Tribute in Light - a first look

Shay Stephens

I am building a panorama, but don't have time to finish it right now. So I thought I would at least upload a partial to give an idea of how it looks in it's new location farther south than in the previous years.



For the most part, this is an f/8, 30 second, ISO 100 image for those wondering.

erich6

Shay,

I can already tell this is going to be spectacular. Can't wait to see the finished product.

Erich

Nir

Definetely!

USAIR

Amazing great color very sharp
Can't wait to see the entire pano

Thanks
Fred

devbobo

wow....very very nice Shay

Can't wait to see the full pano.

David

Andy

two words
su weeeeeeeeeeeeet

auraflora

Wonderful colors and wonderful tribute Shay.


Michal

grimace

Great shot!! Can't wait to see the finished product!!

Also, thank you for the shot data. I started shooting my night shots at f8.0 for 30 secs and wasn't sure if I was over doing it. Any chance you're shooting with a Sony 828?

-Adam

www.adamstravelphotography.com

Shay Stephens

Not this time, but it could have been. The focal length, shutter speed, aperture, ISO, and white balance I used are all within the capabilities of the 828.

grimace wrote:

Any chance you're shooting with a Sony 828?

Nikolai

Great!
And good to hear from you too:-)

Cheers!

jwear

i can not take a single shot that clear and sharp much less put them together your good

Shay Stephens

Some things I have found helpful in getting a clear looking photo is good exposure, contrast, and color saturation. Having those settings off will deteriorate the clear look that is there.

And much of that can all be post processing work.

jwear wrote:

i can not take a single shot that clear and sharp much less put them together your good

ehughes

Very nice Shay, very impressive.....


Ed

iceman17

That realy looks beautiful just as it is,I can only imagine how it will look when your done ....Mike

rsi1986

I would be proud to hang what you have right now on the wall. Great work, I feel like I'm standing there.

erich6

So...did you get it finished?

gus

That is a very eye drawing shot shay. Sadly when i was there the smog was thicker than ticks on a dog. You had a very clear night.

MuskyDude

Spectacular shot Shay, wonderfull.



AJ

ian408

Very nice Shay!

Ian

ginger_55

Shay Stephens wrote:

Some things I have found helpful in getting a clear looking photo is good exposure, contrast, and color saturation. Having those settings off will deteriorate the clear look that is there.

And much of that can all be post processing work.

Great photo, Shay. After seeing your self portrait (s), I expect no less than great all the time now! Not that I didn't before.

I just have to respond to this re exposure, contrast, etc.

I just happened to run into a clear morning at the wildlife preserve on Sat. Only other person, besides bird expert, was a photographer. He kept telling me I was under exposing. We looked at my histograms, I was the recipient of a major lecture on underexposing and why I shouldn't.

So, I tried, I really did, to put some of my histogram material at a point where I KNEW it would blow a Snowy (bird) in a heartbeat. These things would show up in the air, etc, I blew them. I also blew a couple of egrets that came and went too fast for adjustments. On a histogram the Snowys don't even show up, mine don't, the majority of the histogram is at the dark end. A very bad thing, according to the photographer.

So, being confused already, I raised my E/C to zip, no E/C. I had to do that to get the histograms closer to the middle. Thank gosh for the Tricolors and other darker birds.

They were clearer than ever before, sharp, too. I knew they would be by looking at them. I was hoping the white birds would be OK, and some were, but many were not. These things don't stick around, hold poses, repeat feeding moves for my camera.

And it was a very clear sharp morning, hot, very hot, but clearer than it has been.

But I am still very confused. I am wondering, too, Shay re your histogram, on a shot like that, there is a lot of dark..............

I was taught in the seventies that if there is dark background and a lighter foreground, the subject, to underexpose if at a distance. For instance trees will/or would then, fool the meter in the camera and to take that into consideration. I did then, I have since, now I am confused. 18% grey, I know that, I can see it w/o a card, can't show it to the camera, but I know it, so that would not need to be explained to me.

ginger (Repeating that is a really wonderful photo, will be a wonderful panorama: what did you say had changed/moved?)