# I'd love some tips and advice on this one



## imagesliveon (Jan 1, 2013)

Hi,

I didn't fancy getting intoxicated on New Years Eve so I went down the beach at about 2230 and decided to attempt to take some night time shots to see how they would come out.

Unfortunately I didn't take a torch so I struggled with getting the photos in Focus...

I did some long exposures with this one being 111sec... I don't have a remote switch so I just held onto the camera shutter button (Bulb Setting)  and tried to guess 1 Min, don't think that helped either...

Anyway here's one of the better photos converted in Silver EFEX...

The only light in the photo was a few small, and I must say annoying street lights about fifty meters behind me...

How do you guys think I did??

I am pleased with my first go at this... Would like to get sharper focus next time..

Opinions would be fantastic.. and any tips?





Littlehampton Beach by imagesliveon, on Flickr

Regards
Simon


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 1, 2013)

please post the color version.. I would like to see it. The B&W is kind of muddy..


----------



## imagesliveon (Jan 1, 2013)

Sure,




0ll16 by imagesliveon, on Flickr


----------



## thetrue (Jan 1, 2013)

WB seems off, but this is a really simple and nice photo.


----------



## Demers18 (Jan 1, 2013)

thetrue said:


> WB seems off, but this is a really simple and nice photo.



Agreed on both points.

It looks a little too yellow but an overall nice image.

As for the long exposure, you can program a time with certain remotes. 

Edit: I got mixed up and provided false info. Sorry guys.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 1, 2013)

As True and Demers18 said.. WB is off... and contrast is minimal

the B&W you posted seem heavily cyan.. did you tint it on purpose? What was your conversion process? You don't have any true whites and blacks... although blacks are better than the whites....

One thing I didn't like was that the horizon is pretty much centered. I did an edit trying to bring out the contrast and details... and to hopefully improve the framing a bit. Working from the small images... I got some banding in the sky, so tried to fix that also. 

Let me know what you think...



Comparison


----------



## thetrue (Jan 1, 2013)

Demers18 said:


> As for the long exposure, you can actually set a time in bulb mode. I would check your manual.


WHAT????????????????????????? Where is my F manual?!?! That would be effing awesome!!!


----------



## imagesliveon (Jan 1, 2013)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> As True and Demers18 said.. WB is off... and contrast is minimal
> 
> the B&W you posted seem heavily cyan.. did you tint it on purpose? What was your conversion process? You don't have any true whites and blacks... although blacks are better than the whites....
> 
> ...



Thanks! Love your edit!

The Process from beginning was

Taken in RAW then imported to CS6 using the RAW converter, then minor adjustments with sharpening, then opened the image and made the final conversion in SILVER EFEX. You are correct I added a cyan filter. I guess it didn't work.

The colour version is totally unedited just converted to JPG hence the WB being off.

KIND REGARDS
Simon


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 1, 2013)

imagesliveon said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Cool! Nik Silver Efex here also... just used a High Contrast preset.. and then did some dodging and burning, with a light Gaussian blur on the sky to kill the banding...


----------



## imagesliveon (Jan 1, 2013)

I've found myself calming down a little bit with Silver Efex as I tend to look back at pictures and delete them because I over done it.

I converted the RAW in 16bit so I was fortunate enough to avoid the banding.


----------



## invisible (Jan 1, 2013)

imagesliveon said:


> The Process from beginning was
> 
> Taken in RAW then imported to CS6 using the RAW converter, then minor adjustments with sharpening, then opened the image and made the final conversion in SILVER EFEX. You are correct I added a cyan filter. I guess it didn't work.


It looks like you also ran the image though a noise-reduction software. That, plus the fact that you chose to shoot this at f5.6 instead of using a smaller aperture (plus the focusing problems you mentioned), robbed this image of all detail unfortunately.

I agree with Charlie in that the B&W conversion feels muddy and I like his suggested conversion. In terms of composition, your original image doesn't feel balanced to me. I took the liberty of trying a quick recrop, somewhat bolder than the original:


----------



## Demers18 (Jan 1, 2013)

thetrue said:


> Demers18 said:
> 
> 
> > As for the long exposure, you can actually set a time in bulb mode. I would check your manual.
> ...




I just realized that it isn't the camera... sorry Jeff. You can set it up with some of the programable remotes.

I will remove that portion of my post. I apologize for the false information. My bad.


----------



## imagesliveon (Jan 1, 2013)

It was pitch black. 

There is very little noise in the image as it was only at ISO 400, would I seriously have got away with a smaller aperture?

