# How can I take a photo like this with my camera?



## Matrixgravity (Oct 24, 2011)

http://i.imgur.com/CRpOB.jpg

How can I take a photo like that? 

How good of a camera must you have to take a photo like that? I mean, the quality of the photo looks very professional. As if it was shot with a very high quality lens. Because if I attempted to take a photo of a street with my camera, it would not even look close to that. Maybe because my camera isn't a DSLR.

If I attempted to take a photo like that with MY camera, here is how it would look.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2712/4188122462_babe5156e9.jpg

See the difference? See how crappy my version looks compared to the first one?


----------



## shootermcgavin (Oct 24, 2011)

What camera do you have, I don't see anything tough with that shot it's just a long exposure shot.  Point and shoot would not be possible but a dslr with a tripod or something to hold the camera should work.  It may have had some editing done too but not a ton, you could make that image look a ton better IMO.  The details in all the signs are lost.


----------



## CCericola (Oct 24, 2011)

Why don't you ask max Delgado what he used?
Max Delgado | Facebook


----------



## Matrixgravity (Oct 24, 2011)

shootermcgavin said:


> What camera do you have, I don't see anything tough with that shot it's just a long exposure shot.  Point and shoot would not be possible but a dslr with a tripod or something to hold the camera should work.  It may have had some editing done too but not a ton, you could make that image look a ton better IMO.  The details in all the signs are lost.



Thanks for your response. I own a Samsung NX 100. It is otherwise known as  Mirrorless camera. It isn't a DSLR but it has adjustable aperture/iso/shutter. It cost me about $500. In general, it does take relatively good pictures but nothing as good as  DSLR..


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 24, 2011)

The first photo was taken at night  using a very narrow aperture and a very long shutter speed. 
Aperture f/22 maybe? No lower than f/11. Lower ISO and a looooong shutter. maybe as long as a minute or so depending on what you need for exposure.
You will need a tripod and a remote trigger to do it. 

They are a lot of fun to practice on the christmas tree or similar.


----------



## shootermcgavin (Oct 24, 2011)

I don't know what to tell you, first you need to try to take one at night with a longer exposure, whether your camera can achieve it or not I would not know.  An entry level Canon XS should be able to pull off that shot, but I would set the bar a little higher that looks like a shot you can get at most cities...  I have a feeling it's an HDR shot but I don't know why he would leave the streak of lights from a car passing by.


----------



## Matrixgravity (Oct 24, 2011)

MLeeK said:


> The first photo was taken at night  using a very narrow aperture and a very long shutter speed.
> Aperture f/22 maybe? No lower than f/11. Lower ISO and a looooong shutter.
> You will need a tripod and a remote trigger to do it.



But the thing that I'm saying is, even if I used these exact settings and technique, I don't think my camera would be able to produce a picture like that in terms of quality. Like for instance, if you compare a picture taken from an ordinary P&S camera, and a professional Canon DSLR, you will see what I mean. DSLR will obviously be superior because it has a stronger sensor I guess? I guess this is what I get for purchasing this garbage camera that I own. I should have just bought a DSLR to begin with. But yeah.. I guess I just won't be able to take that kind of picture unless I purchase a DSLR..


----------



## Matrixgravity (Oct 24, 2011)

shootermcgavin said:


> I don't know what to tell you, first you need to try to take one at night with a longer exposure, whether your camera can achieve it or not I would not know.  An entry level Canon XS should be able to pull off that shot, but I would set the bar a little higher that looks like a shot you can get at most cities...  I have a feeling it's an HDR shot but I don't know why he would leave the streak of lights from a car passing by.



I will try it with my camera and post my results. I am very doubtful it will look as good though. But I will try when I get a chance this week. I should have just bought an entry-level DSLR to begin with. Guess now I know better. And by the way, what exactly is HDR?


----------



## shootermcgavin (Oct 24, 2011)

Try it first before you throw in the towel, I'm 85% that he used HDR processing on the photo.  The reason I say that is the street lights have those funky lines shooting out of them, the only time I've gotten that effect on a night shot that strong is with HDR.  There may be another way but I don't know about it.


