Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > How to get a night shot like this?

Reply
Thread Tools

How to get a night shot like this?

 
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2005
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:18:57 -0800, "Brett" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:45:24 -0800, "Brett" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:57:17 -0800, "Brett" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The photographer of this photo says the exposure was left open for 400
>>>>>seconds.
>>>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/notrace...in/set-270103/. Can any
>>>>>one
>>>>>tell if something else was done to get that type of shot?
>>>>>
>>>>>Also, how are these night shots coming out so crisp? Is this film or
>>>>>digital?
>>>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/notrace...in/set-270103/
>>>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/notrace...in/set-270103/
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>Brett
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There was some foreground lighting on the lighthouse or whatever it
>>>> is. Also, notice the spikes coming off the lights? He stopped down
>>>> his lens to a small aperture as well.
>>>
>>>By stopping down, you are saying he went to a higher f number (f6, f8,
>>>etc)?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Brett
>>>

>>
>> Yes, the spikes are caused by the small aperture and diffraction as
>> the light travels past where the shutter blades meet.
>> -Rich

>
>Here's another that is so clean and crisp with great colors:
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/elton/6...-11947580@N00/. I'd
>imagine it went from RAW to JPEG and he used a very high quality lens.
>Could I be wrong on that? Again, mine are just so fuzzy and and the water
>pixelated compared to that.
>
>Thanks,
>Brett
>


Well, you can "enhance" colour using just about any decent image
program, and even in this shot, there is some mottling (noise)in the
clouds, but he could have used a noise reduction technique then
sharpened the image. That image is primarily natural light (except
for the red light) but when you shoot at night, particularly city
shots, you get colour shifts because of all the artificial lights. You
need to re-balance the colour in the image to make it look "real."
-Rich
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2005
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:06:59 -0800, "Brett" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:45:24 -0800, "Brett" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:57:17 -0800, "Brett" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The photographer of this photo says the exposure was left open for 400
>>>>>seconds.
>>>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/notrace...in/set-270103/. Can any
>>>>>one
>>>>>tell if something else was done to get that type of shot?
>>>>>
>>>>>Also, how are these night shots coming out so crisp? Is this film or
>>>>>digital?
>>>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/notrace...in/set-270103/
>>>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/notrace...in/set-270103/
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>Brett
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There was some foreground lighting on the lighthouse or whatever it
>>>> is. Also, notice the spikes coming off the lights? He stopped down
>>>> his lens to a small aperture as well.
>>>
>>>By stopping down, you are saying he went to a higher f number (f6, f8,
>>>etc)?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Brett
>>>

>>
>> Yes, the spikes are caused by the small aperture and diffraction as
>> the light travels past where the shutter blades meet.
>> -Rich

>
>How would opening the aperature more have affected the foreground (I
>understand the background will become clearer)? I suppose shutter speed
>would stay constant since this is a multi minute setting for the longer
>exposure.
>
>Thanks,
>Brett
>


Opening up the lens can cause problems. If you have any bright point
sources (lights) near the edge of the frame, you can get chromatic
aberration (that puple halo that appears sometimes where bright and
dark boundries meet). Also, it might cause a blurring of either the
background or foreground, depending on how wide (the f-ratio) the
aperture is and the depth of field (distance to all objects in good
focus) you have set. When a lens is wide open, it has a shorter depth
of field than when it is closed down and the f-ratio (focal length of
the lens divided by the actual working aperture of the lens) is less.
A lens set at f16 (it varies with focal length) may have everything
from 10ft to infinity in focus while at f2.8, that may be as short as
everything from 100 feet to infinity. Opening up the lens does get
rid of the spikes, but allows residual lens aberrations (flaws) to
cause other problems as well.
Shutter speed will vary, as you open the lens, the needed shutter
speed drops. F16 at 10 minutes = F4 at 2.5 minutes, etc.
-Rich
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Brett
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2005

"Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:18:57 -0800, "Brett" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:45:24 -0800, "Brett" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:57:17 -0800, "Brett" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>The photographer of this photo says the exposure was left open for 400
>>>>>>seconds.
>>>>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/notrace...in/set-270103/. Can any
>>>>>>one
>>>>>>tell if something else was done to get that type of shot?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Also, how are these night shots coming out so crisp? Is this film or
>>>>>>digital?
>>>>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/notrace...in/set-270103/
>>>>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/notrace...in/set-270103/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>>Brett
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There was some foreground lighting on the lighthouse or whatever it
>>>>> is. Also, notice the spikes coming off the lights? He stopped down
>>>>> his lens to a small aperture as well.
>>>>
>>>>By stopping down, you are saying he went to a higher f number (f6, f8,
>>>>etc)?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>Brett
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, the spikes are caused by the small aperture and diffraction as
>>> the light travels past where the shutter blades meet.
>>> -Rich

>>
>>Here's another that is so clean and crisp with great colors:
>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/elton/6...-11947580@N00/. I'd
>>imagine it went from RAW to JPEG and he used a very high quality lens.
>>Could I be wrong on that? Again, mine are just so fuzzy and and the
>>water
>>pixelated compared to that.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Brett
>>

>
> Well, you can "enhance" colour using just about any decent image
> program, and even in this shot, there is some mottling (noise)in the
> clouds, but he could have used a noise reduction technique then
> sharpened the image. That image is primarily natural light (except
> for the red light) but when you shoot at night, particularly city
> shots, you get colour shifts because of all the artificial lights. You
> need to re-balance the colour in the image to make it look "real."
> -Rich


Thanks Rich. I appreciated all of you input. You're a big help. Hope to
see you responding to some of my future post.

Brett


 
Reply With Quote
 
chrlz@go.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2005
>I can only shoot JPEG and TIFF. Would RAW be needed
>to get that type of sharpness in the photos I posted?


Nope. JPEG on high quality, or TIFF, should be fine for web-sized
images and smallish prints. Shoot at full resolution, then resize
downwards using a decent browser or editor, then lightly sharpen (it's
an art! so do a bit of research, and practice). Finally, fiddle with
the Gamma (or 'Curves' - it's like brightness only better (O, and
contrast. RAW is only really useful for getting the the absolute best
color and dynamic range, and for enlargements where every bit of detail
is required. For web-work, I wouldn't bother.

>I know you disagree, but to me, this seems extremely
>sharp and crisp:
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/notrace...in/set-270103/.


Yes, at that size.. But did you take a look at the 'Original size'
link here:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne...-270103&size=o

That one looks decidedly soft, marker included. When you reduce images
and lightly sharpen, you can take a big image and make it look a lot
better than the original.

>Do you think that photo was done in RAW?


I strongly doubt it. Raw can be a useful tool, but the difference it
makes is very subtle, and I would leave it until you have everything
else nailed.

>Here's one I did with the Olympus:
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/5021962...n/set-1438467/.
>Notice how pixelated the water is. What would help?


It's a lovely shot, firstly! Most folk would see that image and put
something in the foreground, or not even see that there was a great
shot there - well done!

There's two things going on here - first, the image is a bit
underexposed (as it should be), and that has probably contributed to
more-than-usual noise levels - especially in the trees, and a bit in
the water too. By treating the original full-size image with a noise
reducing system like Neat Image, you could probably do better. Again,
it will take time and experimentation to get the best results. Treat
it first, *before* you resize. Secondly, the water probably did have
ripples (O:, and unless your exposure is quite long (sadly 20 seconds
is probably a bit short) you will not get the ripples (or cloud
patterns) cancelling each other out fully enough for that really smooth
effect. Is the 20 second limit applicable in manual modes? My camera
(Oly C8080) has a 15 second limit in some modes, but in full manual it
goes out to 8 minutes..

If you're stuck with 20s, then you may not be able to quite get what
you are after, although there is some post-processing trickery that
might help, or you could even try layering, where you take several
identical shots and then 'average' them. It's hard to keep perfect
sharpness (where you *do* want it) when you do this, though.

Hope that helps.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Brett
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-27-2005

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> >I can only shoot JPEG and TIFF. Would RAW be needed
>>to get that type of sharpness in the photos I posted?

