# Night Fishing



## JohnMF (May 8, 2008)




----------



## Garbz (May 8, 2008)

Tripod! That is the only critique I will offer.


----------



## JustAnEngineer (May 8, 2008)

Switching from ISO 200 to ISO 1600 would have dropped your shutter speed from 0.6s to a barely-possible-with-IS 1/12s.


----------



## [Woodsy] (May 9, 2008)

Tripod for sure.

ISO1600 would be noise central tbh. long exposure hand held are not beyond the realms of possibility, I took this shot at 1/10th hand held... With no IS.

http://picasaweb.google.com/chuck2k/LandscapesSeascapesSunsets/photo#5161729371974439842

Just takes some practice 

Bottom line, as said, tripod can't be beaten.


----------



## JustAnEngineer (May 9, 2008)

[Woodsy];1234632 said:
			
		

> I took this shot at 1/10th hand held... With no IS.
> Bottom line, as said, tripod can't be beaten.


 Impressive!

I was not disagreeing with the tripod suggestion, but that was already posted, so I thought to add a second option that might help.


----------



## JohnMF (May 10, 2008)

thanks for the comments.

i had the tripod with me, but chose not to use it. the guy fishing in the photo was drunk. Kinda makes me feel a bit drunk too when i look at it


----------



## will-jum (May 10, 2008)

Don't know if you can call this photography :/


----------



## JohnMF (May 10, 2008)

will-jum said:


> Don't know if you can call this photography :/



Er... well i took it with a camera... does that count? :scratch:


----------



## Lyncca (May 10, 2008)

It's too bad you didn't use the tripod, it could have been a really nice shot.  I'm a bit timid about using mine, but after a few successful night shoots, I am getting over it!


----------



## will-jum (May 12, 2008)

JohnMF said:


> Er... well i took it with a camera... does that count? :scratch:


 
My little sister could take a better photo than this, nuff said, sorry. 

Keep trying!


----------



## Arch (May 13, 2008)

will-jum said:


> My little sister could take a better photo than this, nuff said, sorry.
> 
> Keep trying!



Apart from this comment being totally un-called for... John is a superb photographer, look at his previous posts... this image is different for him... but doesn't deserve your patronizing tone.


----------



## rmh159 (May 13, 2008)

Arch said:


> Apart from this comment being totally un-called for... John is a superb photographer, look at his previous posts... this image is different for him... but doesn't deserve your patronizing tone.


 
Well put.

I can see where it would've been weird to randomly set up a tripod and start taking pics of someone, especially if that person is drunk.  Oh well... I think it's clear at this point what you could've done to fix that shot.

Looking at the shot though, I'm not sure the fisherman needs to be there for it to be a good image.  Might be worth a reshoot sometime with the tripod.  Besides if you really want the fisherman shot but don't want to shoot a stranger, set up the tripod, grab a pole and use a remote to trip the shutter.


----------



## JohnMF (May 13, 2008)

thanks for the comments

I don't think i'll be going back to this location or doing anymore night shots. (not until i've had a few tips from Will's sister anyway :er: )


----------



## BoblyBill (May 13, 2008)

Seeing some of you other work makes me think this is on purpose. With keeping an open mind, I asked myself does this really work, and yes I do think it does. It has more of a painting feel to it. Not my favorite from you, but it still has a quality to it all to it's own... I'm sorry some made the comments they did... WOW... Even if it wasn't intentional and you were new to photography some contructive critisum (sp?) is in order.


----------



## JohnMF (May 13, 2008)

Thanks Bobly

Yes, it was on purpose. I had camera with the cable release, on the tripod, set up right next to me, but i took it off for this photo. It's how i wanted it to be.

I don't mind at all if people hate my photos, and they can say that, and that's fine with me. Patronising comments are more personal and a bit un-called for IMO.


----------



## JimmyO (May 13, 2008)

Agreed, i really like the abstract feel. Are you gonna post the sharp version with the tripod?


----------



## rmh159 (May 13, 2008)

JohnMF said:


> (not until i've had a few tips from Will's sister anyway :er: )


 
F him.

IMO this pic isn't far off from being a keeper.  If it were sharp I think you'd be getting far different reactions.  Nothing I'd be discouraged about.


----------



## rjackjames (May 13, 2008)

a tripod would have been great.


----------



## THORHAMMER (May 13, 2008)

iso 1600 on the 20D is completely usable. 
you will hardly notice it.  i use it ALL the time.


----------



## [Woodsy] (May 15, 2008)

JustAnEngineer said:


> I was not disagreeing with the tripod suggestion



Oh indeed, sorry, I hope I didn't come across as suggesting you thought the opposite 



			
				JohnMF said:
			
		

> not until i've had a few tips from Will's sister anyway :er:



LOL! she must be a real pro 

I agree with rmh159 to an extent. The shot does not "need" the fisherman in the shot. However, if you do return to this location, I would suggest trying to find some lines in the foreground which lead the eye into the shot (perhaps some foot marks in the sand? or some rocks formations if there are any), only I feel the foreground may be a tad sparse otherwise. Just a thought


----------