----------



## Matrixgravity (Oct 24, 2011)

shootermcgavin said:


> Try it first before you throw in the towel, I'm 85% that he used HDR processing on the photo.  The reason I say that is the street lights have those funky lines shooting out of them, the only time I've gotten that effect on a night shot that strong is with HDR.  There may be another way but I don't know about it.



Yeah I will definitely try it, thanks! Although I am not certain what "HDR processing" means. Although I think the streaks of light were made by having slow shutter speed!


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 24, 2011)

Matrixgravity said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > The first photo was taken at night  using a very narrow aperture and a very long shutter speed.
> ...



While I am far from sold on those mirrorless cameras, you can definitely do it with  your camera. Just because it's not a DLSR doesn't stop you from using the technique. 
The trick is the way the very small aperture causes the diffraction of the light to cause a starburst. Just get some christmas lights out and try it. Try f/22 and a shutter of 30 seconds, then 1 minute until you get a good exposure. You'll get the image.


----------



## KmH (Oct 24, 2011)

Matrixgravity said:


> . Like for instance, if you compare a picture taken from an ordinary P&S camera, and a professional Canon DSLR, you will see what I mean. DSLR will obviously be superior because it has a stronger sensor I guess?


What you consider a professional DSLR may not in fact be. There are 3 levels of DSLR: entry-level, prosumer, and pro.

The Canon 1D series is their only professional DSLR's. Nikon's professional series is the D3 series.


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 24, 2011)

Matrixgravity said:


> shootermcgavin said:
> 
> 
> > Try it first before you throw in the towel, I'm 85% that he used HDR processing on the photo.  The reason I say that is the street lights have those funky lines shooting out of them, the only time I've gotten that effect on a night shot that strong is with HDR.  There may be another way but I don't know about it.
> ...


The funky star effect will happen with the very small aperture and long shutter speed. It's the light refraction. It's not an HDR technique. 
Google light star effect without a filter. 
Photogs/optics experts: Star effect with no star filter--how? - Straight Dope Message Board
Flickr: Discussing Camera Techniques - Light 'star' effect in
Effect of Star filter without star filter


It's the same effect of a star filter, only it is without the filter. You will get a number of points that correspond with the number of blades in your aperture


----------



## Matrixgravity (Oct 24, 2011)

KmH said:


> Matrixgravity said:
> 
> 
> > . Like for instance, if you compare a picture taken from an ordinary P&S camera, and a professional Canon DSLR, you will see what I mean. DSLR will obviously be superior because it has a stronger sensor I guess?
> ...



Sigh I don't think you understand what I mean by professional.. I can't bother explaining it. It's too hard to put into words.


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 24, 2011)

Your camera is capable of the quality of professional camera within it's means. It's not capable of being pushed to extremes and more like a professional camera can-but in the range of normal every day work? you'd never look at an image produced with your camera and the exact same image produced with my 1d3 and know there is a difference. Can yours do what my 1D3 can? maybe! Probably not going to handle high ISO's half as well, probably not going to shoot for sports like my 1D can, probably not going to take the demands a professional camera can. The sensor is smaller so there are some limits to it, but if you are working within those limits your camera will make gorgeous quality images.


----------



## skieur (Oct 24, 2011)

I would take it on a tripod using a DSLR with a 10mm to 20mm wide angle lens.  ISO would be 200 to 400 to minimize picture noise but improve the aperture and even the exposure somewhat.  Minor adjustments could be done in post.

skieur


----------



## yipDog (Oct 24, 2011)

The biggest two things I see are the wide angle lens (which may not be possible on your camera) and a slightly long exposure...maybe 5 or 6 seconds. The red streaks are from a car that turned. I'd bet money that's not an HDR shot. And the star glow from the lights is probably a filter. I've gotten the same effect on my Tokina 11-16 with a UV filter when I accidentally included the sun in a daytime pic. The pic in question also has a bit of lens flare which mine did as well.


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 24, 2011)

IT'S NOT A FILTER! Really! It's not! Try it out. It's fun and cool and very simple! It's a SMALL aperture and a looooong exposure.


----------



## n.hubb22 (Oct 24, 2011)

MLeeK said:


> IT'S NOT A FILTER! Really! It's not! Try it out. It's fun and cool and very simple! It's a SMALL aperture and a looooong exposure.



