Sunset in Hawaii: This was an early attempt at long exposure sunsets. I have wrestled with what I should have done differently - lower fstop (maybe 11), lower ISO (maybe 400), which...

jteee Loc: Montana

This was an early attempt at long exposure sunsets. I have wrestled with what I should have done differently - lower fstop (maybe 11), lower ISO (maybe 400), which obviously would have impacted the already long exposure time. I wound up with a lot of noise, which I have attempted to reduce. The camera was a Canon Rebel T2i, which didn't seem to handle low light particularly well. Soooo, what would you have done?

jteee Loc: Montana

Probably would have helped if I would have given the original settings: 15 sec., f16, ISO 800, 18mm

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

jteee wrote:

Probably would have helped if I would have given the original settings: 15 sec., f16, ISO 800, 18mm

You probably are correct in that you did not have to shoot at such a high ISO and small aperture.
In any event, I think this is a fine photograph with visual impact resulting from the composition, colors and exposure. 8-)

Heirloom Tomato Loc: Oregon

jteee wrote:

This was an early attempt at long exposure sunsets. I have wrestled with what I should have done differently - lower fstop (maybe 11), lower ISO (maybe 400), which obviously would have impacted the already long exposure time. I wound up with a lot of noise, which I have attempted to reduce. The camera was a Canon Rebel T2i, which didn't seem to handle low light particularly well. Soooo, what would you have done?

Hi jteee. This is a gorgeous scene. I love it, but you could straighten the horizon. I have seen similar shots with no to very low noise that were taken with similar light levels. They were obviously longer exposures than what you used here, because the water looked very creamy. Too bad you can't take this one again, it's so pretty. It's still a keeper even with some noise!

jteee Loc: Montana

Bmac wrote:

You probably are correct in that you did not have to shoot at such a high ISO and small aperture.
In any event, I think this is a fine photograph with visual impact resulting from the composition, colors and exposure. 8-)

Thanks for looking and commenting. I was afraid to lower the fstop for fear of losing the far shore, but in reality I don't think it mattered to the photo anyway.

jteee Loc: Montana

Heirloom Tomato wrote:

Hi jteee. This is a gorgeous scene. I love it, but you could straighten the horizon. I have seen similar shots with no to very low noise that were taken with similar light levels. They were obviously longer exposures than what you used here, because the water looked very creamy. Too bad you can't take this one again, it's so pretty. It's still a keeper even with some noise!

Thanks. I don't know how I missed the horizon, but you are certainly right on.

Nightski

jteee wrote:

This was an early attempt at long exposure sunsets. I have wrestled with what I should have done differently - lower fstop (maybe 11), lower ISO (maybe 400), which obviously would have impacted the already long exposure time. I wound up with a lot of noise, which I have attempted to reduce. The camera was a Canon Rebel T2i, which didn't seem to handle low light particularly well. Soooo, what would you have done?

Nice foreground, gorgeous color. I think if you brought out the reflection in the water you would have a stronger leading line. There's quite a bit of noise. There is no reason to have your ISO above 100 in a sunset landscape photo. It's done though, so you can probably clean it up in post. The horizon looks a little off to me. It's a wonderfully composed shot. It's worth the work to get it cleaned up a bit.

jteee Loc: Montana

Nightski wrote:

Nice foreground, gorgeous color. I think if you brought out the reflection in the water you would have a stronger leading line. There's quite a bit of noise. There is no reason to have your ISO above 100 in a sunset landscape photo. It's done though, so you can probably clean it up in post. The horizon looks a little off to me. It's a wonderfully composed shot. It's worth the work to get it cleaned up a bit.

Thanks for commenting. At the time, I chose to increase ISO rather than lower fstop (in hindsight probably the wrong direction). I was pretty disappointed with the resulting noise.

Nightski

jteee wrote:

Thanks for commenting. At the time, I chose to increase ISO rather than lower fstop (in hindsight probably the wrong direction). I was pretty disappointed with the resulting noise.

JT. I think you could have had ISO 100, f22, and a long exposure resulting in a very pleasing image. You may have needed a nd grad filter for that.

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

jteee wrote:

Thanks for commenting. At the time, I chose to increase ISO rather than lower fstop (in hindsight probably the wrong direction). I was pretty disappointed with the resulting noise.

You stated this was a long exposure shot so can I assume you were using a tripod?

If so then you could have lowered the ISO considerably and then adjusted your exposure time in order to use the f/stop you desired. Of course, it's a balancing act due to exposures over one minute, influenced by temperature, at times contributing to noise. 8-)

PalePictures Loc: Traveling

This is a wonderful shot well composed.
In my opinions all the settings were pretty good except your ISO.
I would have lowered it to 400. and doubled the length of the exposure.

I shoot a 5DMKIII which is really really good at ISO800.
Rebel's shows much more noise at 800 versus 400.

That being said this is a really good shot.

One other note. I always shoot my landscapes like this at F16.
Just like you did. Going above F16 causes photo problems on every lens I have ever used.

Shooting wide at F16 can give you almost complete Depth of field on a shot like this. I typically set a focal point of 60% into the shot to cover the complete depth of field.

Great composition and capture as is! This photo would stand up in any photo contest.

PalePictures Loc: Traveling

Bmac wrote:

You stated this was a long exposure shot so can I assume you were using a tripod?

If so then you could have lowered the ISO considerably and then adjusted your exposure time in order to use the f/stop you desired. Of course, it's a balancing act due to exposures over one minute, influenced by temperature, at times contributing to noise. 8-)

Yep BMAC, I was typing with ya!!!

My thoughts too.

PalePictures Loc: Traveling

Nightski wrote:

JT. I think you could have had ISO 100, f22, and a long exposure resulting in a very pleasing image. You may have needed a nd grad filter for that.

That won't work Night SKI he was at F16 with ISO 800
Lowering to 400 would have doubled the time.

At ISO 100 he would have been there for 5 minutes.

At F22 10 minutes.

You better have an app and remote. Maximum exposure time in camera would be 30Sec without a remote.

F16 is perfect with ISO 400 with this camera for complete depth of field!

PalePictures Loc: Traveling

Here is an example of F16 in daylight so you can see what depth of field is possible. Completely sharp through the entire frame.
Focal point was 60% in.

I Walk the Line

Nightski

PalePictures wrote:

That won't work Night SKI he was at F16 with ISO 800
Lowering to 400 would have doubled the time.

At ISO 100 he would have been there for 5 minutes.

At F22 10 minutes.

You better have an app and remote. Maximum exposure time in camera would be 30Sec without a remote.

F16 is perfect with ISO 400 with this camera for complete depth of field!

But, Russ, I've shot with a 10 stopper at ISO 100 on a cloudy day, and it was 2 minutes. While I am soaking up every bit of your advice here, I have to say that 5 minutes is an exaggeration. He had plenty of sunlight left in this shot. In fact I'm betting under a minute. :-) Hope that's not too cheeky of me.