Atlanta in the dark

[patch29]

I wanted to test out how the digital camera would handle car light streaking. Here is a quick shot. Now all I need to do is to shoot it at dusk on a clear evening and it should look great.

[patch29]

Compressing it for the web really broke up the sky. It is much smoother in the original file.

[patch29]

Just for kicks here is a crop of the image at 100%, not too bad for a long exposure with poor lighting on a bouncing bridge.

[wxwax]

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.

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/2124782-M.jpg



http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/2125180-M.jpg

[wxwax]

Well, mine looks pretty awful. I'll have to play with it. In the meantime, here's another version.

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/2125238-M.jpg

[ian408]

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.



http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/2125180-M.jpg
Notice the lane change? From #5 to #4 to #3? Pretty
cool!

Oh, and the date setting on your camera is wrong.

Ian

[wxwax]

OK, so I saw how Patch framed his shot. And he told me dusk was a better time to shoot this kind of scene. So being the thieving little b*****d that I am, I went back down this evening and tried again. But it was so freakin' cold (by my standards anyway) that my fingers froze before the best light of the day. Enter Photoshop. I can see my ham handedness. You?

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/2177505-M.jpg

[wxwax]

Just want to make it clear that I'm stealing Patch's original idea for framing this shot.

[HarveyMushman]

And [patch] told me dusk was a better time to shoot this kind of scene.

Why dusk? Reduces glare from the lights?

[wxwax]

Softer light, avoids the harsh shadows of unfiltered sunlight, really cool background light (can be dark blue or orange or red or purple,) still reveals details of the buildings, puts a nice tint on everything that's hit by the light, is a nice contrast to the brighter lights of the cars.

BTW, I now see I should have left more headroom above the tallest building. Ah well, live and learn.

[HarveyMushman]

Softer light, avoids the harsh shadows of unfiltered sunlight, really cool background light (can be dark blue or orange or red or purple,) still reveals details of the buildings, puts a nice tint on everything that's hit by the light, is a nice contrast to the brighter lights of the cars.

Is that all? :D

[wxwax]

Is that all? :D

As the man said, it's like bacon - goes with anything. :D

[zero-zero]

BTW, I now see I should have left more headroom above the tallest building. Ah well, live and learn.
Waxy, I like your light best - dusk works so much better. But, at least Patch left out the ugly street lamp on the right edge... :wxwax

(Never mind me. Just getting even for the "ugly hand" comment :lol3 )

[cletus]

Waxy, I like your light best - dusk works so much better. But, at least Patch left out the ugly street lamp on the right edge... :wxwax

(Never mind me. Just getting even for the "ugly hand" comment :lol3 ) Waxy,

I won't be as harsh as Ø-Ø but... If you shoot that again I would try to loose the streetlight. I'm sure you already knew that though!

Here's another thought. I find the lighted sign just right of center to be distracting because it is so blown out. Since your shooting off a tripod (if you hand-held that shot, get to the hospital quick - if you're that steady, you're dead) maybe try one exposure much, much shorter to get the sign properly exposed. Then shoot you're main exposure and go back and use photoshop to combine the two images.

-Eric

[DoctorIt]

....But it was so freakin' cold (by my standards anyway) that my fingers froze before the best light of the day.

Aw, poor waxy. What was it, maybe 30 degrees? This was our lovely thermometer reading the other day:

http://www-unix.ecs.umass.edu/~ermiller/photos/2004-01-26.jpg

and thats partially in the sun.

I really dig the shot though!
and way to document the thievery :wink

[wxwax]

Waxy,

I won't be as harsh as Ø-Ø but... If you shoot that again I would try to loose the streetlight. I'm sure you already knew that though!

Here's another thought. I find the lighted sign just right of center to be distracting because it is so blown out. Since your shooting off a tripod (if you hand-held that shot, get to the hospital quick - if you're that steady, you're dead) maybe try one exposure much, much shorter to get the sign properly exposed. Then shoot you're main exposure and go back and use photoshop to combine the two images.

-Eric

Good idea, Cletus, I was wondering if that light was an issue. I should redo the shot. And I noticed that lamp to the right but too late to change. :cry

Yeah, I'm a woos in the cold.

