Atlanta in the dark

gus · February 15, 2004

wxwax wrote:

Yeah, it does. I've just started trying to figure out how to use it. I'm thinking that when I'm shooting at night, at least, I'll push the bump in the histogram both to the right and to the left in different shots. That way I have a choice when I get home, and can play in Photoshop. I'm tired of coming back with underexposed shots because I trusted the camera's little monitor, which shows everything to be brighter than it really is.

From what i can gather...keep the verticle bars off the left or the right side of the screen. The rest is up to your personal choice.

Thats as short a course as it gets but it is a white line on an unmarked road for me.

wxwax · February 15, 2004

I think we're about in the same place. I keep thinking it's important that the lines don't touch the top... but I guess I'm wrong about that. What I think is cool is when someone with experience says that lump is the building and the other smaller lump is the sky... and that little bulge there is the weird cat in the box.

gus · February 15, 2004

Left is under exposed & right is over exposed. The rest you can deal with.

wxwax · February 19, 2004

OK, I'm getting closer to the shot that Patch first suggested. This here's a plain shot from this evening, levels slightly adjusted. Later I'm going to try a digital blend to get both the sky and the traffic trails just right. But I now think my framing was off. :bash

wxwax · February 19, 2004

Another version.

wxwax · February 19, 2004

What the heck, a couple more versions.

gus · February 19, 2004

jebus they are clear mate...good work. I like the 2nd one...but with some longer car trails ....soooooooo

get back out there !

on reflection...is that 2nd one got a refitted sky ?

wxwax · February 19, 2004

Sort of.... the second pic has the sky from one pic and some added car trails from another pic... I used that digital blending thing we talked about before. More car trails? Jeebus, I don't know if I can!

wxwax · February 24, 2004

To say I'm discouraged is a bit of an understatement. I finally saw my shots on a decent monitor. Now I'm going to have to go back and fix them all. Here's one last one as seen through a bad monitor... hope it comes out all right.

ian408 · February 25, 2004

wxwax wrote:

To say I'm discouraged is a bit of an understatement. I finally saw my shots on a decent monitor. Now I'm going to have to go back and fix them all. Here's one last one as seen through a bad monitor... hope it comes out all right.

That's a keeper.

Ian

wxwax · February 25, 2004

Thanks Ian.

gus · February 25, 2004

Mate now its been so long i have forgotten...what were your settings/times again ? Top shot.

wxwax · February 25, 2004

Thanks mate. 15 second exposure at f4.5. Smugmug says the lens was the equivalent of 38mm. Truth is, I bracketed the hell out of the thing, must have taken 100 shots at all sorts of exposures.

Every few minutes, as the light changed, I'd run up and down the scale again. I love the super dark blue of the sky just after the sun's gone below the horizon.

Without realizing it, I had the neutral density filter turned on, which is a good thing. It let in less light, which meant longer exposures, so I was able to get longer traffic trails.

wxwax · February 25, 2004

More nightime Atlanta.

wxwax · February 25, 2004

cmr164 · February 25, 2004

wxwax wrote:

To say I'm discouraged is a bit of an understatement. I finally saw my shots on a decent monitor. Now I'm going to have to go back and fix them all. Here's one last one as seen through a bad monitor... hope it comes out all right.

Nice and crisp. The traffic must have been pretty heavy to get lights so solid in an 8sec exposure.

Shakey · February 25, 2004

Both are excellent shots the diner sign is nice cropped that way.
I have done some forays into the nocturnal world recently and I am learning.

This is my latest and after about 20 different shots this one came out the clearest.

I will have to try that neutral filter trick and see how it affects my shots.

Cheers,

Tim

lynnma · February 25, 2004

wxwax wrote:

Patrick, that looks excellent. I really like the framing and the exposure.

Here are mine, probably too bright for you, because my monitor is a little dark.

Sid, I really like this shot...specially the light from the top of the building.. corse' it's very bright on my screen.....

lynnma · February 25, 2004

wxwax wrote:

More nightime Atlanta.

very cool... you must spend a lot of time roaming the streets at night Sid..I like the angle..

HarveyMushman · February 25, 2004

lynnma wrote:

very cool... you must spend a lot of time roaming the streets at night Sid.

Beautiful pictures, Sid. Makes me want to roam the streets too.

wxwax · February 25, 2004

HarveyMushman wrote:

Beautiful pictures, Sid. Makes me want to roam the streets too.

