BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
edited August 28, 2008
But one thing I found last night is we just can't get the skyscrapers crisp and clean with no caffeine unless the temp of the air is close to the temp of the water (around 56 degrees). There seem to be thermals that make the lights flicker and the vertical lines wave and if the shutter speed is at all long, you're toast.
It probably wouldn't make a difference on most shots displayed online, but we're making a 72" high print by 700" wide and each time I go back the sharpness varies wildly, and not on how clear the sky is.
Last night it was a very warm night and we were in T-shirts, the skies were crystal clear, and none of us got sharp shots with the very same equipment we used days previous to produce very sharp images when we were bundled in our jackets.
But one thing I found last night is we just can't get the skyscrapers crisp and clean with no caffeine unless the temp of the air is close to the temp of the water (around 56 degrees). There seem to be thermals that make the lights flicker and the vertical lines wave and if the shutter speed is at all long, you're toast.
It probably wouldn't make a difference on most shots displayed online, but we're making a 72" high print by 700" wide and each time I go back the sharpness varies wildly, and not on how clear the sky is.
Last night it was a very warm night and we were in T-shirts, the skies were crystal clear, and none of us got sharp shots with the very same equipment we used days previous to produce very sharp images when we were bundled in our jackets.
When shooting the Shuttle launch last winter at Cape Kennedy, across the intercoastal waterway, one could see the thermals in the air currents over the water through my long telephoto.
I suspect that you are correct that the air temp needs to be very close to the water temp to minimize these thermals created by the temperature differentials.
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
edited September 2, 2008
Hey Ziggy (or anyone), we have a few questions. We have that one candidate shot that seems to be tack sharp, but we haven't been able to achieve that level of sharpness in subsequent attempts with the same equipment.
The night we shot that it was very cold. Probably the air and water temps were the same. In the other attempts it was t-shirt weather and maybe thermals were messing us up. Putting a 40D in live display mode, everything seemed to be moving even when the camera was on a concrete wall nestled in sandbags.
In the meantime we fell in love with another view to print for a different location. It will only be printed 36" high at the most, but be very long:
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
edited September 2, 2008
I'd love to execute the shot with more sharpness and less blowing of highlights. My MKIII has to go in for repair so I was thinking of renting the D3 you suggest to cover me while it's gone and to try this shot again.
Q1: It looked to me on Phil Askey's review that you get one, maybe one and a half extra f-stops before noise became noticeable. So shooting at ISO 800 instead of 400?
Q2: D700 same chip same performance?
Q3: It was hard to tell, but it seemed to get an extra stop on the highlights for latitude?
I'd love to execute the shot with more sharpness and less blowing of highlights. My MKIII has to go in for repair so I was thinking of renting the D3 you suggest to cover me while it's gone and to try this shot again.
Q1: It looked to me on Phil Askey's review that you get one, maybe one and a half extra f-stops before noise became noticeable. So shooting at ISO 800 instead of 400?
Q2: D700 same chip same performance?
Q3: It was hard to tell, but it seemed to get an extra stop on the highlights for latitude?
Your experience would be great to hear.
Thanks,
Baldy
First, from the previous post, if the air and water temperatures are close together that should be best shooting conditions. When the water is cold and the air is warmer you can get a "blanket" of higher humidity above the water, kind of like fog but you won't see it with the naked eye. Thermals would also be greater when the two regions are different temperatures.
Cooler temperatures are also generally a benefit for the camera and imager.
Q1: ISO 800 and even 1600 should be doable on the Nikon D3.
Q2: I am not convinced that the chips on the D3 and D700 are the same or, if they are the same, that they are processed in exactly the same way. Some D3 users are reporting better high-ISO results with the D3 so I think that is a surer thing. The different results could also be the result of a better heat-sink on the D3.
Active D-Lighting would seem to be indicated for this project.
If the scene is predominantly bright, tungsten lighting, why do you need high ISO? Why not shoot at 100 or 200 ISO
Atmospheric clarity seems like the limiting factor here. No thermals, no winds, cool dry air. Does the tide play any role at all in atmospheric clarity - slack tide maybe being better than when the tidal current is running?
If the scene is predominantly bright, tungsten lighting, why do you need high ISO? Why not shoot at 100 or 200 ISO
Atmospheric clarity seems like the limiting factor here. No thermals, no winds, cool dry air. Does the tide play any role at all in atmospheric clarity - slack tide maybe being better than when the tidal current is running?
There was a previous desire for trying to capture people at night in the images when possible. High-ISO will also lessen the effects of wind and such on long telephoto lenses. High-ISO can also lessen the exposure time which can be significant when capturing hundreds of images.
In the end, it's a trade-off and compromise in needs versus capabilities and limitations of the equipment.
Instead of renting the D3 camera, borrow mine. You can also use my 200-400VR lens to try and capture the pano you are trying to accomplish. I live in the East Bay, 10 minutes from treasure Island. Just give me the day and time and I will meet you there.
Instead of renting the D3 camera, borrow mine. You can also use my 200-400VR lens to try and capture the pano you are trying to accomplish. I live in the East Bay, 10 minutes from treasure Island. Just give me the day and time and I will meet you there.
Oooo, you've got a deal!
We're actually trying to shoot two panos, the 72x700 of the skyline from Treasure Island, and the 24x220 from Mt. Tam.
I'd love to shoot lower ISOs and longer exposures, but our ability to make the shots tack-sharp has been inconsistent even when we sandbag the camera on top of a concrete wall. I was hoping the shorter shutter speeds would help reduce the effect of whatever is causing the lights to move as we shoot them (thermals, we think).
I looked through Galen Rowell's book, Fog City, and the shots are lovely but sharp they weren't. Looks like he was affected by the same things that are affecting us, only more so.
In his case, most people stood back from his large prints and took in the view. We watch people walk up to ours and peep at the pixels. Being a company that sells prints, we have to get these like razorblades.
I shoot a lot of cityscape panos. You mentioned lacking some sharpness in your images. Are you using Mirror Lock Up when shooting the frames? Even in longer exposures, I find this makes a noticable difference due to the brightness of the city lights blurring a bit from the mirror slap. Just something to try if you are not already doing it. Another idea is to take multiple exposures and stack, but this is very time and resource intensive. For stacking, I will shoot 3 x -1/0/+1 exposures for each frame of the pano (9 total images for each pano frame). Stacking/blending these in photoshop before stitching will gain you sharpness, less noise, and more dynamic range. A good example of this is Shay's old NYC skyline shot highlightning the Sept 11th memorial.
Oh, one other thing I've run into. Make sure that your IS or VR feature is turned off if you have it on the lens. This will introduce vibrations in long exposure shots on a tripod.
Way to go Dan! I think you'll have fun just trying this!
I know that Baldy will get the photo that he wants (hopefully someday soon!), and we'll all learn during the progress. In some ways, this will be a dgrin photo! :ivar
I'd love to shoot lower ISOs and longer exposures, but our ability to make the shots tack-sharp has been inconsistent even when we sandbag the camera on top of a concrete wall. I was hoping the shorter shutter speeds would help reduce the effect of whatever is causing the lights to move as we shoot them (thermals, we think).
I have been fighting with night shots in the wind for some time and so far haven't been able to get any kind of consistency; I have a few sharp shots at around 150mm but I have to take 5 to get one. I've got some ideas for and improved camera support which have been on the back burner for a while but I may be able to find some time to put it together. I'll let you know if I find something which works.
We're actually trying to shoot two panos, the 72x700 of the skyline from Treasure Island, and the 24x220 from Mt. Tam.
I'd love to shoot lower ISOs and longer exposures, but our ability to make the shots tack-sharp has been inconsistent even when we sandbag the camera on top of a concrete wall. I was hoping the shorter shutter speeds would help reduce the effect of whatever is causing the lights to move as we shoot them (thermals, we think).
I looked through Galen Rowell's book, Fog City, and the shots are lovely but sharp they weren't. Looks like he was affected by the same things that are affecting us, only more so.
In his case, most people stood back from his large prints and took in the view. We watch people walk up to ours and peep at the pixels. Being a company that sells prints, we have to get these like razorblades.
