Detroit at dusk - unhappy with result - what to do?
Posted on March 12th, 2010 by rose
I'm unhappy with how the lights in the buildings don't really stand out like they do in other dusk shots I see. Is this simply an issue of underexposure? I feel like if I exposed it longer, certain areas of the photo would have gotten very distracting (the bright light 1/3 of the way up the building on the left and the GM logo at the top of the GM building). Looking at the particulars of the shot below, what could I do differently next time?
The other issue, and it's probably more an issue of me overanalyzing than anything, is that I don't feel the shot is as crisp as it could be. It almost looks like the stuff nearest the water is a little blurry; I think I like how crisply most of the buildings turned out, though. I am a total photography noob so please pardon me if my rationale here is, well, noobish. I used a low (high?) f stop because I understand that the lower (higher?) the f stop, the bigger the DoF, which I figured would be handy given the circumstances here.
I am, however, happy with how the various colors (sky, lights, etc.) turned out.
tl;dr - I'm unhappy with how the lights in the buildings don't really stand out. Is it underexposed? What would you have done differently? Also, am I fussing over nothing by thinking that some elements of the photo aren't as clear as they should be? If not, how could I improve crispness in similar situations?
Taken with:
Nikon D40
kit 18-55 lens
ISO 200
f 20
10 second exposure
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a220/Falkenbach666/DSC_0229.jpg
1. Open the lens up a bit (no more than f11?)
2. Expose the shot a little longer
3. Possibly wait until it is slightly darker out
Can someone explain briefly why f20 is a waste for this particular shot? Or possibly point me to a TPF thread or link that would explain it just as well? My noobie thinking was that by increasing the DoF, I would be able to get a crisper photo of the entire city skyline from the distance away I was.
Plus make sure there is nothing that could cause your camera AND tripod to vibrate (which seems to me to be the most likely cause of the overall lack of sharpness).
On the question of why F20 is a waste of time: You will not get the water sharp with the length of exposure you are using so the first thing that could be in focus will almost certainly be sharp with the lens set at infinity - certainly with it set at the hyperfocal distance at a much wider aperture.
So using F20 will make diffraction effects worse plus exacerbate any vibration problems without getting you any useable increase in depth of field.
timing is not bad, but the lights are not really switched on at the buildings. maybe a couple of minutes later and one or two stops up in exposure...
f/20 is quite an overkill here :)
I agree that the best thing to have helped this shot would have been to wait a little later to shoot. However, having said that, this can be a difficult thing to determine, especially when you have not done it a lot. Here are some suggestions/tips on shooting this type of shot:
Always use a tripod (a good sturdy one) to reduce movement from vibration.
Use a remote trigger or cable release to reduce movement.
Shoot at around f8 or f11. Most lenses are sharpest in this range and is good for general DoF on smaller formats.
Turn off AF and focus manually. It just works better.
A bubble level is good for checking your level, but sometimes you just need to "eyeball" it.
Longer exposure will produce more noise on digital.
There will be reciprocity failure if you use film.
Start shooting when you think the light is getting good and shoot a new series every time you can see a noticeable change in the light. Use a meter if you need to. The time between each series will get closer together as the light gets lower. The "peak" time may only be about 5-10 minutes long.
BRACKET YOUR EXPOSURE. This is probably the most important thing you can do. Your camera meter will LIE to you. It will try to get you to expose all of those beautiful deep black tones as if there were 18% gray.There are probably lots of other things, but this is what I can think of for now. Experience and practice are always the best teachers.
Always use a tripod (a good sturdy one) to reduce movement from vibration.
Use a remote trigger or cable release to reduce movement.
Shoot at around f8 or f11. Most lenses are sharpest in this range and is good for general DoF on smaller formats.
Turn off AF and focus manually. It just works better.
A bubble level is good for checking your level, but sometimes you just need to "eyeball" it.
Longer exposure will produce more noise on digital.
There will be reciprocity failure if you use film.
Start shooting when you think the light is getting good and shoot a new series every time you can see a noticeable change in the light. Use a meter if you need to. The time between each series will get closer together as the light gets lower. The "peak" time may only be about 5-10 minutes long.