Ill have a look at the other photos from the set and there settings.

Regards


----------



## Mully (Jan 1, 2013)

My try


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 1, 2013)

Quite beautiful

I think it should be cropped into a pano so that the shape mimics and reinforces the water line.
Also, increase contrast in teh sky to mimic the water look

quite lovely,,


----------



## imagesliveon (Jan 1, 2013)

I'm going back there on Thursday night.


Thanks very much for the advice. What settings would you guys recommend using?? I should by tomorrow have a remote with a timer! 

Regards
Simon


----------



## invisible (Jan 1, 2013)

imagesliveon said:


> There is very little noise in the image as it was only at ISO 400, would I seriously have got away with a smaller aperture?


You would've just needed a longer exposure (or a higher ISO). What I was trying to say is that you have more chances of having something in focus with a smaller aperture. 

A few tips for the next time you ran into a similar pitch-black scene: 1) wait a few minutes until your eyes get used to the darkness and only then try to frame the scene; 2) set your focusing ring to just before infinity and leave it there; and 3) if it's overcast (i.e., no stars in the sky) don't be afraid of using a longer exposure, which will allow you to use a smaller aperture.

P.S.: I like The_Traveler's crop suggestion.


----------



## imagesliveon (Jan 1, 2013)

Thanks! 

Is a long exposure going to produce noise the same as having a higher ISO?

Kind regards

Really appreciate the help!


----------



## thetrue (Jan 1, 2013)

Lee - it's quite alright, I just got excited


----------



## Mully (Jan 1, 2013)

Bracket this shot try a lot of variations its digital and you can edit out what does not work.... this is a great location so shoot the crap out of BUT take nots so you can see what worked and what didn't.  I bet you catch a big one!


----------



## imagesliveon (Jan 1, 2013)

An edited Colour version




Littlehampton Beach 31/12/12 by imagesliveon, on Flickr


----------



## thetrue (Jan 1, 2013)

WOW, that's a nice deep colored edit.


----------



## Demers18 (Jan 1, 2013)

thetrue said:


> Lee - it's quite alright, I just got excited




I just don't like posting false info. Makes you wonder though, why you can't program that in camera. I bet a lot of photographer would enjoy that feature.

OP - That colour edit is quite nice! My favorite so far.


----------



## imagesliveon (Jan 2, 2013)

Thanks, I think I prefer the B&W conversion. 


Fingers crossed the weather is dry tomorrow!


----------



## imagesliveon (Jan 2, 2013)

Firing a flash throughout a long exposure..


What effect would it have over these exposures??


----------



## thetrue (Jan 2, 2013)

What do you mean? Firing once?


----------



## imagesliveon (Jan 2, 2013)

No kind of walking around behind the camera?


----------



## thetrue (Jan 3, 2013)

Are you saying multiple flashes throughout the length of the exposure? That would almost definitely cause overexposure, strange shadows, and an overall odd image I would assume...


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 3, 2013)

thetrue said:
			
		

> Are you saying multiple flashes throughout the length of the exposure? That would almost definitely cause overexposure, strange shadows, and an overall odd image I would assume...



Not necessarily... Flashing throughout the length of an exposure is a tactic used by a lot of photographers. 

Let's say you set your flash to expose for f/5.6 at 10 feet, and your framing starts around 10 feet away, you can fire the flash in that area fairly willy nilly and not have an issue with over exposure (unless you're firing it in the same place over and over). How you sculpt the light and how it behaves with the scenery is the real tricky part. Give it a shot if you have a speedlight handy. Just do a few test shorter exposure first to get your flash exposure down. 

Remember to set your aperture appropriately for your flash, and if the incidental light is low enough you can drag your shutter for quite a while.


----------



## thetrue (Jan 3, 2013)

Never would have guessed that would work...


----------



## imagesliveon (Jan 3, 2013)

Thanks for taking the time to reply.


Just fancy giving it a go.

When you say correct aperture, do you mean a narrow aperture?


----------



## imagesliveon (Jan 3, 2013)

Sorry I have no experience with flash.


Regards


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 3, 2013)

imagesliveon said:
			
		

> Thanks for taking the time to reply.
> 
> Just fancy giving it a go.
> 
> When you say correct aperture, do you mean a narrow aperture?



I mean setting the aperture on your camera to the same output as your flash at the appropriate distance.

Yes, it will probably mean using a smaller aperture. 

When using flash, aperture controls the flash exposure and shutter speed controls the intensity of incidental light. ISO will change both. Do you have an external flash/speedlight?


----------