Great!!! I will PM you with my contact info.
If need be, you can even use my camera gear without me. I will not need the D3 or the 200-400 lens until October
How many images is that?
Is it like a 270degree pano?
I'm interested as it looks incredible and I have a spot near me where I could go at night and get the lake of Zurich including Zurich and a significant portion of the lake including houses and lights on the other side - maybe not so much as SF but I'd like to try it as you've inspired me with this thread
Here's a candidate for the 6-foot x 60-foot print we want to make:
It's 3.3 gigapixels and we haven't been able to stitch it together yet because the Mac crashes.
I'd actually like to see it go further to the left and catch the edge of the island, so maybe we'll take a second swing at the bat. Don't really like the ballpark lights either, and maybe we could catch it on a clearer night for so epic a pic.
Great thread folks. Very interesting problem. Photographic spirit at it's finest!! I wait with baited breath to see the end result
When people see this, they assumed this is a pano taken on a extremely clear day in the Marin headlands. They are very surprised that they can see through SF and actually see the east bay because this rarely happens; I didn't think it was possible.
It's actually a single frame IR shot snapshot taken as I stepped out of the car with a xt body and cheap lens (17-85mm). If you zoom in, you can see people in the water and the windows of the buildings.
It was a clear day (no fog!) for SF, but not as clear as people thought it was. This is a similar photo taken a few minutes later on a 20D with a 10-22mm from roughly the same location (I think I crossed the street and used a tripod).
Most people use IR during the day and in sunlight, but Dan took an amazing photograph at 3 AM of the city using an IR body and a D3.
But Baldy might be looking to do a color pano and not a B&W.
I think a B&W would be great. We could use it as a whiteboard
Pedal faster
0
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
edited September 3, 2008
Wow, nice. You got a clear night all right.
This is for our entertainment room where we watch some movies at night, so we were looking for something dark, and color.
That b&w of Daniel Thorp's is mind-blowingly awesome and makes me pause too, but I wonder about how much is Photoshopped? Does someone know? The moon and clouds look like they were placed there. Don't get me wrong, I love it and would consider a print but if it's on our walls we're gonna get asked.
I shoot a lot of cityscape panos. You mentioned lacking some sharpness in your images. Are you using Mirror Lock Up when shooting the frames? Even in longer exposures, I find this makes a noticable difference due to the brightness of the city lights blurring a bit from the mirror slap. Just something to try if you are not already doing it. Another idea is to take multiple exposures and stack, but this is very time and resource intensive. For stacking, I will shoot 3 x -1/0/+1 exposures for each frame of the pano (9 total images for each pano frame). Stacking/blending these in photoshop before stitching will gain you sharpness, less noise, and more dynamic range. A good example of this is Shay's old NYC skyline shot highlightning the Sept 11th memorial.
Oh, one other thing I've run into. Make sure that your IS or VR feature is turned off if you have it on the lens. This will introduce vibrations in long exposure shots on a tripod.
James
Thanks, James. I spent a good half-hour admiring your shots this a.m.
Shay's old NYC skyline is hanging on our walls.
We do turn off IS and lock up the mirror. I even shot with a digital Hasselblad one night with a leaf shutter and shooting across all that water, close to the surface, I couldn't get anything sharp.
Then we went to the top of Treasure Island and shot down on the city and the same camera produced images that were sharp as can be.
This is for our entertainment room where we watch some movies at night, so we were looking for something dark, and color.
That b&w of Daniel Thorp's is mind-blowingly awesome and makes me pause too, but I wonder about how much is Photoshopped? Does someone know? The moon and clouds look like they were placed there. Don't get me wrong, I love it and would consider a print but if it's on our walls we're gonna get asked.
I wondered that too myself. Also I wondered about the IR part. Dan mentions on his blog that it is a real photo. The only thing I can figure is that he used a very long lens to get the large moon perspective. I still can't figure out the IR part. Is Dan a member of these forums? I'd love the hear the technical details of the shot.
Thanks, James. I spent a good half-hour admiring your shots this a.m.
Shay's old NYC skyline is hanging on our walls.
