Nik, when I do that (sorry to ask in this thread, btw) and save as srgb the images look the same online as they did with aRGB. am I doing something wrong?
Hmm.. That's strange.. Are you're sure you're overriding the profile?
How can I make sure? I must be doing something wrong
By opening the file after saving and verifying it's sRGB?
Also, I hope you're operating with jpegs and the is absolutely no other conversion involved prior to uploading?
By opening the file after saving and verifying it's sRGB?
Also, I hope you're operating with jpegs and the is absolutely no other conversion involved prior to uploading?
Yeah, I convert to jpeg prior to uploading and don't mess with them after I convert. Could you take a quick min to show me the steps of what you would do, just to make sure I'm doing it correctly?
Yeah, I convert to jpeg prior to uploading and don't mess with them after I convert. Could you take a quick min to show me the steps of what you would do, just to make sure I'm doing it correctly?
Thanks for your help!
Izzy
Izzy, all my workflow is sRGB, so I usually don't take those steps
However, for all I know, it should be just what I said...
The thing is, PS can be tricky with overriding profiles. Check your preferences.
The steps are: convert, save the file, close all the files in PS, make sure it doesn't automatically convert to aRGB on opening and open the saved file to see if it stays sRGB.
If this doesn't help, you may need to talk to somebody who's doing this on a regular basis
Scoot what are you shooting with and, what is it about the photos that isnt turning out? Are they too dark or, are the color contrasts coming out bad. If it is the color contrast then the White Balance is off. I find that the preset Incandesent works well on my Nikons. Too dark you arent exposing long enough, too bright then too long. The great thing about Dslrs is instant review and, being able to try somethingelse to get it right. I like to shoot in ISO800 myself. You also need a tripod for those shots.
How could I have done this better? It's tough to gauge, by histogram only, metering for bright lights like these. It would be great to no have to use so much highlight recovery.
Try having your lens focused at its hyperfocal distance at a larger aperture
(say, 2.8) and use a faster shutter speed. this will catch all of the lights and avoid them blowing out . . . sometimes. You can then just crop out what's not in focus right in front of the lens. The picture looks great, though , and it looks like your exposure wasn't that long.
Or, take one picture exposed for the ground and buildings and another for the sky, then merge them in PS
see if that works and let me know! I've found that there are some lights or some corners that are lit so brightly that it would be impossible to meter for them without losing a ton of detail in the shadows.
Make: Canon
Model: Canon EOS 30D
Shutter Speed: 6/1 second
F Number: F/8.0
Focal Length: 17 mm
ISO Speed: 100
Date Picture Taken: Nov 11, 2007, 12:42:31 AM
Artist's Comments
Panorama of St. Paul, MN. Hope you like it!
Tell me what you think. it looks like the pictures I put together for the pano were too far apart, making it look fisheyeish
BTW, I think one of the tricks to shooting at night... is to not shoot at night!
Soon after the sun dips below the horizon the sky turns a gorgeous shade of blue for a few moments. It can make for some lovely night shots that are, in fact, shot at dusk. Next time you see a "night" cityscape, look for color in the sky. It's a giveway!
I know this is a old post but this photo is great. Can you please post your settings for this shot? The white balance is very important to me. I hope you did not shoot this in raw. Also was there any post prosessing. I would like to be able to shoot this type of photo to hang on my wall. Any advice would be great.
0
Ken J. GoodRegistered UsersPosts: 1Beginner grinner
edited December 6, 2007
First post. Been "lurking".
First and foremost, some of these night images are absolutely stunning. Wow!
I have so, so, so far to go! Based on this thread, I have a lot of good things to play and practice with. Thanx all for posting.
Background: I've been involved in the tactical end of things for quite some time, and much of that has not been capturing light, but emitting light with higher-end illumination tools and lasers in the military and law enforcement realm.
Now I own a company that sells small HID searchlights. The difficulty is "showing" people exactly how powerful these things are. So I decided to jump and attempt to learn how to do that through photography....
I know, I don't know what I don't know.....So I stated small so to speak and purchased a Nikon D40X with a couple of lenses.
Started reading a little, going out at night and taking pictures.....Of course fell flat on my face at first. But now I am crawling very, very slowly.
I ran into a phenomenon that I am hoping someone here can assist me with.
I took an image of a darkend football field with the following settings:
f/5.6 5.0s ISO400 0EV
I do this so that there is a relative difference comparison image.
5 seconds later using the exact same settings, I take an image of the same scene, but with one of our lights on.
Question: Why does the background mountains show up in the second image when I have not changed any of the manual settings?
It seems the sensor is reacting differently based on the large volume of light coming almost directly at the camera. It is the metering I used (Spot) or something else?
moving objects @ night? WOW - I would definitely love to see that one
I just started shooting night shots myself. Still trying to learn what settings are best, etc. Here's my favorite shot so far though. This was a moving shot. I don't think the EXIF data got included when I uploaded it though. Definately not a perfect shot, but I like it and learned a lot while I was shooting.
Canon 40D, 50mm f/1.4, 1600 ISO, Tv 1250 (i think)
Bridge
It was a wonderful night outside: 0 deg. F, steam rising from the mississippi, and a clear sky (might have been nice to have some clouds, but meh).
