Merlin1300
Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX
Agree with the HDR mavens. Set camera to auto-bracket -2, 0, +2 eV, Tripod, remote shutter release. Then to Photomatix - or whatever your favorite might be - -
Stef C
Loc: Conshohocken (near philly) PA
photogrl57 wrote:
I took both of these with the settings I mentioned earlier ...
Aperture priority, manual focus, f/18, ISO 100, 30 sec exposure... WB .. tungsten
Not sure about these two.. they don't look very clear/properly exposed. What was interesting about these?
In your case, the suggestion of HDR is appropriate, there are so many variations in lighting that you need to consider it.
The 'bracketing suggested is wrong for JPG as the it's range is 2 stops. For RAW it almost correct (depending of your camera. RAW dynamics range is from 4 to 6, so 2 is ok.
To back to your pictures, this seems to be the only way to get something out of your picture subject choice.
[quote=Stef C]Hello Everyone!
I have a question about night time shots/light/exposure.
Hello Stef,a little late to reply,but have you tried shooting sunset until 15-20 minutes after dark? I have taken practice pics in my backyard trying to get the effect you are after. My best results were from sunset till about 30 minutes
after sunset,depending on direction of sunset,lights ect.HDR/photo stacking would work great, but being digitally challenged :( , I try other options.
photogrl57 wrote:
I would lower the ISO to 100, f/18, 30 second exposure.
WB set to tungsten,
What she said. I'd go F13 or so. And maybe do it a little earlier, before the sky goes completely dark.
I would try 100 ISO F22 and increase your exposure time, you might have to play around with the time.
Stef C wrote:
Hello Everyone!
I have a question about night time shots/light/exposure.
As you can see, the two pictures below are very similar. In fact, all of the specs are the same except the shutter speed. There are as follows
Nikon D3100, 26mm, ISO - 400, F-29
The first picture is 2 seconds open, the second is 5...
As you can see in the first picture the text on the theater sign is very clear and crisp, in the second one its blurry and hard to read. However, in the first one you can't see any of the background or the rest of the building.
How can I get it so the text is clear (like in the first one), but the rest of the picture isn't completely black?
Should I lower the ISO and bump up the shutterspeed to 7 seconds or higher?
Does this make sense haha, i feel like i am rambling but basically i want clear text on the sign, and also I want the rest of the image to NOT be black like in the first one. Thanks :)
Hello Everyone! br br I have a question about nig... (
show quote)
Stef C
Loc: Conshohocken (near philly) PA
RocketScientist wrote:
photogrl57 wrote:
I would lower the ISO to 100, f/18, 30 second exposure.
WB set to tungsten,
What she said. I'd go F13 or so. And maybe do it a little earlier, before the sky goes completely dark.
I will try that advice, but I though her shots were kind of boring / not great to be honest. I don't want them to end up like that...
Stef C wrote:
RocketScientist wrote:
photogrl57 wrote:
I would lower the ISO to 100, f/18, 30 second exposure.
WB set to tungsten,
What she said. I'd go F13 or so. And maybe do it a little earlier, before the sky goes completely dark.
I will try that advice, but I though her shots were kind of boring / not great to be honest. I don't want them to end up like that...
That's just funny Stef ... your original question was asking how to get the building lit up and still be sharp on the sign ... I gave some advice and you thumbed your nose at it ... I showed you some examples of how the buildings would be lit up at a 30 second exposure and ISO of 100 ... my shots might not have been up to your standards but they were my very first night photos and still lit up more than yours even though they were boring and not great ... then someone else agrees with me and you are willing to try it .... just too funny
Well, photogrl57 folks have offered conflicting advices, even bad advice on this subject.
Your samples are sub-par with one over exposed and the other under exposed. To say that the topic user if biased against you is not quite correct. Also, this being of your own admission, your first try, why do you take offense to the rejection?
Your first post: WB set to tungsten, is wrong as it denatures the light. When you want to keep a 'mood', you do not play with the color balance. Then your longer exposure does not correct anything but certainly will make a wash-out of everything.