We do turn off IS and lock up the mirror. I even shot with a digital Hasselblad one night with a leaf shutter and shooting across all that water, close to the surface, I couldn't get anything sharp.
Then we went to the top of Treasure Island and shot down on the city and the same camera produced images that were sharp as can be.
Thank you! I appreciate the compliment, and that you enjoyed checking out my work.
Given what you have said, I think you are onto something then with the thermals or humidity of the bay affecting your shots. I know that in Dallas, the humdity plays a big part in me getting clear images of the skyline. I wait for days where cold fronts come through and dry out the air for most of my skyline shots. Does that ever happen in SFC?
Comments
Sometimes we get fog:
It probably wouldn't make a difference on most shots displayed online, but we're making a 72" high print by 700" wide and each time I go back the sharpness varies wildly, and not on how clear the sky is.
Last night it was a very warm night and we were in T-shirts, the skies were crystal clear, and none of us got sharp shots with the very same equipment we used days previous to produce very sharp images when we were bundled in our jackets.
Because that bridge isn't red, the Golden Gate bridge is the red one
Sign up for a SmugMug account and save!
When shooting the Shuttle launch last winter at Cape Kennedy, across the intercoastal waterway, one could see the thermals in the air currents over the water through my long telephoto.
I suspect that you are correct that the air temp needs to be very close to the water temp to minimize these thermals created by the temperature differentials.
Lovely pictures!
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I'm almost tempted to fly from Switzerland to SmugMug offices just to see this!!!
Truly awesome stuff guys.... gotta love smugmug
Jase // www.stonesque.com
The night we shot that it was very cold. Probably the air and water temps were the same. In the other attempts it was t-shirt weather and maybe thermals were messing us up. Putting a 40D in live display mode, everything seemed to be moving even when the camera was on a concrete wall nestled in sandbags.
In the meantime we fell in love with another view to print for a different location. It will only be printed 36" high at the most, but be very long:
Off of skyline?
Q1: It looked to me on Phil Askey's review that you get one, maybe one and a half extra f-stops before noise became noticeable. So shooting at ISO 800 instead of 400?
Q2: D700 same chip same performance?
Q3: It was hard to tell, but it seemed to get an extra stop on the highlights for latitude?
Your experience would be great to hear.
Thanks,
Baldy
First, from the previous post, if the air and water temperatures are close together that should be best shooting conditions. When the water is cold and the air is warmer you can get a "blanket" of higher humidity above the water, kind of like fog but you won't see it with the naked eye. Thermals would also be greater when the two regions are different temperatures.
Cooler temperatures are also generally a benefit for the camera and imager.
Q1: ISO 800 and even 1600 should be doable on the Nikon D3.
Q2: I am not convinced that the chips on the D3 and D700 are the same or, if they are the same, that they are processed in exactly the same way. Some D3 users are reporting better high-ISO results with the D3 so I think that is a surer thing. The different results could also be the result of a better heat-sink on the D3.
Active D-Lighting would seem to be indicated for this project.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
If the scene is predominantly bright, tungsten lighting, why do you need high ISO? Why not shoot at 100 or 200 ISO
Atmospheric clarity seems like the limiting factor here. No thermals, no winds, cool dry air. Does the tide play any role at all in atmospheric clarity - slack tide maybe being better than when the tidal current is running?
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
There was a previous desire for trying to capture people at night in the images when possible. High-ISO will also lessen the effects of wind and such on long telephoto lenses. High-ISO can also lessen the exposure time which can be significant when capturing hundreds of images.
In the end, it's a trade-off and compromise in needs versus capabilities and limitations of the equipment.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Instead of renting the D3 camera, borrow mine. You can also use my 200-400VR lens to try and capture the pano you are trying to accomplish. I live in the East Bay, 10 minutes from treasure Island. Just give me the day and time and I will meet you there
My Photo Blog -->http://dthorpphoto.blogspot.com/
We're actually trying to shoot two panos, the 72x700 of the skyline from Treasure Island, and the 24x220 from Mt. Tam.
