Midtown NYC skyline at night

[Rhoads238]

Hey all,

I stopped to take some photos last night on my way home from work.


Click for full size

I hope you guys like it.

-Jason

CC welcome

[JohnnyG]

I like!

[dje]

Looks pretty good to me Jason. Exposure and colour is good and I think the detail is good - but it would be nice to see it at a larger size. I realise though that there may be some limitations with image size on Flickr.

Dave

[Rhoads238]

Honestly i would love to post the bigger size. any idea on how to do it?

Thanks,
Jason

[dje]

Honestly i would love to post the bigger size. any idea on how to do it?

Thanks,
Jason

Jason you could try TinyPic. See Dave H's thread HELP THREAD: How can I post images here? According to that, the maximum image width is 1600 pixels and the max file size is 1.5MB. I would suggest you resize your image to 1600 pixels wide without changing the aspect ratio and choose a quality setting when saving as a jpeg which gives a file size of about 500-700KB.

Dave

[Rhoads238]

Ah much better. Just click it and it will be full size

thanks alot.

-Jason

[dje]

Much better indeed !

Dave

[Ryogenetic]

Jason where were you when you got this shot, looks north of the holland tunnel.

Ryo

[Rhoads238]

Jason where were you when you got this shot, looks north of the holland tunnel.

Ryo

ah a local. I was in Port Imperial, just south of the ferry terminal. which is north of the lincoln tunnel as well.

this one is from closer to the holland tunnel, in hoboken.



Click for full size

-Jason

[Colin Southern]

Hey all,

I stopped to take some photos last night on my way home from work.


Click for full size

I hope you guys like it.

-Jason

CC welcome

Looks great

Another thing to try sometime; if you can get away with a much shorter shutterspeed (wider aperture, higher ISO) you can sometimes get a nice "sharpness" in the reflections. Eg



Also, sharpening the reflections can go a long way to achieving or augmenting that too.

[MajaMolly]

Beautiful. NYC is one of my favorite places - there's nothing like it.

[Rhoads238]

Looks great

Another thing to try sometime; if you can get away with a much shorter shutterspeed (wider aperture, higher ISO) you can sometimes get a nice "sharpness" in the reflections. Eg



Also, sharpening the reflections can go a long way to achieving or augmenting that too.

Wow that looks incredible. I love boats as a topic for photos. It reminds me of one of the windows media player visualizers. I wonder what sound that photo would make if it could some how be converted to the visualizer format, just as a side note of course. Anyway, I imagine that this was taken on a fairly still night? what was your shutter speed / aperture combo?

[Andrew76]

Hey Jason, I really like your shot. Very nicely done. I would love to try something like that some time - looks like it would be fun, from start to finish! Thanks for sharing it with us.

[Rhoads238]

Hey Jason, I really like your shot. Very nicely done. I would love to try something like that some time - looks like it would be fun, from start to finish! Thanks for sharing it with us.

Thanks for the kind words. It was a lot of fun and a great way to relax after a long day at work. I will have to have a redo one night. I was almost hesitant to post this one because cityscapes are often very generic and overdone.

and thanks again to everyone, I really appreciate the feedback.

-Jason

[Colin Southern]

Anyway, I imagine that this was taken on a fairly still night? what was your shutter speed / aperture combo?

Thanks. I was lucky to get it on a perfectly still night so was able to get away with 4 minutes @ F22 @ ISO 100; mostly I wanted the F22 to increase the sixe of the star effect (which doesn't apply so much to your image).

Perhaps this one illustrate what I mean more - 6 seconds @ F2.8. Just trying to capture the sharpness of the speckles in the water - it gives a totally different effect when the wind is blowing across the surface

[Rhoads238]

Thanks. I was lucky to get it on a perfectly still night so was able to get away with 4 minutes @ F22 @ ISO 100; mostly I wanted the F22 to increase the sixe of the star effect (which doesn't apply so much to your image).

Perhaps this one illustrate what I mean more - 6 seconds @ F2.8. Just trying to capture the sharpness of the speckles in the water - it gives a totally different effect when the wind is blowing across the surface

Colin,

Wow that's a really nice effect. A must try for next time. How did you get so much in focus at f2.8? And by the way the book you recommended to me came in the mail yesterday. Its amazing. I can't wait to order my lighting kit and start playing. I'm a chef and I'm really excited to start shooting some food. And that book, I think is going to make all the difference.

-Jason

[Colin Southern]

Colin,

Wow that's a really nice effect. A must try for next time. How did you get so much in focus at f2.8? And by the way the book you recommended to me came in the mail yesterday. Its amazing. I can't wait to order my lighting kit and start playing. I'm a chef and I'm really excited to start shooting some food. And that book, I think is going to make all the difference.

-Jason

Hi Jason,

Thanks (it actually looks quite nice on a 44 x 22" canvas on the wall).