BRACKET YOUR EXPOSURE. This is probably the most important thing you can do. Your camera meter will LIE to you. It will try to get you to expose all of those beautiful deep black tones as if there were 18% gray.There are probably lots of other things, but this is what I can think of for now. Experience and practice are always the best teachers.
I so much wanted to get photos of the actual city. But I was at the mercy of the driver and also had 2 others making the decisions of what to do and where to go as well.
On the sharpness front, is there any chance that some vibration was reaching the camera?
i thought large aperture (small number f2.8) will give you a very short focusing distance (small DoF) giving you a crisp focal point with a really burly back ground. (less things in focus)
and the opposite for small apertures (large f number)
correct me if I'm wrong...
Totally wrong here... sorry for the misinformation. But hey good thing we have this forum to learn. I though that having a smal f# will give you a more focus on the image but i guess it was related when the subject is close to me. Therefore, getting a crisp image of the subject with a blurry background.
I found out an article/ tutorial to help understand more about aperture I hope it is helpful as it was for me.
Good Luck...
http://www.photoxels.com/tutorial_aperture_print.html
1. Open the lens up a bit (no more than f11?)
2. Expose the shot a little longer
3. Possibly wait until it is slightly darker out
Can someone explain briefly why f20 is a waste for this particular shot? Or possibly point me to a TPF thread or link that would explain it just as well? My noobie thinking was that by increasing the DoF, I would be able to get a crisper photo of the entire city skyline from the distance away I was.
No, I was refering to the buildings, really.
There doesn't seem to be anything sharp in the whole potograph and I doubt the larger f no. has that much effect.
Definitely agree that f20 is pointless. Especially at that distance.
Since your shot is quite a distance from the skyline, follow the other suggestions by waiting a few more minutes and cut back on the exposure time by opening the lens a bit more. Try an f4 or f5.6 and set the shutter speed accordingly to get a correct exposure.
it is called ripples on the water ... 10 seconds exposure give it all blurry then. that is why f/20 is a bit of a waste.
Hello, I think they referring to be a waste because having a f/20 set as apeture the lens opening is so small that less light goes through causing the blurry effect. On the other hand if you have a lower f/stop such as f/4 or f/5.6 the lens is open wider which lets more light thru having a clearer photo.
Remember: "the smaller the lens opening the more Depth of Field there is" Blurry effect.
"the larger the lens opening the less Depth of Field there is" more things focus. I usually remember this when i am about to shot landscapings...
Good luck.
Definately use a wider(lower) aperture and faster shutter speed to compensate.
Edit: oh you were trying to get the lights on the buildings to stand out? Take the shot when the sky is a little darker so that the lights will stand out more.
What he's trying to tell you is take a couple of sample shots with less light and more light. Increase the shutter speed, then decrease it. Basically experiment and see what works.
For the record, I like it. Great Lake cities have a reputation for being drab and dreary. But your shot makes the city look a lot more vibrant that most others I see. Try not to be so hard on yourself. Its a good shot and you should be proud of yourself!
I'd be happy with it for now. You already know what you don't like about it, so now, you can work on it and make it better next time. Isn't that what we do anyway?
To bracket an exposure, you can shoot one frame at the exposure you think is correct by the meter reading and then shoot a shot (or some shots) that is underexposed and then do the same on the overexposed end as well. I have not shot with a D40, but you should be able to do this in Manual mode or by using the exposure compensation button (+/-) if it has one.
In the old days of film, bracketing was very common especially when shooting transparencies (slides). You could not go back and adjust the levels in PhotoShop. There were other variables as well and the monitor on the back of the camera was called a Polaroid back.:wink:
"the larger the lens opening the less Depth of Field there is" more things focus. I usually remember this when i am about to shot landscapings...
Good luck.
is that right???
i thought large aperture (small number f2.8) will give you a very short focusing distance (small DoF) giving you a crisp focal point with a really burly back ground. (less things in focus)
and the opposite for small apertures (large f number)
correct me if I'm wrong...
#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |