Comments, please, on first sunset photo

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Ken, Aug 18, 2004.

  1. Ken

    Ken Guest

    http://k_cook.home.mindspring.com/ken/photos/sunset.jpg

    Picture is about 576k. Let me know if I need to resize it for you to
    see. My IE makes it fit in the browser frame, although some browsers may
    not (I am not sure, nor sure what size I should make a photo on the web
    for this kind of critique).

    This was taken last night with Digital Rebel, 28-200 lens, f/5.6, ISO
    100, shutter speed 1/2000, which was at -2 (or maybe -1) exposure value.

    The sun, to me, seems to be too white, when it was actually more orange.
    I don't know if stopping down caused that (although I wouldn't have
    thought so).

    Please let me know about framing, composition, distractions in the
    picture, etc.

    I took about 60 picutres, but, to me, this one seemed the best out of
    the lot.

    I've tried in the past to take sunset pictures, but they all turned out
    crappy. This is the first I am happy with.
    Ken, Aug 18, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ken

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Ken <> wrote:

    > This was taken last night with Digital Rebel, 28-200 lens, f/5.6, ISO
    > 100, shutter speed 1/2000, which was at -2 (or maybe -1) exposure value.


    I'd have stopped down further to get the foreground silhouette in focus.
    But I guess that's an artistic decision, not a technical one.

    > The sun, to me, seems to be too white, when it was actually more orange.
    > I don't know if stopping down caused that (although I wouldn't have
    > thought so).


    That will be from blowing out the highlights. Almost impossible not to do
    that when you're actually photographing the sun -- I wouldn't worry about
    it. Sunset pictures don't really look the same as when you see them in
    person anyway.

    --
    Jeremy |
    Jeremy Nixon, Aug 18, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ken

    Ken Guest

    Jeremy Nixon wrote:

    > I'd have stopped down further to get the foreground silhouette in focus.
    > But I guess that's an artistic decision, not a technical one.


    Actually, it wasn't an artistic decision on my part, it was more a
    function of my amateur status. I'll remember that next time.

    >
    >
    >>The sun, to me, seems to be too white, when it was actually more orange.
    >>I don't know if stopping down caused that (although I wouldn't have
    >>thought so).

    >
    >
    > That will be from blowing out the highlights. Almost impossible not to do
    > that when you're actually photographing the sun -- I wouldn't worry about
    > it. Sunset pictures don't really look the same as when you see them in
    > person anyway.
    >


    Thanks.
    Ken, Aug 18, 2004
    #3
  4. Ken

    Alan Meyer Guest

    "Ken" <> wrote in message
    news:RhwUc.25050$...
    > http://k_cook.home.mindspring.com/ken/photos/sunset.jpg
    >
    > ...
    > The sun, to me, seems to be too white, when it was actually more

    orange.
    > I don't know if stopping down caused that (although I wouldn't

    have
    > thought so).


    Shooting into the sun is always a tough problem for
    a camera. Obviously the light level coming from the
    sun will be off the scale with respect to everything
    else in the image and the camera wasn't able to
    compensate the way your eye and brain could.

    > Please let me know about framing, composition, distractions in the
    > picture, etc.
    >
    > I took about 60 picutres, but, to me, this one seemed the best out

    of
    > the lot.
    >
    > I've tried in the past to take sunset pictures, but they all

    turned out
    > crappy. This is the first I am happy with.


    I'm no expert on photographic artistry and won't presume
    to offer suggestions for improvement. But personally, I
    think it's a beautiful shot. If I had made it I wouldn't hesitate
    to show it off. I like the quiet, somber mood, the simple
    composition, the restricted but interesting color, and the
    way the details of the clouds are picked out by the light.

    Nicely done.

    Alan
    Alan Meyer, Aug 18, 2004
    #4
  5. "Ken" <> wrote in message
    news:RhwUc.25050$...
    > http://k_cook.home.mindspring.com/ken/photos/sunset.jpg
    >
    > Picture is about 576k. Let me know if I need to resize it for you to
    > see. My IE makes it fit in the browser frame, although some browsers may
    > not (I am not sure, nor sure what size I should make a photo on the web
    > for this kind of critique).
    >
    > This was taken last night with Digital Rebel, 28-200 lens, f/5.6, ISO
    > 100, shutter speed 1/2000, which was at -2 (or maybe -1) exposure value.
    >
    > The sun, to me, seems to be too white, when it was actually more orange.
    > I don't know if stopping down caused that (although I wouldn't have
    > thought so).
    >
    > Please let me know about framing, composition, distractions in the
    > picture, etc.
    >
    > I took about 60 picutres, but, to me, this one seemed the best out of
    > the lot.
    >
    > I've tried in the past to take sunset pictures, but they all turned out
    > crappy. This is the first I am happy with.


    Having the sun in the picture set up an impossible dynamic range problem.
    The best sunset pictures are made soon after the sun falls below the
    horizon, and you can set the exposure to get the best representation of the
    colors of the clouds. With a digicam, you can takke a shot, see how it
    looks on the lcd, then adjust the exposure.

    You can get an interesting sunset picture on a hazy day. There is one on my
    Web site, at http://www.users.cloud9.net/~physchem/. It was taken across
    the Hudson River, looking West to the NY/NJ border. We have taken several
    like this. The best is one my wife got, with a small boat passing through
    the red streak on the water.
    Marvin Margoshes, Aug 18, 2004
    #5
  6. On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:12:49 GMT, Ken <>
    wrote:

    >http://k_cook.home.mindspring.com/ken/photos/sunset.jpg


    Ken,

    nice photo. I think it is a bit too dark. The sun will be white
    anyway. For effect you could color the sun red in Photoshop, or
    you could take a second, very much darker photo and copy the sun
    from that into the first. Then, of course, it's some kind of
    work of art, but no longer a straight photo.

    Generally beware of sunset photos. I have a box here, labelled
    "sunsets from all over the world", and it has been collecting
    lots of photos, most of them boring, after you've seen enough of
    them.

    I admit though that I occasionally still take one myself, like
    this, from this year, a gnu (wildebeest) after sunset and
    against the colorful evening sky:
    http://www.michna.com/kenya2004/images/p1040730.jpg

    Here's another one, from a year earlier, my tent in front of Mt.
    Kilimanjaro in the last evening sun rays:
    http://www.michna.com/kenya2003/images/p1020561.jpg

    For the latter you have to make sure that your monitor's
    contrast and brightness is well adjusted. If the contrast is
    overdone or the brightness set too low, you will not see details
    in the darker parts of the picture. Or, to put it differently,
    if you can't recognize the tent, then your monitor's contrast is
    set far too high or the brightness far too low.

    A good test for the monitor is to open a command line window, or
    any black window, and zoom it to full screen (press Alt +
    return). Then fiddle with the settings, particularly turn the
    brightness up until you begin to see the fine lines that are
    brighter than deep black. Then turn it back just a little.

    Hans-Georg

    --
    No mail, please.
    Hans-Georg Michna, Aug 18, 2004
    #6
  7. Ken

    Ken Guest

    Hans-Georg Michna wrote:
    > I admit though that I occasionally still take one myself, like
    > this, from this year, a gnu (wildebeest) after sunset and
    > against the colorful evening sky:
    > http://www.michna.com/kenya2004/images/p1040730.jpg
    >


    I like that. I guess sunset doesn't have to have the sun in it, just the
    effects of the sunset, although I liked the color of my sunset, even if
    it didn't come out like I saw it (I did -2ev to test what I was taught
    in my photography class about changing color by changing ev... it worked
    like I was told).
    Ken, Aug 18, 2004
    #7
  8. Ken

    Ken Guest

    Alan Meyer wrote:
    > Shooting into the sun is always a tough problem for
    > a camera.


    Saying it that way made me wonder - do I risk harming the sensor in my
    Digital camera by shooting into the sun?