I'd love to shoot lower ISOs and longer exposures, but our ability to make the shots tack-sharp has been inconsistent even when we sandbag the camera on top of a concrete wall. I was hoping the shorter shutter speeds would help reduce the effect of whatever is causing the lights to move as we shoot them (thermals, we think).
I looked through Galen Rowell's book, Fog City, and the shots are lovely but sharp they weren't. Looks like he was affected by the same things that are affecting us, only more so.
In his case, most people stood back from his large prints and took in the view. We watch people walk up to ours and peep at the pixels. Being a company that sells prints, we have to get these like razorblades.
Oh, one other thing I've run into. Make sure that your IS or VR feature is turned off if you have it on the lens. This will introduce vibrations in long exposure shots on a tripod.
James
Langford Photography
http://www.langfordphotography.com
james@langfordphotography.com
Way to go Dan! I think you'll have fun just trying this!
I know that Baldy will get the photo that he wants (hopefully someday soon!), and we'll all learn during the progress. In some ways, this will be a dgrin photo! :ivar
Good luck!
I have been fighting with night shots in the wind for some time and so far haven't been able to get any kind of consistency; I have a few sharp shots at around 150mm but I have to take 5 to get one. I've got some ideas for and improved camera support which have been on the back burner for a while but I may be able to find some time to put it together. I'll let you know if I find something which works.
Great!!!
If need be, you can even use my camera gear without me. I will not need the D3 or the 200-400 lens until October
My Photo Blog -->http://dthorpphoto.blogspot.com/
Is it like a 270degree pano?
I'm interested as it looks incredible and I have a spot near me where I could go at night and get the lake of Zurich including Zurich and a significant portion of the lake including houses and lights on the other side - maybe not so much as SF but I'd like to try it as you've inspired me with this thread
Jase // www.stonesque.com
This is incredibly gracious of you!
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
BTW: Can I get a wallet print of that?:D
When people see this, they assumed this is a pano taken on a extremely clear day in the Marin headlands. They are very surprised that they can see through SF and actually see the east bay because this rarely happens; I didn't think it was possible.
It's actually a single frame IR shot snapshot taken as I stepped out of the car with a xt body and cheap lens (17-85mm). If you zoom in, you can see people in the water and the windows of the buildings.
It was a clear day (no fog!) for SF, but not as clear as people thought it was. This is a similar photo taken a few minutes later on a 20D with a 10-22mm from roughly the same location (I think I crossed the street and used a tripod).
Most people use IR during the day and in sunlight, but Dan took an amazing photograph at 3 AM of the city using an IR body and a D3.
Nature's Night Light <-- I still pause a bit when I see this. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/bowdown.gif" border="0" alt="" >
But Baldy might be looking to do a color pano and not a B&W. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/ne_nau.gif" border="0" alt="" >
EDIT:
Nevermind. I've gotten the details of the image from his site. What an amazing image!
James
Langford Photography
http://www.langfordphotography.com
james@langfordphotography.com
This is for our entertainment room where we watch some movies at night, so we were looking for something dark, and color.
That b&w of Daniel Thorp's is mind-blowingly awesome and makes me pause too, but I wonder about how much is Photoshopped? Does someone know? The moon and clouds look like they were placed there. Don't get me wrong, I love it and would consider a print but if it's on our walls we're gonna get asked.
Shay's old NYC skyline is hanging on our walls.
We do turn off IS and lock up the mirror. I even shot with a digital Hasselblad one night with a leaf shutter and shooting across all that water, close to the surface, I couldn't get anything sharp.
Then we went to the top of Treasure Island and shot down on the city and the same camera produced images that were sharp as can be.
I wondered that too myself.
Langford Photography
http://www.langfordphotography.com
james@langfordphotography.com
Thank you! I appreciate the compliment, and that you enjoyed checking out my work.
Given what you have said, I think you are onto something then with the thermals or humidity of the bay affecting your shots. I know that in Dallas, the humdity plays a big part in me getting clear images of the skyline. I wait for days where cold fronts come through and dry out the air for most of my skyline shots. Does that ever happen in SFC?
Good luck!
James
Langford Photography
http://www.langfordphotography.com
james@langfordphotography.com