.

Interesting...

Agreed. His photography is incredible.

Someone last week told me that Detroit was "never very nice." After my eyes popped out, I was too fatigued to explain why this was an insane statement. The first time I went to downtown Detroit, I was surprised by the magnitude of it. It's so much bigger than Cleveland. It reminded me of the presence that NYC has.

 

Those are simply stunning photographs.

You think so?  Downtown Detroit felt quite small, to me.  I believe it's the angles of the buildings/streets that give it the enclosed space, but otherwise, it feels quite small overall.

I think it depends a lot on where you are downtown, whether or not it feels big or small. For example, at the people mover station at the ren cen looking at downtown towards the west it feels very big.

I like his kitchen.

nope jamiec i don't think detroit reminds me of ny at all:

 

detroit is its own beast. all the better.

 

so much good work he has there, wow. this one struck me as being very j.g. ballard appoved:

 

also, thats some news hayward, i had no idea -- having hdr options available right on the camera will be a great leap. thx for showing us this great link.

 

I had never heard of HDR photography before...but now that I have seen some stuff and read a little about it; I'll have to try it out myself...VERY COOL!

HDR is doomed to becoming a total cliche by this time next year.  In film photography infrared and cross-processing became such cliches that people would make fun of anyone for showing any interest in learning those techniques almost instantly after they appeared.  It should be added too that HDR has existed in black & white photography for 100 years in the form of the zone system.  The black & white zone system uses +/- EV's and +/- development times to ensure rich shadow and highlight detail.  And 100 year-old view cameras still have much more resolution than even the $20,000 digital backs.   

HDR is doomed to becoming a total cliche by this time next year.

 

You got it. Shame too, I haven't tried my luck at it yet...

^^I guess I'm destined to be made fun of for wanting to learn something new... :|

 

lol

I'm not saying Detroit and NYC are the same at all, I was just saying that to me Detroit had a spirit that reminded me of New York, especially among the older buildings that are dense. I was down by Cobo Hall. It's less to do with how it looks than how it feels. It just has an authentic vibe that felt interesting.

 

I'm not saying Detroit and NYC are the same at all, I was just saying that to me Detroit had a spirit that reminded me of New York, especially among the older buildings that are dense.

 

I totally agree. They are different cities (Detroit is far more decimated/vacant) but in terms of historic architecture, Detroit is right up there with NYC. There are some canyons of nothing but pre-WW2 buildings in Detroit, and that is quite hard to find anywhere else but NYC.

 

i know what you meant jamiec, i just don't get that vibe in the motor city, i think detroit is uniquely detroit. its way too small and spaced out to give me any of that nyc vibe. it gives me a detroit vibe.

 

also, cdawg, while i think there is plenty of old pre-war and other interesting buildings and towers in detroit & i'm a big fan of that city, you are vastly undercounting -- by orders of magnitude -- what is in nyc in trying to compare them like that.

 

Here are some Ansel Adams images.  These are all zone system, and I believe all with a red filter (the red filter turns blue sky dark creating vivid contrast between the clouds and blue sky).  How did people back then get such good images?  For one black & white was for upwards of 100 years all that there was in photography and so photographers spent all of their time working in black & white.  Since roughly 1950 the quality of black & white work degraded as color processes steadily improved.  Since about 1960-1970 pretty much all of what professional photographers did was in color, leaving the art and science of black & white to relatively few people.   

 

 

 

 

If you were to see any of these prints in person, not only would you see high contrast but detail in every tonal range.  It can't come across in lower grade jpeg files.  For several years I made the mistake of assuming that the really vivid images were the result of expensive equipment when instead they are nearly entirely the result of development, processing, and printing.  With digital you can simulate the above effect by underexposing slightly then bringing the shadow levels up.  However that's still not quite the same as HDR or the zone system.  The advantage black & white negative film still has over digital is the ability of the film itself to maintain quality when developed over or under its designated level.  Color negative film could be overexposed but not under, digital under but not over, and color slide had to be spot on.  But like I said b&w could deal well with either situation in the case of an errant exposure or in the case of the zone system be manipulated with scientific precision.