    Thanks for your comments.
    Ken, Aug 18, 2004
    #8
  9. Ken

    Alan Meyer Guest

    "Ken" <> wrote in message
    news:qEPUc.1980$...
    > Alan Meyer wrote:
    > > Shooting into the sun is always a tough problem for
    > > a camera.

    >
    > Saying it that way made me wonder - do I risk harming the sensor

    in my
    > Digital camera by shooting into the sun?


    I'm not an expert on that either, but I would be really
    surprised if it did any harm. I know I've done it lots
    of times and I haven't noticed any degradation of
    the quality of images coming out of my camera.

    Alan
    Alan Meyer, Aug 19, 2004
    #9
  10. Ken wrote:

    > http://k_cook.home.mindspring.com/ken/photos/sunset.jpg
    >
    > Picture is about 576k. Let me know if I need to resize it for you to
    > see. My IE makes it fit in the browser frame, although some browsers may
    > not (I am not sure, nor sure what size I should make a photo on the web
    > for this kind of critique).


    Personally I think it's better to provide an image that is no wider than 1024
    pixels and no higher than 768 pixels, for those of us on dialup. There will
    still be people who want to see the original to have a really close look at the
    detail - like people who are always looking for flaws to criticise.

    I read your message a bit quick and though the file was 57k, so hit download,
    and it arrived in a flash over my work broadbank connection. Unfortunately we
    are each only allowed to download ten megabytes a month, so your >1/2MB image
    just sucked up a fair chunk. It was worth it though. It's a very nice looking
    picture and one I would definitely be showing off if I'd taken it.

    If you're interested, my favourite sunset photos (taken with a Kodak DX6490) can
    be viewed here:
    http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~benst/pictures/photography/index.html

    Unfortunately there are a lot of roof lines, power lines, and street lights in
    the photos because they were taken from outside my house but they still look
    pretty/impressive to me.


    > This was taken last night with Digital Rebel, 28-200 lens, f/5.6, ISO
    > 100, shutter speed 1/2000, which was at -2 (or maybe -1) exposure value.


    Did you adjust the exposure value because you didn't have a faster shutter speed
    available or for some other reason? I take it your choice of aperture was for
    depth of field.

    > I've tried in the past to take sunset pictures, but they all turned out
    > crappy. This is the first I am happy with.


    I take very few photos that I am happy with. :)

    --
    Ben Thomas
    Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
    relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
    given nor endorsed by it.
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?BenOne=A9?=, Aug 19, 2004
    #10
  11. Ken

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Ken wrote:

    > Alan Meyer wrote:
    >
    >> Shooting into the sun is always a tough problem for
    >> a camera.

    >
    >
    > Saying it that way made me wonder - do I risk harming the sensor in my
    > Digital camera by shooting into the sun?
    >
    >
    > Thanks for your comments.


    That was discussed at some length a while ago. Concensus was that if
    you didn't sit there with the shutter open for a long exposure, it
    probably wouldn't harm the camera. Most of the time, pictures of the
    sun are taken with it at minimal brightness. If you can look at it long
    enough to take the picture without harming your eyes, you aren't going
    to harm the camera.
    Ron Hunter, Aug 19, 2004
    #11
  12. On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:57:08 -0500, Ron Hunter
    <> wrote:

    > If you can look at it long
    >enough to take the picture without harming your eyes, you aren't going
    >to harm the camera.


    Ron, all,

    be careful, be very careful. Your camera can be replaced, your
    eyes are a one-time gift. Never look into the sun directly,
    except if it is dark red and hardly any brighter than the
    surrounding sky.

    Cameras probably have to withstand direct sun exposure anyway,
    because you can never exclude the sun being in a photo, for
    example on wide angle shots.

    Hans-Georg

    --
    No mail, please.
    Hans-Georg Michna, Aug 19, 2004
    #12
  13. Ken

    Alan Meyer Guest

    "Ron Hunter" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Ken wrote:
    > ...
    > > Saying it that way made me wonder - do I risk harming the sensor in my
    > > Digital camera by shooting into the sun?