Ding Ding Ding!!!  check the photo below, no filter necessary.  Look at the street lights (f/11, 6 sec)




Bridge2 by Viz I, on Flickr


----------



## yipDog (Oct 24, 2011)

OK OK!! Here's an f16 for 20sec I took a while ago... I know it's not a filter specifically making that effect but was wondering since I always have a UV filter on my lens if that would interact at all. Obviously not!


----------



## Dao (Oct 25, 2011)

The star is the result of the shutter blade with small aperture.


----------



## iskoos (Oct 25, 2011)

I don't know why the OP so stuck with his camera not being professional DSLR. It doesn't have to be a pro DSLR camera to take that shot. Some of those mirrorless cameras can take very good pictures and will easily handle it. Heck even a simple P&S camera can take a picture like that if it has full exposure control (I know some don't) and the lens is wide enough...

A pro behind a non-pro camera will do much better than a non-pro behind a pro camera...


----------



## Dao (Oct 25, 2011)

Agree! The photo looks professional because the person behind the camera knows how.

This sample photo from Canon $200 P&S camera look professional.
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/cameras/powershot/PS_ELPH_300HS/sampleimg/sampleimg_1.JPG


----------



## ghache (Oct 25, 2011)

shootermcgavin said:


> Try it first before you throw in the towel, I'm 85% that he used HDR processing on the photo. The reason I say that is the street lights have those funky lines shooting out of them, the only time I've gotten that effect on a night shot that strong is with HDR. There may be another way but I don't know about it.



stop smoking crack YOOOOO


----------



## shootermcgavin (Oct 25, 2011)

[/QUOTE]

stop smoking crack YOOOOO[/QUOTE]

You have some mental issues and sound like a teenager...  ignore works good for guys like you!


----------



## unpopular (Oct 25, 2011)

Threads like this make me really wish I didn't piss off so many people at the other photo forum. :/


----------



## ghache (Oct 25, 2011)

stop smoking crack YOOOOO[/QUOTE]

You have some mental issues and sound like a teenager... ignore works good for guys like you![/QUOTE]

LOL, i just see you recommending all kind of crap to people on here when your totally clueless. it just drive me crazy.


----------



## Matrixgravity (Oct 25, 2011)

Dao said:


> Agree! The photo looks professional because the person behind the camera knows how.
> 
> This sample photo from Canon $200 P&S camera look professional.
> http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/cameras/powershot/PS_ELPH_300HS/sampleimg/sampleimg_1.JPG



Sigh once again that is not what i mean by professional at all. When I say professional, I'm not saying the photo was taken in a professional manner. I am merely referring to the QUALITY of the shot and overall how it looks. Let's compare these two photo's together for example.

This photo was taken by a Canon DSLR camera.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3150/2891993740_553e719e78_z.jpg

See how crisp and clear and high quality the image looks? 


Now, let's look at a similar picture, but shot with a way crappier camera.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2088/2256038094_526a0a197a.jpg

As you can see, the differences here are vast. This is what I mean by quality. It's hard to explain but hopefully you see where I am getting at.


----------



## Dao (Oct 25, 2011)

Please don't take it negatively.  

I understand what you mean.  You camera is a good camera.  You just need to learn how to use it until you reach the limitation.   

I agree with you that the first photo of a phone looks better while the 2nd is bad.   But your camera should be able to take a photo similar to the first phone photo.

This is another example from Canon point and shoot camera of a die cast car.
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/cameras/powershot/PS_S95/sampleimg/sampleimg_2.JPG

The car looks very sharp to me.  And most important, the photographer know how to light it.


If you want to take a sharp photo, there are few technique you need to learn.  If you do not have a tripod, maybe time to pick up one.   If your camera supports few seconds shutter delay, use it.   Since your camera do not have mirror, so no need to worry about mirror lock up.   Learn more about DoF and the relationship of Aperture/Shutter speed/ISO.

Also learn about Post production.    Go here and take a look at some example related Post production.