PANO: 4 Shots, cropped
Make: Canon
Model: Canon EOS 40D
Shutter Speed: 25/1 second
F Number: F/11.0
Focal Length: 17 mm
ISO Speed: 200
Date Picture Taken: Jan 1, 2008, 11:33:11 PM
Comments
How can I make sure? I must be doing something wrong
Also, I hope you're operating with jpegs and the is absolutely no other conversion involved prior to uploading?
Yeah, I convert to jpeg prior to uploading and don't mess with them after I convert. Could you take a quick min to show me the steps of what you would do, just to make sure I'm doing it correctly?
Thanks for your help!
Izzy
Izzy, all my workflow is sRGB, so I usually don't take those steps
However, for all I know, it should be just what I said...
The thing is, PS can be tricky with overriding profiles. Check your preferences.
The steps are: convert, save the file, close all the files in PS, make sure it doesn't automatically convert to aRGB on opening and open the saved file to see if it stays sRGB.
If this doesn't help, you may need to talk to somebody who's doing this on a regular basis
Any shoots done from a cruise ship @ night? If so could you post them please.
http://studiogirl.smugmug .com/:thumb
http://www.nkpix.com
http://joves.smugmug.com/
(say, 2.8) and use a faster shutter speed. this will catch all of the lights and avoid them blowing out . . . sometimes. You can then just crop out what's not in focus right in front of the lens. The picture looks great, though
Or, take one picture exposed for the ground and buildings and another for the sky, then merge them in PS
see if that works and let me know! I've found that there are some lights or some corners that are lit so brightly that it would be impossible to meter for them without losing a ton of detail in the shadows.
Make: Canon
Model: Canon EOS 30D
Shutter Speed: 6/1 second
F Number: F/8.0
Focal Length: 17 mm
ISO Speed: 100
Date Picture Taken: Nov 11, 2007, 12:42:31 AM
Artist's Comments
Panorama of St. Paul, MN. Hope you like it!
Tell me what you think. it looks like the pictures I put together for the pano were too far apart, making it look fisheyeish
http://www.michaelhelbigphotography.com
http://www.thewildpig.blogspot.com
taken just a couple days ago...
ISO 800, f/4, 1/30 handheld at 28mm
taken last Christmas season...
ISO 3200, f/5.6, 1/8 handheld at 50mm
Comments and constructive critique always welcome!
Elaine Heasley Photography
EXIF - This photo is the merge of 2 layers.
One for the tree and another one for the lights.
You have everything to shoot in LA!!!! Lots of great subject after dark!!!!
http://www.nkpix.com
I know this is a old post but this photo is great. Can you please post your settings for this shot? The white balance is very important to me. I hope you did not shoot this in raw. Also was there any post prosessing. I would like to be able to shoot this type of photo to hang on my wall. Any advice would be great.
First and foremost, some of these night images are absolutely stunning. Wow!
I have so, so, so far to go! Based on this thread, I have a lot of good things to play and practice with. Thanx all for posting.
Background: I've been involved in the tactical end of things for quite some time, and much of that has not been capturing light, but emitting light with higher-end illumination tools and lasers in the military and law enforcement realm.
Now I own a company that sells small HID searchlights. The difficulty is "showing" people exactly how powerful these things are. So I decided to jump and attempt to learn how to do that through photography....
I know, I don't know what I don't know.....So I stated small so to speak and purchased a Nikon D40X with a couple of lenses.
Started reading a little, going out at night and taking pictures.....Of course fell flat on my face at first. But now I am crawling very, very slowly.
I ran into a phenomenon that I am hoping someone here can assist me with.
I took an image of a darkend football field with the following settings:
f/5.6 5.0s ISO400 0EV
I do this so that there is a relative difference comparison image.
5 seconds later using the exact same settings, I take an image of the same scene, but with one of our lights on.
Question: Why does the background mountains show up in the second image when I have not changed any of the manual settings?
It seems the sensor is reacting differently based on the large volume of light coming almost directly at the camera. It is the metering I used (Spot) or something else?
Other images not related to my question:
See also:
http://polarion-usa.com/images/Football-Field-PH40120507-7.jpg
http://polarion-usa.com/images/Football-Field-PH40120507-8.jpg
Any and all comments/tips appreciated!
Respectfully,
Ken J. Good
http://polarion-usa.com
OMG is that the Osbourne light show at Disney Studios - Walt Disney World???????
December 2005.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I just started shooting night shots myself. Still trying to learn what settings are best, etc. Here's my favorite shot so far though. This was a moving shot. I don't think the EXIF data got included when I uploaded it though. Definately not a perfect shot, but I like it and learned a lot while I was shooting.
Canon 40D, 50mm f/1.4, 1600 ISO, Tv 1250 (i think)
It was a wonderful night outside: 0 deg. F, steam rising from the mississippi, and a clear sky (might have been nice to have some clouds, but meh).
PANO: 4 Shots, cropped
Make: Canon
Model: Canon EOS 40D
Shutter Speed: 25/1 second
F Number: F/11.0
Focal Length: 17 mm
ISO Speed: 200
Date Picture Taken: Jan 1, 2008, 11:33:11 PM
Izzy