    > ...
    > That was discussed at some length a while ago. Concensus was that if
    > you didn't sit there with the shutter open for a long exposure, it
    > probably wouldn't harm the camera. Most of the time, pictures of the
    > sun are taken with it at minimal brightness. If you can look at it long
    > enough to take the picture without harming your eyes, you aren't going
    > to harm the camera.


    I'm confused about this. If your LCD is on, then it
    must be getting data from an image sensor. Is it using
    the same CCD or CMOS sensor that is used for the final
    image? If your LCD is on and the camera is pointed at the
    sun, mustn't there be an image sensor that is being
    continuously exposed to direct sun?

    Thanks.
    Alan Meyer, Aug 20, 2004
    #13
  14. Ken

    Alan Meyer Guest

    "BenOneĀ©" <> wrote in message news:98s0gc.2je.ln@192.168.11.2...
    > Ken wrote:
    > If you're interested, my favourite sunset photos (taken with a Kodak DX6490) can
    > be viewed here:
    > http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~benst/pictures/photography/index.html
    >

    Ben,

    Nice pics, but please check your website. It looks like
    001.jpg and 002.jpg both bring up the same image.
    Alan Meyer, Aug 20, 2004
    #14
  15. Ken

    Mojtaba Guest

    Hi hans,

    What equipment do you use?

    Mojtaba
    Mojtaba, Aug 21, 2004
    #15
  16. On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 11:25:50 +0200, Mojtaba <>
    wrote:

    >What equipment do you use?


    Mojtaba,

    until two years ago I used a Canon EOS 650 with three lenses, 24
    mm, 50 mm, and a Sigma 70-300 apochromatic zoom lens. But then I
    sold the whole box (for a pitiful, but still above-the-market
    price), and now the photos in http://www.michna.com/kenya2003/
    and http://www.michna.com/kenya2004/ were all done with a
    Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1-2 (an FZ1 upgraded to FZ2). Most of the
    photos in sunlight were taken through a polarizing filter.

    Occasionally one of these photos ends up in a magazine, and one
    recently made it onto a book cover, I'm proud to say. But I do
    recognize that many or most are not of professional quality and
    that there are lots of ways in which I should improve my
    photography.

    A better camera might also help, but I think I will skip the
    current wave of Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ3, Canon Powershot S1 IS
    and the like and will wait for the next wave, perhaps in two
    years. Until then the FZ2 is good enough for me.

    What I would wish is 4 Megapixels in the same small size, much
    better low light performance and an even larger zoom range, from
    the equivalent of 24 mm to the equivalent of 400. This is
    probably not achievable using current technology. I think to
    achieve this they will essentially have to have two zoom lenses
    in one that are automatically switched, or some such, or an
    entirely new technology, of which I have no clue.

    Hans-Georg

    --
    No mail, please.
    Hans-Georg Michna, Aug 21, 2004
    #16
  17. Alan Meyer wrote:

    > "BenOneĀ©" <> wrote in message news:98s0gc.2je.ln@192.168.11.2...
    >
    >>Ken wrote:
    >>If you're interested, my favourite sunset photos (taken with a Kodak DX6490) can
    >>be viewed here:
    >>http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~benst/pictures/photography/index.html
    >>

    >
    > Ben,
    >
    > Nice pics, but please check your website. It looks like
    > 001.jpg and 002.jpg both bring up the same image.
    >
    >


    Thanks. All fixed.

    --
    Ben Thomas
    Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
    relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
    given nor endorsed by it.
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?BenOne=A9?=, Aug 23, 2004
    #17
  18. Ken

    Mojtaba Guest

    On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 15:35:48 +0200, Hans-Georg Michna
    <> wrote:

    >
    >until two years ago I used a Canon EOS 650 with three lenses, 24
    >mm, 50 mm,


    Oh, What a nice outfit, I understand you,


    and a Sigma 70-300 apochromatic zoom lens. But then I
    >sold the whole box (for a pitiful, but still above-the-market
    >price), and now the photos in http://www.michna.com/kenya2003/
    >and http://www.michna.com/kenya2004/ were all done with a
    >Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1-2 (an FZ1 upgraded to FZ2). Most of the
    >photos in sunlight were taken through a polarizing filter.
    >

    I am amazed with the great lens they have put in this camera, That big
    zoom and 2.8 all along!