Juza Nature Photography - Articles


----------



## Matrixgravity (Oct 25, 2011)

Dao said:


> Please don't take it negatively.
> 
> I understand what you mean.  You camera is a good camera.  You just need to learn how to use it until you reach the limitation.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your help. Surprisingly, I understand Aperture/Iso/Shutter Speed really well now. I've been studying it for a few weeks and I believe I have a firm grasp on it. Regarding post processing, I have about two years of experience with Photoshop and retouching material so I think am good to go !


----------



## Matrixgravity (Oct 25, 2011)

Here is a picture I just took recently and post processed a bit to increase the colors/sharpness.










Here is the original. 

http://i.imgur.com/yF1Ci.png

As you can see, the original is not as sharp unfortunately. I wish there was a way for me to take sharper pictures without having to sharpen them in photoshop. Actually, my camera has an option to increase sharpness a bit and It's turned up all the way but that's the best I can do with my camera to achieve maximum sharpness without post processing. The original doesn't look too bad though huh?


----------



## jake337 (Oct 25, 2011)

I"m still trying to figure out what is so special about the image you are trying to mimick.  Does your camera have a raw setting?  If it does, and you are using it, it won't matter what sharpness settings you use. You will have to sharpen in PP.  

People shooting with the best gear available still sharpen in post.


----------



## Matrixgravity (Oct 25, 2011)

jake337 said:


> I"m still trying to figure out what is so special about the image you are trying to mimick.  Does your camera have a raw setting?  If it does, and you are using it, it won't matter what sharpness settings you use. You will have to sharpen in PP.
> 
> People shooting with the best gear available still sharpen in post.



Yes I shoot in RAW . When I shoot in Manual Mode or any other modes except Auto, my camera has something called a Photo Wizard. Basically, I can access this wizard and adjust the OVERALL sharpness/contrast of my camera, and everytime I take a photo it will produce it more contrast and more sharpness. But, it's still not enough cause I keep having to additionally sharpen them in Photoshop. I wish it wasn't like that. Why can't camera's simply produce these type of photo's without means of post processing? Is it really necessary? Why can't camera's take sharper images? I don't understand. Everytime I post process my photo's I feel like I am cheating and my photo's aren't as authentic as when I captured them..


----------



## Dao (Oct 25, 2011)

Post process the photo is not cheating.  All photos coming out from your camera need to be processed.  It is either processed by the camera (settings defined by the manufacturer / software engineers) or you (settings based  your own preference).


----------



## KmH (Oct 25, 2011)

All active pixel image sensors have a filter array in front of them.

One of those filters is an anti-aliasing (AA) filter, also known as a low-pass filter.

The AA filter softens the sharpness of digital photos. All digital photos.  So, some amount of sharpening has to be done to all digital photos.

If you shoot RAW the in-camera sharpening (and other settings, like contrast, saturation, etc) setting has no effect on the Raw file, but it does globally effect the Basic JPEG thumbnail that is embedded in the Raw file so the camera has something to show you (both image and histogram) on the rear LCD. Note: The Raw file can't be seen as a photo until it is converted from a data file to an image, outside the camera, using Raw conversion software.

You could shoot JPEG and let the camera discard 80% of the color data the image sensor captured, convert the pixel array into 8x8, 8x16, or 16x16 pixel MCU's, then make all it's crude, and global edits. That's what JPEG was designed for, to spit out a file that, good or bad, was ready for printing.

Either way, the original image data captured is going to get edited.


----------



## Matrixgravity (Oct 25, 2011)

KmH said:


> All active pixel image sensors have a filter array in front of them.
> 
> One of those filters is an anti-aliasing (AA) filter, also known as a low-pass filter.
> 
> ...



I think another reason why my photo's don't look that good is because after I transfer my RAW files to my computer, I import them into a Raw Converter, and then convert them into JPGS. Then I take the JPG and edit it in Photoshop. Could that be a reason my picture's aren't as good as they should be?


----------



## KmH (Oct 25, 2011)

That depends on the color bit depth your camera records Raw data files at. Most digital cameras use at least a 12-bit color depth (some use a 14-bit color depth), while JPEG is an 8-bit color depth *only* file type.

That conversion from 12-bits, or more, to 8-bits, is how 80% of the color data gets discarded from a the original to make a JPEG. The JPEG file format was designed as a final, no need to edit, ready to print file type.

