# Sunset long exposure



## batmura (Aug 8, 2013)

Taken a few minutes after sunset in Burgazada, Istanbul, Turkey. Two different versions.C&C welcome.

#1



Anadolu Feneri, Istanbul, Turkey (long exposure) by batmura, on Flickr

#2



Anadolu Feneri, Istanbul, Turkey (long exposure) (2) by batmura, on Flickr


----------



## Tailgunner (Aug 8, 2013)

Cool, I really like the 1st one!


----------



## GaryT (Aug 8, 2013)

If it was me I would have framed to the left a little more, nice shots all the same


----------



## Light Guru (Aug 8, 2013)

They both have a LOT of noise in them.


----------



## batmura (Aug 8, 2013)

Light Guru said:


> They both have a LOT of noise in them.


Any suggestions as to how I can remove the noise? I had in-camera long exposure noise reduction on and also increased luminance quite a bit. Did I do something wrong?


----------



## Tailgunner (Aug 8, 2013)

batmura said:


> Light Guru said:
> 
> 
> > They both have a LOT of noise in them.
> ...



What are your settings?


----------



## batmura (Aug 8, 2013)

Tailgunner said:


> batmura said:
> 
> 
> > Light Guru said:
> ...


268 seconds, f/8, ISO 100.


----------



## GaryT (Aug 8, 2013)

Why such a long exposure???


----------



## Light Guru (Aug 8, 2013)

Post your unedited version.  I'm suspicious that a LOT of processing was done and that could cause problems. Was it shot in RAW?


----------



## DGMPhotography (Aug 8, 2013)

That is a REALLY long exposure! That's what probably caused the noise. Better to increase ISO a little and quicken the shutter. I second posting the original - those colors look unnatural.


----------



## batmura (Aug 8, 2013)

GaryT said:


> Why such a long exposure???


I used a 10-stop ND filter. 

It was shot raw indeed. Should I post the unedited photo as jpeg or raw?


----------



## ceeboy14 (Aug 8, 2013)

You can probably send the raw as a mediafire (or the like) transfer and post the link.


----------



## Hooligan Dan (Aug 8, 2013)

The long exposure alone wouldn't cause such a large amount of noise. All of my long exposures on this very forum were shot at 5 minutes or more and don't suffer noise like that.

My bet is on the processing.


----------



## GaryT (Aug 8, 2013)

On your Flickr account the pictures of the coast have some odd things going on in the sky, until the one of the lighthouse (I think you posted it here? It's a great image!) are you doing something different than you had been doing previously?


----------



## Light Guru (Aug 8, 2013)

Hooligan Dan said:


> The long exposure alone wouldn't cause such a large amount of noise. All of my long exposures on this very forum were shot at 5 minutes or more and don't suffer noise like that.
> 
> My bet is on the processing.



Yup probably processing. The reason I suggested posting the original is so that we could see how much post processing was done to the image. 

Post the original (a jpeg is fine) and tell us what you did in processing it to get to your final images.


----------



## Tailgunner (Aug 8, 2013)

Ah, I was looking these on my IPad, I see a lot of noise using the laptop. That is a lot of noise. What is your setup, camera, glass?


----------



## Hooligan Dan (Aug 8, 2013)

I just looked through your Flickr stream and I'm 100% sure it's the processing now. You're trying to work them too much. You have a some very nice long exposures in there that don't look overly processed and have very little noise. And the ones that do seem to have a lot of work done to them(exposure adjustments, sharpening, etc) all have a lot of noise.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Aug 8, 2013)

Woops, thought I read 200-something minutes. That would certainly cause a bit of noise. Not so much in the seconds range though. Definitely the processing.


----------



## batmura (Aug 9, 2013)

OK, guys. I've managed to upload the original RAW file. Valid only for 2 days.

https://www.zeta-uploader.com/438674801

If anyone would like to take the time to do a proper edit and let me know how they did it, I'd be most appreciative.


----------



## timputtick (Aug 9, 2013)

Looking at the original, I'm not convinced you needed the 10 stop nd filter, you could of got the effect with a much faster shutter and you wouldn't have to rely on timing it yourself with a trigger.  
The image made the histogram hang itself, I'd keep the rocks as silhouettes.
 still makes a nice picture.


----------



## Hooligan Dan (Aug 9, 2013)

timputtick said:


> Looking at the original, I'm not convinced you needed the 10 stop nd filter, you could of got the effect with a much faster shutter and you wouldn't have to rely on timing it yourself with a trigger.
> The image made the histogram hang itself, I'd keep the rocks as silhouettes.
> still makes a nice picture.



I'd go the other direction and make the exposure longer. You are very under exposed and a minute or two can make a difference in how the water appears if you took of the ND filter and went with a shorter exposure. 
But mystery solved. The noise is from trying to fix the several stops of underexposure in photoshop.


----------



## Light Guru (Aug 9, 2013)

batmura said:


> OK, guys. I've managed to upload the original RAW file. Valid only for 2 days.
> 
> https://www.zeta-uploader.com/438674801
> 
> If anyone would like to take the time to do a proper edit and let me know how they did it, I'd be most appreciative.



Your original is EXTREMELY underexposed.  It was your attempts to brighten it that caused all the noise.


----------



## batmura (Aug 9, 2013)

Thanks! This helps a lot because I was sure I had not overcooked the photos in post. It was just minor tweaks I always do. I will go to the same location again and do a longer exposure.

Other than the problem with the noise, what do you guys think of the composition? Can it be improved, too?


----------



## ceeboy14 (Aug 9, 2013)

Like everyone else pointed out, there was a huge noise issue and while I was able to somewhat minimalize it, I couldn't make it all go away without making everything so soft, the whole scene would resemble cotton candy.

For some of the most prominent noise areas in the water, I highlighted that area, made a selection mask, used a curves adjustment on "screen" and then adjusted the curve and opacity until it blended with the other milky look. It did help a bit. Most of the work done in this image was done on the mid-tone values as level adjustments both in multiply and screen blends. Anyway, it is always hard to see another's vision, or even begin to interpret...I think Hooligan Dan and I are pretty close to the same place.


----------



## ceeboy14 (Aug 9, 2013)

batmura said:


> Thanks! This helps a lot because I was sure I had not overcooked the photos in post. It was just minor tweaks I always do. I will go to the same location again and do a longer exposure.
> 
> Other than the problem with the noise, what do you guys think of the composition? Can it be improved, too?



I gave it a bit of a crop to remove the odd outcropping at the bottom left of the frame and as much to eliminate some of the noisier areas of the image. I also leveled out the horizon. Learn to back off your saturation sliders (I'm trying to as well) and allow some more of the natural colors to come up out of the mist.


----------



## Light Guru (Aug 9, 2013)

batmura said:


> Thanks! This helps a lot because I was sure I had not overcooked the photos in post. It was just minor tweaks I always do. I will go to the same location again and do a longer exposure.
> 
> Other than the problem with the noise, what do you guys think of the composition? Can it be improved, too?



Doing the amount of exposure adjustment that you did is not what a would call a "minor adjustment"

The scene you shot has a big dynamic range, you may want to consider an HDR or my preference exposure blending.


----------