[fish]

And I noticed that lamp to the right but too late to change.
Here's an excellent opportunity for you to get intimately familiar with your tool (clone tool, that is). Cloning out the lamp will over the sky will be pretty easy, but the building will be a challenge (or it would be for me). Try it and report back. :)

[wxwax]

Another night shot in Atlanta. Only 41 degrees this time, I got a sunburn it was so hot. After shooting this place for a couple of hours I went inside and had a couple of eggs sunyy side up, side of bacon and toast, and a nice warm cup or three of decaf with cream and sugar. Yum.

Because my monitor is dark, this probably looks slightly bright to everyone else.


http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/2357050-L.jpg

[wxwax]

It was shot after dark, but indoors. And not at that diner, either. :wxwax

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/2366318-M.jpg

[DoctorIt]

It was shot after dark, but indoors. And not at that diner, either. :wxwax

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/2366318-M.jpg Eat me! EAT ME!

nice shot - color, detail is cool.

[lynnma]

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.

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/2124782-M.jpg



http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/2125180-M.jpg
Sid, I really like what you did... it must have been difficult too, your monitor being so dark and all....

[wxwax]

:rofl Thanks Lynn, you're very kind. One of these days I'll take a course.

[gus]

My 1st time exposure. We have 2 paddlewheelers that go past a few times a night.

http://humongous.smugmug.com/photos/2379852-L.jpg

[gus]

Funny thing is that i could never get the camera to focus at night...always used prog thus f1.8. But here the background lights have turned out a lot better on f8. Is this how its ment to be ? ie smaller aperture to get clearer lights at night ?

[wxwax]

No expert, but... the smaller lens opening at f8 gives a greater depth of field... so more stuff will be in focus. And the opposite is true for f1.8... shallow depth of field, ideally only the thing you focus on, is actually in focus.

[pathfinder]

No expert, but... the smaller lens opening at f8 gives a greater depth of field... so more stuff will be in focus. And the opposite is true for f1.8... shallow depth of field, ideally only the thing you focus on, is actually in focus.
Smaller aperatures will also help prevent flare from point sources of light - eg artificial lights from vehicles, boats etc.

Also lenses - especially less than perfect lenses ( which includes most of the lenses most of us will ever own ) - are at their sharpest about 2 or 3 f-stops closed from their maximum aperature. And since you are making a time exposure - smaller aperatures are no problem unless you are doing a really long exposure - minutes say - and you get into sensor noise issues.

[gus]

Smaller aperatures will also help prevent flare from point sources of light - eg artificial lights from vehicles, boats etc.

Also lenses - especially less than perfect lenses ( which includes most of the lenses most of us will ever own ) - are at their sharpest about 2 or 3 f-stops closed from their maximum aperature. And since you are making a time exposure - smaller aperatures are no problem unless you are doing a really long exposure - minutes say - and you get into sensor noise issues.Thanks guys...im getting there.

heres one of my pinhole shots.... about f400 & 4 mins exposure. Aperture is 0.3mm (0.011811 of an inch) Odd thing is that i understand this but cant get my digital right.

http://humongous.smugmug.com/photos/221234-M-1.jpg

[wxwax]

I remember your pinhole work. I thought, and still think, it's great. And I really like that shot. :thumb

[wxwax]

OK, trying something new for me. I'm aware that the colors and the brightness levels may look off to the few of you who have good monitors. Knowing that, this is a rough pass. I was trying to make a mood.

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/2405248-M.jpg

[gus]

Waxola ...does your camera have histogram ? Ive been on it all day & the mist is lifting for me anyway.

I see a good shot BTW :thumb

[wxwax]

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.

[gus]

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]

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]

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

[wxwax]

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

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/2465362-M.jpg

[wxwax]

Another version.

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/2465663-M.jpg

[wxwax]

What the heck, a couple more versions.

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/2465794-M.jpg


http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/2465818-M.jpg

[gus]

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]

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]

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.

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/2553067-M.jpg

[ian408]

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.

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/2553067-M.jpg
That's a keeper.

Ian

[wxwax]

Thanks Ian.

[gus]

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

[wxwax]

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]

More nightime Atlanta.

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/2556043-M.jpg

[wxwax]

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/2556048-M.jpg

[cmr164]

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]

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.



http://shakey.smugmug.com/photos/2537410-M.jpg (http://shakey.smugmug.com/photos/2537410-O.jpg)



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]

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.

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/2124782-M.jpg



http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/2125180-M.jpgSid, I really like this shot...specially the light from the top of the building.. corse' it's very bright on my screen.....

[lynnma]

More nightime Atlanta.

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/2556043-M.jpg
very cool... you must spend a lot of time roaming the streets at night Sid..I like the angle..