    >Occasionally one of these photos ends up in a magazine, and one
    >recently made it onto a book cover, I'm proud to say.


    Good for you.

    But I do
    >recognize that many or most are not of professional quality and
    >that there are lots of ways in which I should improve my
    >photography.


    Every body have a lot to improve. I liked very much your site. Good
    dteail information and a lot of photos. In fact I am gathering
    information for a travel to Africa and looking your site was extra
    interesting for me.

    Thank you for your detailed respons.

    regards,

    Mojtaba
    Mojtaba, Aug 24, 2004
    #18
  19. Ken

    Eddy Vortex Guest

    I use an Olympuc C2100 UZ and I've found it impossible to get a shot of a
    red sun. I was severly dissappointed to find that my shots of a faint red
    disk on the horizon resluted in a white sun. I did tests for a week and I
    even pointed my camera at the sun when it was BEHIND clouds (and not visible
    to the naked eye) and I still got a large round patch of blown out white
    color where the sun was. I put 2 UV and a polarizing filter on at the same
    time and I got the very faintest traces of red. Certainly not the big red
    sun from my film days. I also stayed out shooting after sunset to see how
    long I could shoot and still get recognizable inages and I found that I
    could shoot for about 75-90 minutes after sunset. It seems that the benefit
    of great light gathering has a downside...no red suns:>(
    I'd be really interested in seeing some digital pics of a red sun and
    knowing the details of the capture. Mike Minick
    "Ken" <> wrote in message
    news:RhwUc.25050$...
    > http://k_cook.home.mindspring.com/ken/photos/sunset.jpg
    >
    > Picture is about 576k. Let me know if I need to resize it for you to
    > see. My IE makes it fit in the browser frame, although some browsers may
    > not (I am not sure, nor sure what size I should make a photo on the web
    > for this kind of critique).
    >
    > This was taken last night with Digital Rebel, 28-200 lens, f/5.6, ISO
    > 100, shutter speed 1/2000, which was at -2 (or maybe -1) exposure value.
    >
    > The sun, to me, seems to be too white, when it was actually more orange.
    > I don't know if stopping down caused that (although I wouldn't have
    > thought so).
    >
    > Please let me know about framing, composition, distractions in the
    > picture, etc.
    >
    > I took about 60 picutres, but, to me, this one seemed the best out of
    > the lot.
    >
    > I've tried in the past to take sunset pictures, but they all turned out
    > crappy. This is the first I am happy with.
    Eddy Vortex, Aug 30, 2004
    #19
  20. On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:50:32 GMT, "Eddy Vortex"
    <> wrote:

    >I use an Olympuc C2100 UZ and I've found it impossible to get a shot of a
    >red sun. I was severly dissappointed to find that my shots of a faint red
    >disk on the horizon resluted in a white sun.


    Eddy,

    you have to underexpose severely. You may try putting the camera
    on spot mode, put the spot right on the sun, then still
    underexpose.

    Hans-Georg

    --
    No mail, please.
    Hans-Georg Michna, Aug 30, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. The Black Laced One

    An Oregon sunset

    The Black Laced One, Feb 22, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    30
    Views:
    1,208
  2. Jan

    Sunset pictures- bad for the camera?

    Jan, Jul 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,264
    Marvin Margoshes
    Jul 22, 2003
  3. Marli

    Outback sunset

    Marli, Aug 31, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    381
  4. beachpirate2

    clouds and sunset photos

    beachpirate2, Dec 10, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    371
    beachpirate2
    Dec 10, 2003
  5. t a t o

    GENIUS 550T HD video photo - comments please......

    t a t o, Jul 5, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    392
Loading...

Share This Page