Moonlight

[Stagecoach]

Being too breezy to shoot that tree again I found myself a comfortable bench by the water and experimented to see what I could achieve using the moons light only over the water.

No 1 - 10s, f/8, 75mm (stars rounded)


No 2 - 20s, f/8, 28mm


No 3 - 25s, f/8, 75mm


The exercise was basically to see the affect of longer exposures and what was achievable and not one of composition. I also used the 'long exposure' noise reduction function in camera for the first time on some shots but see no gain from it at these speeds.



The area I was at was quite busy with families out late enjoying the breeze and as often happens people speak to me and one lady came and asked me "what I was measuring as I had been sat there for a long time"? I explained I was taking pictures and showed some previews on the screen. The response was that "I must have a very 'powerful' camera. Never thought of it like that before

Grahame

[Rebel]

I really like these Grahame! I think the compositions work in all three of them.

BTW, how do you frame your images? Its a nice touch

[GBO25]

Magic Grahame. The first one is my stand out.

[Shadowman]

Nicely done.

[Stagecoach]

I really like these Grahame! I think the compositions work in all three of them.

BTW, how do you frame your images? Its a nice touch

Thanks Matt, each taken after dark You'll get that one.

I use the 'Canvas Size' option in PS (also in Elements and I'm sure others) and just increase the canvas size by number of pixels in white. It seems I have found a standard at present which is to downsize my image to 1400 px width and add the white canvas at 150 px to both width and height making it 75 px thick on each edge.

In PS I have this set up as an automatic 'action' but suspect I'm using it too often

[Stagecoach]

Magic Grahame. The first one is my stand out.

Thanks Graham, if only there had been a small boat or bit of driftwood in that first one

[Stagecoach]

Nicely done.

Thank you John

[Marie Hass]

Dear Grahame,

I love the colors in all three, with #1 being my favorite.

Was the moon so high that you could not include it? It would have been interesting to have a point of reference.

Marie

Marie

[Stagecoach]

Dear Grahame,

I love the colors in all three, with #1 being my favorite.

Was the moon so high that you could not include it? It would have been interesting to have a point of reference.

Marie

Marie

Hi Marie,

The colours of 2 & 3 are as shot with WB on Daylight but for No 1 I adjusted the WB very slightly towards blue just to get a slight tint to the water reflection otherwise I found that one just did not look right.

It was my intention not to include the moon, that was the exercise for the previous two evenings shots I posted. If I had of included it the dynamic range would have been far too great to capture the scene in one exposure without having the moon and surrounding area as horribly blown and void of any detail.

The moon is only just out of frame at the top and the 'spotlight' effect on the water seen in 1 & 3 is caused when the moon was behind a cloud.

Grahame

[Marie Hass]

I am sorry, Grahame.

I missed your other moon shot posts. I will go have a look.

White balance is a funny thing, is it not? Sometimes what we interpret in our brains is what we expect colors to be, not what they actually are. Thus, though I thought #1 may have had some sort of filter, I was willing to suspend reality because, in my subjective experience, it looked the most "real".

Marie

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks Graham, if only there had been a small boat or bit of driftwood in that first one

Exactly my thought. Very well done!

[IzzieK]

Grahame...there are three added "stars" to #1. I thought they were dust bunnies... well, I like #1 best of all. The clouds seems to be fuzzy but now I understand what you were trying to achieve. #1 is so beautiful...and moody. Love them all but #1 tops it all for me...

Good camera? I think at one stage or the other, we get to hear that kind of line...my camera is so good, it takes a picture of its own even without legs to stand on.

[John 2]

Interesting Grahame. Three nice shots and probably a little more needed for compositional purposes but that wasn't the point of the exercise. Were the clouds on the move? I wonder what they might have added if the exposure had been even longer and captured more movement.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Grahame. I especially like the exposure in #1 . The clouds and the reflection in the water are both gorgeous. I think the thing on the right hand side of the horizon needs cloning for a better look but I loved this shot indeed.

#2 and #3 - IMO your exposures are a bit too long for both shots and the skies need darkening. The water might also need darkening a bit but not as much as the skies need. (I'm not sure if those images look better after reducing the exposure though, because the clouds look blurred because of the long exposure.)

[KimC]

Grahame, the first one is heavenly!

[Stagecoach]

I am sorry, Grahame.

I missed your other moon shot posts. I will go have a look.

White balance is a funny thing, is it not? Sometimes what we interpret in our brains is what we expect colors to be, not what they actually are. Thus, though I thought #1 may have had some sort of filter, I was willing to suspend reality because, in my subjective experience, it looked the most "real".

Marie

Hi Marie, no reason you should be sorry

You are right about the WB and I gave up long ago worrying about what is technically correct or what I saw at a specific time with low light morning or evening shots.

No 1 is the closet to reality and what I actually saw with my eyes (and who's to say my eyes work the same as others?) and I base this on the fact that at no time could I see the piece of driftwood, which is a tree, with my naked eye clearly as in 2 & 3. And in addition science tells us that the sky and hence its reflection is blue

So what colour is water

Grahame

[Stagecoach]

Exactly my thought. Very well done!

Thanks Mike

[Mike Buckley]

Grahame, the first one is heavenly!

Both literally and figuratively!

[Stagecoach]

Hi Izzie,

Grahame...there are three added "stars" to #1. I thought they were dust bunnies...

Not guilty Izzie I did consider adding some stars to No 1 but thought that cheating. I did however clean up, due to the sausage shape, the ones that you can see. On the other two images I removed all stars because they were streaks due to the long exposures.

No 1 is my favourite also and I now know what to look out for to get that spotlight affect again.

Good camera? I think at one stage or the other, we get to hear that kind of line...my camera is so good, it takes a picture of its own even without legs to stand on.

The most common comment I get made to me here is "are you taking photographs?". This used to make me laugh somewhat but then I realised someone with a 'big' camera and tripod was a rare sight here and especially when the person spends considerable time in the same spot with it pointed at what to many would appear uninteresting. There of course is also the the language aspect.

[Stagecoach]

Were the clouds on the move? I wonder what they might have added if the exposure had been even longer and captured more movement.

The clouds were moving quite fast John there was a fair breeze.

During the exercise I did think of even longer exposures than the 30s capable with the camera but had not bought my remote release with me. I did in fact take a couple of frames with 2 x 30s exposures but had forgotten about this until I read your comment so will sort them out and blend them.