It's actually a bit of a study in the use of WA lenses to be honest; many automatically think "wider is better" whenever they think of landscape, but in reality extreme wide angle lenses can make for a boring shot - depending on how they're used. The "trick" is to use their properties to get an agressive perspective on the foreground -- in this case the tripod (and photographer, darn it) were in a stream that runs across the beach (for about 2 hours) - it's about 18 inches off the ground, and the reflections you can see are actually in the same stream (you can actually see that if you look carefully). The lights in the distance actually cover about 1 to 2km (and in reality really aren't that far away) - such are the optics of a WA lens (shot at 34mm on a FF camera).

In terms of focus, it's not that hard with a WA lens; their DoF is extreme - so all it takes is a reasonable guess at the hyperfocal distance (in this case the far side of the stream seemed about right).

I'd forgotten about the book (sorry, so many posts ...) - was that "Light: Science & Magic"? If so then yes - great book. One I'd go so far as to say that EVERY photographer should own (if they want to understand lighting anyway). Just take your time to work through it page by page - it'll make you think a bit, but it's not too hard to digest.

A chef eh? What a co-incidence ... I love food I'm completely without talent when it comes to cooking though; because I don't have a "feel" for food, I "do it by the numbers" - which is what confuses me (like when it says "microwave on high for 3 to 5 minutes" ... by first thought is always "well, which is it? 3 minutes or 5 minutes? Usually I'll just take the average and hope for the best. A lot of folks probably struggle with photography for the same reason.).

[Donald]

I'm completely without talent when it comes to cooking though; because I don't have a "feel" for food, I "do it by the numbers" - which is what confuses me (like when it says "microwave on high for 3 to 5 minutes" ... by first thought is always "well, which is it? 3 minutes or 5 minutes?

We have the same genetic make-up!

But the point is very well made. The technical side of photography is, to a large extent, lost on me, but I do seem to have a 'feel' for it. I know that is driven by a passion that's as much about the environment, my country, the landscape etc etc and that finds expression in the images I am able to make. So, as I've written on here before, my photography is all about emotion and not about technical brilliance. People such as Colin, have the ability to know and understand the technical to a much, much deeper level that I do, and apply it artistically.

I so admire those who have the same 'feel' in relation to the making of superb food. It is as much an artistic expression as my photography. But, that is an artistic expression that I don't have a feeling for.

[Rhoads238]

Hi Jason,

Thanks (it actually looks quite nice on a 44 x 22" canvas on the wall).

It's actually a bit of a study in the use of WA lenses to be honest; many automatically think "wider is better" whenever they think of landscape, but in reality extreme wide angle lenses can make for a boring shot - depending on how they're used. The "trick" is to use their properties to get an agressive perspective on the foreground -- in this case the tripod (and photographer, darn it) were in a stream that runs across the beach (for about 2 hours) - it's about 18 inches off the ground, and the reflections you can see are actually in the same stream (you can actually see that if you look carefully). The lights in the distance actually cover about 1 to 2km (and in reality really aren't that far away) - such are the optics of a WA lens (shot at 34mm on a FF camera).

I'm sure the print looks amazing. And I have also used that trick of standing in a stream for an extended period of time, while my camera was comfortable and dry on its tripod.



Having a subject in the close foreground is what made this shot for me. I tried a lot of different compositions for this one and this was the one that worked the best for me.

In terms of focus, it's not that hard with a WA lens; their DoF is extreme - so all it takes is a reasonable guess at the hyperfocal distance (in this case the far side of the stream seemed about right).

I'd forgotten about the book (sorry, so many posts ...) - was that "Light: Science & Magic"? If so then yes - great book. One I'd go so far as to say that EVERY photographer should own (if they want to understand lighting anyway). Just take your time to work through it page by page - it'll make you think a bit, but it's not too hard to digest.

Yes that is the book. It doesn't seem too difficult to understand at all. I'm really excited to start using it practically.

A chef eh? What a co-incidence ... I love food I'm completely without talent when it comes to cooking though; because I don't have a "feel" for food, I "do it by the numbers" - which is what confuses me (like when it says "microwave on high for 3 to 5 minutes" ... by first thought is always "well, which is it? 3 minutes or 5 minutes? Usually I'll just take the average and hope for the best. A lot of folks probably struggle with photography for the same reason.).

If you are a by the numbers kind of guy you should try making pastries. It is a much more scientific and by the numbers area of culinary arts. and believe it not some pastries can be made with your microwave prowess like the elBulli sponge and the hot pocket to name a few.

-Jason

[PBelarge]

Jason
Love your skyline images of The City, well done. I have been pining some sites on Google maps to visit to take the skyline shots. I am also going to be in NYC taking 4 photography classes, 2 of them I will be critiqued on...maybe it is time to jump...

I also like your waterfall image - is that Kaaterskill falls in the Catskills?