LPS#2, I didn't sleep at all last night

seastack

Could use your help in making a decision between these, especially since we're focusing on conveying theme as well as quality of image. Appreciate any comments.



#1




#2



#3



#4

pyroPrints.com

The only one that says stately to me is the 3rd one (I guess because of the contrast), which is ironic because that's the one I like the least. The first 2 images on the other hand are gorgeous, but don't quite say stately or humble to me (I would however love to find out what your technique was on those (fill flash on the second one?)).

seastack

which is ironic because that's the one I like the least.

That's my problem.

As for technique on the first two, they are long exposures in moonlight (8 minute and 6 minute at f 5.6, ISO100, under a 65% moon and some intermittent light cloud cover). I also used a Maglite (the big 4 D battery one) to paint the scene during nearly the entire exposure. Gave a nice warm tone (which I actually toned down a little) to contrast with the blue.

Tessa HD

hi
1 and 2 are incredible! wow! I don't know what to say about them in relation to the theme, other than they seem to me to be 'stately creations by nature'. maybe 1 is more stately than 2 to me.

Tessa

pyroPrints.com

seastack wrote:

That's my problem.

As for technique on the first two, they are long exposures in moonlight (8 minute and 6 minute at f 5.6, ISO100, under a 65% moon and some intermittent light cloud cover). I also used a Maglite (the big 4 D battery one) to paint the scene during nearly the entire exposure. Gave a nice warm tone (which I actually toned down a little) to contrast with the blue.

I sure hope you mean seconds not minutes =c) I should try the maglite trick.

seastack

pyroPrints.com wrote:

I sure hope you mean seconds not minutes =c) I should try the maglite trick.

No, minutes is right :-)

pyroPrints.com

I'm probably missing something here. 6 min seems like a really long time to me (maybe because i've never done over 60 sec, and even at 60 seconds I had a ridiculous amount of noise) Want to provide me with some insight ?

seastack

I'm probably missing something here. 6 min seems like a really long time to me (maybe because i've never done over 60 sec, and even at 60 seconds I had a ridiculous amount of noise) Want to provide me with some insight ?

Sure. Well, 6 minutes at f5.6, ISO 100, is a good starting point for shooting under moonlight only (full moon). I can't speak to your camera but I use a Canon EOS 5d which is one of the better digitals out there on noise. Also, I can turn on additional in-camera internal noise reduction through a custom function (with this extra processing it doubles exposure time). By using low ISO and long exposures I get good results. I also try a lot of different ideas on exposure, illumination and the like, and make loads of mistakes and failures, but not always. The results can be that elusive "something different."

Because of the noise issue, a lot of night photographers still use film.

For all things photographically nocturnal, visit: http://www.thenocturnes.com/

Really, this is a great resource and you'll find loads of good information, links and some incredible night photographs.

Also check out www.danheller.com, he's got some good basics on moonlight and star trail photography as well as stunning photos.

pyroPrints.com

Thanks! Will try =c)

DavidTO

I'll start from the bottom up.

I don't care for the last one. Kinda corny, IMO.

The third one is more spot-on for the theme, and it's OK, but it's not special like the first two.

The first two both suffer from compositional problems, IMO. You might try cropping the top of the first, making for a more pano type composition. On the second, I'm not crazy about the dead space on the left. It seems like you needed to take a few steps to the right or forward so as to fill the frame better. I also would have liked the camera a little lower, closer to the ground.

Nice work, though. Better than I think I would have done under the circumstances.

Flyinggina

Boy those are impressive pictures.

I love the first shot and think it is the best of the lot. To me it qualifies as stately. I would be interested in seeing how it looks with a pano crop, but I like it as is.

The second one is nice too. However, I find the log in the foreground distracting (though the golden glow is really neat) plus the relative placement of the big rock in the foreground and the little island in the background just doesn't work for me. The other two pictures are well done but to me are not at the same level artistically.

I would enter your best photograph and not worry too much about whether it "says" stately. Good luck with whatever you decide to enter.

Virginia

seastack

Different crop and some edit on #1

DavidTO

Cool. At this size, the star streaks (I assume that's what they are) just look like weird things in the sky. Kinda distracting.

seastack

Cool. At this size, the star streaks (I assume that's what they are) just look like weird things in the sky. Kinda distracting.

Good point (yep, star trails). At original size I think they work but you have to edit for the presentation format.

Marc Muench

late opinion

seastack wrote:

Good point (yep, star trails). At original size I think they work but you have to edit for the presentation format.

Thomas

I have been out of internet touch for 6 days so I just received your question.

Your first image is stunningthumb but the theme is not particularly conveyed. Themes in landscape become easily lost unless overstated. I have been to great museum exhibits by great well know photographers with so called themes which distracted from the incredible work. I believe the word stately conveyes "unhurried magesty" and the rocks are not large enough and the scene in your best shot, the first one, is conveying more movement and mystery!

I could see a person next to a rock outcropping ten times larger but shot in the same mannor?????

Good luck.