>
> Nope. JPEG on high quality, or TIFF, should be fine for web-sized
> images and smallish prints. Shoot at full resolution, then resize
> downwards using a decent browser or editor, then lightly sharpen (it's
> an art! so do a bit of research, and practice). Finally, fiddle with
> the Gamma (or 'Curves' - it's like brightness only better (O, and
> contrast. RAW is only really useful for getting the the absolute best
> color and dynamic range, and for enlargements where every bit of detail
> is required. For web-work, I wouldn't bother.
>
>>I know you disagree, but to me, this seems extremely
>>sharp and crisp:
>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/notrace...in/set-270103/.

>
> Yes, at that size.. But did you take a look at the 'Original size'
> link here:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne...-270103&size=o
>
> That one looks decidedly soft, marker included. When you reduce images
> and lightly sharpen, you can take a big image and make it look a lot
> better than the original.
>
>>Do you think that photo was done in RAW?

>
> I strongly doubt it. Raw can be a useful tool, but the difference it
> makes is very subtle, and I would leave it until you have everything
> else nailed.
>
>>Here's one I did with the Olympus:
>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/5021962...n/set-1438467/.
>>Notice how pixelated the water is. What would help?

>
> It's a lovely shot, firstly! Most folk would see that image and put
> something in the foreground, or not even see that there was a great
> shot there - well done!
>
> There's two things going on here - first, the image is a bit
> underexposed (as it should be), and that has probably contributed to
> more-than-usual noise levels - especially in the trees, and a bit in
> the water too. By treating the original full-size image with a noise
> reducing system like Neat Image, you could probably do better. Again,
> it will take time and experimentation to get the best results. Treat
> it first, *before* you resize. Secondly, the water probably did have
> ripples (O:, and unless your exposure is quite long (sadly 20 seconds
> is probably a bit short) you will not get the ripples (or cloud
> patterns) cancelling each other out fully enough for that really smooth
> effect. Is the 20 second limit applicable in manual modes? My camera
> (Oly C8080) has a 15 second limit in some modes, but in full manual it
> goes out to 8 minutes..
>
> If you're stuck with 20s, then you may not be able to quite get what
> you are after, although there is some post-processing trickery that
> might help, or you could even try layering, where you take several
> identical shots and then 'average' them. It's hard to keep perfect
> sharpness (where you *do* want it) when you do this, though.
>
> Hope that helps.
>


Thanks. This is great advice. Is there one program I can use for image
editing? Photoshop CS seems to be very popular and good for RAW as well.
It doesn't do everything but does have many available plug-ins. I'm not
sure how well it handles noise or if there are plug-ins for it.

I can see a little bit of fuzziness in the larger version of that marker.
However, if you wouldn't have said anything, I wouldn't have noticed. I
think the marker and sky make such a great composition.
Thanks on the lake image. I always shoot in manual mode. 16s is actually
where it tops out.

Also, since I'm start with a camera generated JPEG, it will only get worse
if I try editing and resaving right? Should I be using TIFF since RAW isn't
an option?

Thanks,
Brett


 
Reply With Quote
 
chrlz@go.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-27-2005
PS CS is fine, it has some functions that will help with noise, and
there are quite a few free versions of tools - I think Neat Image has a
free version...

And, yes, JPGs will degrade with each save, if they are edited. So TIF
is the better choice if you are fussy. Some folk use jpg format in
camera to conserve memory card space, and then resave as TIF when they
wish to subsequently edit them. However you do lose a little quality
even on the very first storage as JPG, so if in doubt, use TIF all the
time, at least on images that 'matter'.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: How include a large array? Edward A. Falk C Programming 1 04-04-2013 08:07 PM
The non-night night shot Vance Digital Photography 3 10-13-2010 01:47 AM
Shot to shot speed Tass Digital Photography 2 02-13-2006 07:52 PM
Faster SD card cuts shot-to-shot time bk Digital Photography 2 09-11-2004 04:11 AM
Sky from shot 1 with landscape from shot 2 John Russell Digital Photography 0 08-04-2003 07:08 AM



Advertisments