I mentioned 8x8, 8x16, and 16x16 pixel MCU's. MCU stands for Minimum Coded Unit. When you edit a JPEG you cannot edit individual pixels, just 64, 128, or 256 groups of pixels.
Bit Depth

Tutorials  The RAW File Format

What color space to you use edit in?

Digital Photo Editing Workflow

Tutorials on Color Management & Printing


----------



## Matrixgravity (Oct 25, 2011)

KmH said:


> That depends on the color bit depth your camera records Raw data files at. Most digital cameras use at least a 12-bit color depth (some use a 14-bit color depth), while JPEG is an 8-bit color depth *only* file type.
> 
> That conversion from 12-bits, or more, to 8-bits, is how 80% of the color data gets discarded from a the original to make a JPEG. The JPEG file format was designed as a final, no need to edit, ready to print file type.
> 
> ...



Sorry I dont  understand what you are trying to say.. I know that RAW stores more data than a JPG, but I'm asking whether or not there is a way to edit RAW files straight from Photoshop, rather then converting them to JPG like I do everytime.


----------



## mdruziak (Oct 25, 2011)

One thing I notice is that the OP seems to favor photos with less cluttered composition.  

The photos from the NX100 look OK as far as sharpness goes  (at least with the small photos presented here).  The NX100 seems like a capable camera.  There are some decent night shots taken with NX100's on Flicker.

So back to the original question... How do I get a photo that looks like...

Find a slightly desolate street corner at night or about 30 minutes after sun set will be nice!
Put the camera on a tripod.
Set the ISO around 200-400 to minimize noise.
Set you aperture to f8 if you are looking for maximum sharpness or f22 if you are looking for maximum light starbursts.
Check your shutter speed to make sure it is >2-3 seconds.  If not, adjust your ISO to give you a slower shutter speed.
Trip the shutter using a remote release or use the timer.
Take a look at your histogram and your image.  Adjust exposure to give you the right scene balance between brightness and lighting trails from cars etc.
Take a bunch of different exposures until you get something you like, and then take a few more just in case!

Sometimes you can only go so far with sharpness because of lens limitations.  But most of the current generation mirrorless cameras and lenses are pretty darn good.


----------



## KmH (Oct 25, 2011)

Matrixgravity said:


> ....I'm asking whether or not there is a way to edit RAW files straight from Photoshop, rather then converting them to JPG like I do everytime.


Yes, there is.

But, your Samsung NX100 is to new to be supported in CS4's Camera Raw.

But, if you use Bridge to upload your photos from the NX100 you can convert them to Adobe's DNG file type at upload, and the DNG file format will open in Cs4 Camera Raw just fine.



Matrixgravity said:


> I have about two years of experience with Photoshop and retouching material so I think am good to go !


 :scratch:


----------



## unpopular (Oct 25, 2011)

Matrixgravity said:


> Regarding post processing, I have about two years of experience with Photoshop and retouching material so I think am good to go !



Uhmmmm. I have 11+ years experience and 2/3 of an unfinished degree in Imaging and Reproduction. If you think you have a handle on it after 2 years, then all I have to say is that you are either very arrogant, or too ignorant to realize what you haven't yet yet learned...


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Oct 25, 2011)

unpopular said:


> Matrixgravity said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding post processing, I have about two years of experience with Photoshop and retouching material so I think am good to go !
> ...



:roll:


----------



## paul85224 (Oct 25, 2011)

Photoshop
Photoshop
Photoshop

That's how....


----------



## unpopular (Oct 25, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > Matrixgravity said:
> ...



Have something to say?


----------



## Paul Lan (Oct 26, 2011)

Matrix, the issue i think is not about a professional camera its about a professional photographer lol only the camera could not achieve a good result, it's about knowledge of photography, you can't buy a nice cooking equipment and that will cook a good food for you, you see what i mean, when i look about a nice picture its much more about the skill of the photographer not the camera. pls, don't take my answer in a bad way i just wish to share that even that i'm not a professional but an amateur still learning photography.


----------



## skieur (Oct 27, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > Matrixgravity said:
> ...



Yes, I suspect that you have more experience than they do, and I have more experience than you. 

skieur


----------

