By the Light of the Moon: Another night scene shot from Ediz Hook to the city of Port Angeles, across the harbor. FYC, comments and opinions, good, bad or indifferent, welcome.

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

Another night scene shot from Ediz Hook to the city of Port Angeles, across the harbor.
FYC, comments and opinions, good, bad or indifferent, welcome.

(Download)

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Shots like this usually respond well to having their vividness ramped up. I appreciate that you may have intended for it to have a soft look, but if you haven't tried it with a bit of extra contrast you might like that alternative.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

R.G. wrote:

Shots like this usually respond well to having their vividness ramped up. I appreciate that you may have intended for it to have a soft look, but if you haven't tried it with a bit of extra contrast you might like that alternative.

Me too. Perhaps just the sky being darkened somewhat would keep the soft look and provide the contrast most like. It's good you got away from the "automatic" bright lights reflection.

I sense, without being able to establish exactly why, that the left tilts up a bit.

I like the contrasts of the geometric and the natural shapes.

NJFrank Loc: New Jersey

I agree with R.G. and Bob. I might add getting rid of the mother cycle on the right. I find it a bit distracting, but certainly not the end of the world if you kept it.

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

R.G. wrote:

Shots like this usually respond well to having their vividness ramped up. I appreciate that you may have intended for it to have a soft look, but if you haven't tried it with a bit of extra contrast you might like that alternative.

Thanks for your views, R.G. The moon was sooo bright I wanted to knock it down a bit and got carried away during the process. I tried to bring it up a bit, but the results i got at the time weren't so good. I tried a print at 11 x 16.5, and for a hanger I do want the moon back up.

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

NJFrank wrote:

I agree with R.G. and Bob. I might add getting rid of the mother cycle on the right. I find it a bit distracting, but certainly not the end of the world if you kept it.

I had to go to the large print to find what you were seeing, and to the best of my knowledge it is a collection of driftwood. In the darkness I had no idea it was there. It is possible, but I can't imagine someone getting a motorcycle over the logs to that position, and with no reflection from metal in the moonlight.

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

artBob wrote:

Me too. Perhaps just the sky being darkened somewhat would keep the soft look and provide the contrast most like. It's good you got away from the "automatic" bright lights reflection.

I sense, without being able to establish exactly why, that the left tilts up a bit.

I like the contrasts of the geometric and the natural shapes.

Ah, yes. My famous tilting horizon of Port Angeles harbor area. Does it explain anything to see what the area looks like, via Google Earth. The red lines are a rough approximation of the cameras locaton and field of view.

(Download)

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

NJFrank wrote:

I agree with R.G. and Bob. I might add getting rid of the mother cycle on the right. I find it a bit distracting, but certainly not the end of the world if you kept it.

Frank, since you brought my attention to it, I can't keep my eyes off it. It is now history, reduced to an unidentifiable dark object. Also, the lights have returned to all their original glory, minus a smidgeon. Some day I hope to finally learn to keep my hands off the first rendering.

NJFrank Loc: New Jersey

neilds37 wrote:

Frank, since you brought my attention to it, I can't keep my eyes off it. It is now history, reduced to an unidentifiable dark object. Also, the lights have returned to all their original glory, minus a smidgeon. Some day I hope to finally learn to keep my hands off the first rendering.

Welcome to my club. Some one will point out something in my shot and than I can’ Get it out of my brain. I kick myself “how did I miss that”.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

I should have shown you what I meant about the tilt. I understand your fine clarification of the Port Angeles harbor. I narrowed down my unease to the clouds, which, being created by atmospheric layering, likely would be horizontal in this instance. So, here that is, with the sky adjustment I mentioned, hopefully not taking away from your lovely, hazy scene.

(Download)

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

artBob wrote:

I should have shown you what I meant about the tilt. I understand your fine clarification of the Port Angeles harbor. I narrowed down my unease to the clouds, which, being created by atmospheric layering, likely would be horizontal in this instance. So, here that is, with the sky adjustment I mentioned, hopefully not taking away from your lovely, hazy scene.

I've been through this so many times I did know what you meant. My point is, the clouds follow the mountains which follow the shoreline, for the most part. If the observation is at right angles to the shore, mountains, clouds, then they will appear to be horizontal, but the angle is not at right angle, and the near end and the far end are of different distance from the viewer and are no more horizontal than railroad tracks are the same distance apart as they recede into the distance. And, as rebuttal to my explanation, it has been proclaimed that the apparent horizontality should trump the actual horizontality. Now, I hope you arent as confused over my dissertation as I am.

Cheers,

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

neilds37 wrote:

I've been through this so many times I did know wh... (show quote)

Yes, I'm somewhat familiar with the discussion in previous posts. I think you have been correct. However, in this shot, there really is no benchmark to determine levelness (horizon line). except perhaps the clouds. I understand you to say the mountains formed them, which I think is only partly true. The more prominent factor here, there being no storms in this stable night air, being the temperature gradient of the atmosphere. Likely, the clouds are parallel to the curvature of the Earth, and should therefore be level("ish"). The clouds are horizontal. I noticed that the highest part of the cloud curvature is exactly in line with your camera position, as one would expect with perspective and earth curvature. Tilting the photo just a bit, so the curve is horizontal makes the photo level, as I see it.

This is an interesting discussion, for me at least.

(Download)

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

artBob wrote:

Yes, I'm somewhat familiar with the discussion in ... (show quote)

Bingo! The highest point for the clouds is across from the camera...because that is the shortest distance from camera to clouds. Trom that point they are receding in the distance and, like everything, grow smaller with distance. This distance is too short by far for the curvature to account for it. When the mountains are viewed from the Edmonds-Kingston ferry the clouds are observed at nearly a right angle and there will appear level. What these discussions have led to is, in all probably correct, is the desire to make them appear level for easthetic reasons and so viewers don't have to scramble there brains over WHY they are level.

Yes, this an interesting subject. Perspective at a distance can be misleading.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

artBob wrote:

.....there really is no benchmark to determine levelness (horizon line). except perhaps the clouds......

Where the reflections of the lights are concerned I would expect them to be exactly on a line between the observer and the source. In this image they are perpendicular in the left half of the frame and tilted clockwise in the right half of the frame. I would expect any tilting to be symmetrical about the centre line, which suggests that the whole image is tilted clockwise.

If true horizontals are hard or impossible to find, an alternative is to look for a true vertical at or near the centre of the frame. In this case it's easier to balance the tilt of the verticals in the left and right halves of the frame (which is easier than trying to adjust to one indistinct central vertical).

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

R.G. wrote:

Where the reflections of the lights are concerned ... (show quote)

Right-on, R.G. This is a very difficult subject. I've had the camera's internal level say one ting and my eyes say something different. You're right about the reflections...I hadn't considered them.