Does your monitoring ankle bracelet allow you to?

wxwax · February 25, 2004

lynnma wrote:

very cool... you must spend a lot of time roaming the streets at night Sid..I like the angle..

I do have a bad habit of staying up late.

wxwax · February 25, 2004

cmr164 wrote:

Nice and crisp. The traffic must have been pretty heavy to get lights so solid in an 8sec exposure.

Yeah, it was between 2 and 3am. Some traffic, but not very much. Parked cars got in the way of some of the nicer angles, unfortunately.

wxwax · February 25, 2004

Shakey wrote:

Both are excellent shots the diner sign is nice cropped that way.
I have done some forays into the nocturnal world recently and I am learning.
This is my latest and after about 20 different shots this one came out the clearest.
I will have to try that neutral filter trick and see how it affects my shots.
Cheers,
Tim

Tim, I think the neutral density only helps if you're trying to do long exposures, in order to make motion appear as streaks. Under Patch's guidance, we went shooting the city skyline, trying to get traffic trails. You need long exposures to get the trails. When shooting something static, it doesn't matter. In fact, better to remove/turn-off the neutral density filter IMHO, because it forces you into unnecessarily long exposures. Halfway through last night's shoot, I turned it off, and I went from shooting 8-10 second exposures, down to 1-2 second exposures. Huge difference.

I like shooting at night, mostly because that's when I finally bestir myself to get out! I don't know much... but so far, I've focused on shooting where there's light. My external flash isn't strong enough to be used as a fill light (I tried again last night, with weak results.) So if it's dark in life, it will be dark in the pic. That's why I gravitate to the neon lights. I've discovered that they really bloom in long exposures... so much so that it can look like they're out of focus. I haven't figured that one out yet.

Shakey · February 25, 2004

wxwax wrote:

Tim, I think the neutral density only helps if you're trying to do long exposures, in order to make motion appear as streaks. Under Patch's guidance, we went shooting the city skyline, trying to get traffic trails. You need long exposures to get the trails. When shooting something static, it doesn't matter. In fact, better to remove/turn-off the neutral density filter IMHO, because it forces you into unnecessarily long exposures. Halfway through last night's shoot, I turned it off, and I went from shooting 8-10 second exposures, down to 1-2 second exposures. Huge difference.

I like shooting at night, mostly because that's when I finally bestir myself to get out! I don't know much... but so far, I've focused on shooting where there's light. My external flash isn't strong enough to be used as a fill light (I tried again last night, with weak results.) So if it's dark in life, it will be dark in the pic. That's why I gravitate to the neon lights. I've discovered that they really bloom in long exposures... so much so that it can look like they're out of focus. I haven't figured that one out yet.

Thanks Sid,
This is my first traffic trail shot. 15s exposure F/5.0. And unfortunately I had only my shite 10" tripod then, I still had not found my good one, so the shot is from down low.

I am going to shoot a bunch more trying different techniques.
How can I get the WB correct at night without software if possible?

wxwax · February 25, 2004

Shakey wrote:

Thanks Sid,
This is my first traffic trail shot. 15s exposure F/5.0.
I am going to shoot a bunch more trying different techniques.
How can I get the WB correct at night without software if possible?

Ah! Great question, for me at least. Does your camera have a manual white balance option? Because that's what I'd use. Get a piece of white paper, zoom in on it, and use your camera's manual white balance control to set the right white balance.

But this is a matter of do as I say, not as I do, because although I can see white balance issues in my shots, I still haven't done this myself. But it's what I intend to do.

On my monitor, your shot looks overexposed. I'd suggest stopping down a bit more. It's tough finding the right balance between good trails, and a decent exposure of the surroundings. I dunno if you have photoshop, but if so, you might end up have to use the Digital Blending that's been discussed here.

wxwax · February 28, 2004

wxwax · February 29, 2004

DoctorIt · February 29, 2004

Waxy and his new monitor... I see lots more "dark" shots coming our way.

I like 'em. Whats that second one? Looks grainy, I assume an effect?

wxwax · February 29, 2004

DoctorIt wrote:

Waxy and his new monitor... I see lots more "dark" shots coming our way.

I like 'em. Whats that second one? Looks grainy, I assume an effect?

The second one is a close-up of the steps from the waterfall. I used Filter/Artistic/Poster Edges on it.

I have no business shooting stuff in utter darkness. Someday I'll learn.

Atlanta in the dark

Comments