The only thing that can work is to take several exposures, one per type of light, at different speed as you want the option to have 'bleeding' when creating the final product. The first picture is of the building, preferably at dusk, and then combine the images.
This is how most city scape are taken with successful results, after many tires, when you are not trained to just do this automatically.
It is not an easy subject here and simplistic answers just to not make it.
So what is needed?
Fair weather as this shot will take sometime
A chair, a cup of coffee or something stronger
A tripod as you do not want anything to move other than pedestrians, cars and the random cat pursued by a mangy, hungry, dog (photo opportunity there)
A preset ISO 400 max
A preset focusing for all the shots
A preset aperture for all the shots
An accurate light measure for each shot (only the speed changes.)
A software capable of blending the pictures taken
And, oh, yeah, a loaded gun or two if you are in a bad area.
I wasn't offended .. I found it quite humorous
Stef C
Loc: Conshohocken (near philly) PA
photogrl57 wrote:
Stef C wrote:
RocketScientist wrote:
photogrl57 wrote:
I would lower the ISO to 100, f/18, 30 second exposure.
WB set to tungsten,
What she said. I'd go F13 or so. And maybe do it a little earlier, before the sky goes completely dark.
I will try that advice, but I though her shots were kind of boring / not great to be honest. I don't want them to end up like that...
That's just funny Stef ... your original question was asking how to get the building lit up and still be sharp on the sign ... I gave some advice and you thumbed your nose at it ... I showed you some examples of how the buildings would be lit up at a 30 second exposure and ISO of 100 ... my shots might not have been up to your standards but they were my very first night photos and still lit up more than yours even though they were boring and not great ... then someone else agrees with me and you are willing to try it .... just too funny
quote=Stef C quote=RocketScientist quote=photog... (
show quote)
I was willing to try it before them saying that and I did. I experimented with almost every f stop. . I just didn't see how your photos were more lit up.
One looked even more under exposed and one the opposite. I wasn't trying to offend you. I just didn't see them as a good example of what I wanted at all.
Stef C
Loc: Conshohocken (near philly) PA
English_Wolf wrote:
Well, photogrl57 folks have offered conflicting advices, even bad advice on this subject.
Your samples are sub-par with one over exposed and the other under exposed. To say that the topic user if biased against you is not quite correct. Also, this being of your own admission, your first try, why do you take offense to the rejection?
Your first post: WB set to tungsten, is wrong as it denatures the light. When you want to keep a 'mood', you do not play with the color balance. Then your longer exposure does not correct anything but certainly will make a wash-out of everything.
The only thing that can work is to take several exposures, one per type of light, at different speed as you want the option to have 'bleeding' when creating the final product. The first picture is of the building, preferably at dusk, and then combine the images.
This is how most city scape are taken with successful results, after many tires, when you are not trained to just do this automatically.
It is not an easy subject here and simplistic answers just to not make it.
So what is needed?
Fair weather as this shot will take sometime
A chair, a cup of coffee or something stronger
A tripod as you do not want anything to move other than pedestrians, cars and the random cat pursued by a mangy, hungry, dog (photo opportunity there)
A preset ISO 400 max
A preset focusing for all the shots
A preset aperture for all the shots
An accurate light measure for each shot (only the speed changes.)
A software capable of blending the pictures taken
And, oh, yeah, a loaded gun or two if you are in a bad area.
Well, b photogrl57 /b folks have offered conflic... (
show quote)
thank you that's all I meant. I have noticed photogrl is quick to post pictures ( and I don't mind like other ppl do) of her advice when it just seems ...'different' than some of the advice from the very best photographers on here. No hard feelings, I just didn't see evidence in those pics that would make mine better.
Stef C
Loc: Conshohocken (near philly) PA
photogrl57 wrote:
I wasn't offended .. I found it quite humorous
Good! Sorry if it came out snide
I agree with Frank, the letters are over exposed.. they a Spot metering on what you want to see exposed correctly. Set you camera for a 2 to 5 second shutter release. The time delay is to let the camera vibration calm down before the shutter is releases. Smile Bob
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.