Long Exposure Question
May 8, 2018 09:17:35 #
I recently shot this picture of the Arthure Ravenel Jr Bridge in Charleston, SC. I was using my Olympus E-M1-Mark II camera with the 12-40 Pro F2.8 lens. The focal length was 38mm. (This is a 4/3 rds camera)
The shot was 30 seconds long at f/16. I wanted the star effect on the lights. That was the reason for the small f-stop. The camera was set to Noise Reduction when it processed the shot. When I looked at it in Lightroom it was not as sharp as I was hopping for. It had a lot of noise. And the top portion of the tall concrete pillars looks a bit green. The white-balance was set to AutoWB. Any suggestions on how I could have gotten a sharper image? And why the green color?
The shot was 30 seconds long at f/16. I wanted the star effect on the lights. That was the reason for the small f-stop. The camera was set to Noise Reduction when it processed the shot. When I looked at it in Lightroom it was not as sharp as I was hopping for. It had a lot of noise. And the top portion of the tall concrete pillars looks a bit green. The white-balance was set to AutoWB. Any suggestions on how I could have gotten a sharper image? And why the green color?
May 8, 2018 09:47:42 #
Please repost (edit or just add a response to this post) and store the original. We can't see the details you ask about from just a thumbnail version.
May 8, 2018 10:03:27 #
Do a three or 4 frame photo stack. This will reduce noise tremendously . Where was your focal point at?
May 8, 2018 10:05:12 #
May 8, 2018 10:06:28 #
May 8, 2018 10:44:38 #
CaptainPhoto wrote:
What resolution should the photo be posted at so you can see it.
2048-pixels on the long side is good enough. Details on the process are described at: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-512745-1.html
May 8, 2018 13:25:48 #
Greenish hue may be light pollution. Urban areas are notorious for this light. Can be corrected by white balancing. Some auto WB for long exposures have been, in my experience, ineffective in handling this color cast.
May 9, 2018 08:07:33 #
CaptainPhoto wrote:
I recently shot this picture of the Arthure Ravene... (show quote)
Just a guess about "green" but it looks like the camera auto function concentrating more at the strongest light, which was on the lower bridge parts. From the distance you shot at, that part also had a slightly reddish sky/background. The upper bridge parts had a weaker light and a blueish sky/background. The combination seemed to have turn out the color you got. Note the upper part that have stronger lighting. Those portions are the proper WB you wanted.
As for noise, you didn't say what ISO value was being used. That may have been very high to begin with. Noise reduction in camera can only do so much.
May 9, 2018 09:36:43 #
fetzler
Loc: North West PA
The green lights on the bridge are Mercury vapor lamps. The have a strong emission line near 550nm. They will always be green in a photo. You can minimize a green cast to photo by adding Magenta in post. Your photo is quite pleasant, however.
May 9, 2018 12:07:58 #
May 9, 2018 14:03:02 #
Hey Captain! At some point, WE have to start taking responsibility for our lack of skills and we must stop blaming the gear.
First of all, you do not need f16 to get starbursts, but even if you needed to use that small of an aperture, remember diffraction. The smaller the sensor the sooner it creeps up, although I did see a wedding shot that was shot at f16 at night by a pro and looked very sharp.
What kind of tripod was your camera on, was it windy? Is this a raw or jpeg file? Was the camera on auto web? What iso?
Here is a similar photo with the original em1. This is actually a panorama at f11. The second photo (HDR) is at f8. Both photos are screen shots from my iPad Pro.
In any case, if I had the em1 mark2, I would get a very good tripod or place the camera on something solid and use the hi res feature at iso 64. F8, and you will get the starburst with the milky water effect. The bonus is the 80mp file that provides FF beating quality.
First of all, you do not need f16 to get starbursts, but even if you needed to use that small of an aperture, remember diffraction. The smaller the sensor the sooner it creeps up, although I did see a wedding shot that was shot at f16 at night by a pro and looked very sharp.
What kind of tripod was your camera on, was it windy? Is this a raw or jpeg file? Was the camera on auto web? What iso?
Here is a similar photo with the original em1. This is actually a panorama at f11. The second photo (HDR) is at f8. Both photos are screen shots from my iPad Pro.
In any case, if I had the em1 mark2, I would get a very good tripod or place the camera on something solid and use the hi res feature at iso 64. F8, and you will get the starburst with the milky water effect. The bonus is the 80mp file that provides FF beating quality.
May 9, 2018 16:34:48 #
I wasn't blaming the gear. Not sure where you got that impression.
I was using ISO 200 - the native ISO for this camera.
I had it on a very, very good tripod on stable ground and was using a remote shutter release.
I shot this same bridge last year and didn't get the green color at the top. Maybe they changed some of the lights out since then, because I know lights were out last year.
I was using ISO 200 - the native ISO for this camera.
I had it on a very, very good tripod on stable ground and was using a remote shutter release.
I shot this same bridge last year and didn't get the green color at the top. Maybe they changed some of the lights out since then, because I know lights were out last year.
May 9, 2018 17:30:48 #
I highly recommend, never use in camera noise reduction, unless you are shooting in JPEG mode. It double the time to wait for the camera to be ready for the next shot and post processing if shot in raw is much better than in-camera (IMHO). As far as the star effect is concerned, close down your aperture to f/22 to f/32 for better star effect, however for your conditions as shot you would have to increase ISO accordingly as well or shoot in bulb mode. f/16 is not that tight for star effect, however your image does show a minimal star effect, equivalent to f/16.
May 9, 2018 17:33:32 #
CaptainPhoto wrote:
I wasn't blaming the gear. Not sure where you got that impression.
I was using ISO 200 - the native ISO for this camera.
I had it on a very, very good tripod on stable ground and was using a remote shutter release.
I shot this same bridge last year and didn't get the green color at the top. Maybe they changed some of the lights out since then, because I know lights were out last year.
I was using ISO 200 - the native ISO for this camera.
I had it on a very, very good tripod on stable ground and was using a remote shutter release.
I shot this same bridge last year and didn't get the green color at the top. Maybe they changed some of the lights out since then, because I know lights were out last year.
Good than. Normally, if you can take sharp photos and when one isn’t sharp, I would know that it was me and not the gear. If I thought that it maybe gear related, I’d ask. Honestly, how could any one of us know why it isn’t sharp. Telling me that you have a good tripod isn’t helpful either. Did you manually focus or was the camera on AF? If AF, than the camera missed the focus. Did you only take one shot?
Try iso low, it is there to be used. Especially with this type of photography.
May 9, 2018 18:11:40 #
The Olympus camera has built in stabilization (which I turned off) because I was using the tripod and I was using manual focus with live-view so I could check the focus using my Hoodman.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.