[HarveyMushman]

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

:lol3

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

[wxwax]

:huh

:lol3

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

Does your monitoring ankle bracelet allow you to? :lol3

[wxwax]

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. :nod

[wxwax]

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]

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. :scratch

[Shakey]

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. :scratchThanks 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.

http://shakey.smugmug.com/photos/2537480-M.jpg

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]

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 (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=392) that's been discussed here.

[wxwax]

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/2595588-M.jpg



http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/2595586-M.jpg

[wxwax]

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/2611048-M.jpg

[DoctorIt]

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

:D

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

[wxwax]

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

:D

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


:D


:nod


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.

[wxwax]

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/4262088-M.jpg

[wxwax]

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/4279371-L.jpg

[lynnma]

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/4262088-M.jpgI like this one oh roamer of the night... strange color

[wxwax]

I like this one oh roamer of the night... strange color

Thank you, Ms. May. :evil

[tmshots]

Well now I feel the urge to submit. This is one I took in Vancouver B.C. from atop my hotel room. Beautiful place. Never enough cars for a good shutter shot but the moon is what pulls me.

[wxwax]

Nice moon, TM.

[damonff]

Really cool shot Sid. The sky looks weird though...what's up?

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/2177505-M.jpg

[wxwax]

Really cool shot Sid. The sky looks weird though...what's up?

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/2177505-M.jpg

Just messing with different levels and masking. Kinda fun, in a painstaking sort of way. I like mismatches between sky and subject matter, on those occasions when I'm able to make it happen.

[wxwax]

Shot on the way home from the picture show last night. I may try this again, with more dusk-like lighting. Photo details - 1DmkII, 35 f1.4L, f1.4, 1/15th second, ISO 1600, handheld. I did a slight blend of two different RAW exposures, so as to darken the foreground a wee bit, plus lots of contrast and saturation, and sharpening.

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/11874287-L.jpg

[wxwax]

This one was on the way to the picture show. A little soft, I thought, not sure why. Same camera and lens, f1.4, 1/60, ISO 1250. Cropped, Transformed for perspective, contrast, saturation and sharpening.

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/11875863-L.jpg

[photocat]

Softer light, avoids the harsh shadows of unfiltered sunlight, really cool background light (can be dark blue or orange or red or purple,) still reveals details of the buildings, puts a nice tint on everything that's hit by the light, is a nice contrast to the brighter lights of the cars.

BTW, I now see I should have left more headroom above the tallest building. Ah well, live and learn.

Great idea from the both of you, Patch for the framing idea and wxwax for the reshoot by dusk. (Do you two really live in the same city???)
Love the curves that are made by the light trails...
Guess I could try to do light trails from the one car that passes here in the evening at 7.57...

[gubbs]

This one was on the way to the picture show. A little soft, I thought, not sure why. Same camera and lens, f1.4, 1/60, ISO 1250. Cropped, Transformed for perspective, contrast, saturation and sharpening.

Sid, was the high iso because you didn't have your tripod with you?? Very sharp handhelds :clap

[wxwax]

Sid, was the high iso because you didn't have your tripod with you??
:nod Yessir, I was walking to the movie theater and didn't want to carry the tripod in addition to the camera bag.

[gubbs]

:nod Yessir, I was walking to the movie theater and didn't want to carry the tripod in addition to the camera bag. http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/11874287-Th.jpg
Such cool lines,curves & colours :clap

[wxwax]

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/11874287-Th.jpg
Such cool lines,curves & colours :clap
Thanks, mate, the composition is what drew me eye.

[photocat]

Thanks, mate, the composition is what drew me eye.

Like your evening shots Sid... I like the one with the bend towards the buildings with the blue sky.
You are doing a great job on keeping the camera still... Wished I had your steady hand. Great night shots you posted here in this tread.

[wxwax]

A fun and unusual one, for me. I was about done for the night and decided to use up a few frames shooting my bike, which I rarely do. I was trying to use the headlights of the passing cars to light up the machine. In this image, the advancing car made it half way through the frame and sorta sets up the motorcycle. Nothing great, but odd. I tried to duplicate the effect, but timing the cars is too difficult and I couldn't.

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/12311352-L.jpg

[imax]

I wanted to test out how the digital camera would handle car light streaking. Here is a quick shot. Now all I need to do is to shoot it at dusk on a clear evening and it should look great.
These are some great pictures. They say practice makes perfect, I have alot of practicing to do!