Learning Landscapes - Foggy night view of a pier

[Brownbear]

Aperture Priority (Tripod, Mirror up, remote release)


I like these images for the silky water, soft colours and simplicity but a first for me and very new, so feedback is needed and truly appreciated.

F 16 SS 15 Sec Exp Bias +.3

The image is a little blurry but do the lines of the pier leading to the highrises being enveloped by a fog cloud work?

1.



F8 SS 30 Sec Exp Bias -.3

These two are sharper, likely because of the larger aperture choice (chosen for exposure reasons)

I processed these in LightRoom, basically using two different curves one to lighten the midtones and shadows and one to darken the midtones and shadows (highlights decreased)... All very slight edits, finished with an unsharp mask in Photoshop Elements... Yet, I can see what I think is banding in the sky?

Any preferences for the lighter or darker exposure? For one composition over the other? (ie inclusion of the building) Thoughts on WB? (These long exposures produce different colours)



2.



3.

[IzzieK]

Christina,

Just my opinion...there will be others I am sure...

#1 the highrises could have been more "seen" but still with the fog? maybe you should had waited a little bit till the fog disperses a bit more before taking the shot.

#2 I love this composition the best. Just sharpen the pier a bit...like #3 shot sharp?

#3 this is OK but the buildings are a bit too short for my taste? I like the sharpness here though.

As for the waters silkiness, I am no expert in that. I will leave that to the ones who can assess it more than I will. My taste is "real" water flow and textures splashes, something more on the active side of execution and flow...

Overall...I love your comp.

[Brownbear]

Thank you Isabel,

Truly helpful to hear your thoughts on the composition. The fog just rolled in (too fast for me) and stayed. Eventually I will experiment with real water, right now I'm stuck on silky water. a learning phase that may pass or not....

Christina,

Just my opinion...there will be others I am sure...

#1 the highrises could have been more "seen" but still with the fog? maybe you should had waited a little bit till the fog disperses a bit more before taking the shot.

#2 I love this composition the best. Just sharpen the pier a bit...like #3 shot sharp?

#3 this is OK but the buildings are a bit too short for my taste? I like the sharpness here though.

As for the waters silkiness, I am no expert in that. I will leave that to the ones who can assess it more than I will. My taste is "real" water flow and textures splashes, something more on the active side of execution and flow...

Overall...I love your comp.

[Donald]

I'm pretty much with Isabel with that assessment

#1 the highrises could have been more "seen" but still with the fog? maybe you should had waited a little bit till the fog disperses a bit more before taking the shot.

I think the pier and the buildings are too disconnected to work as one image. If the end of the pier had been over to the left and the buildings started at the end of the pier, then it might have worked better. But as it is, I think there's too big a gap between end of pier and buildings for it to have achieved your aim.

#2 I love this composition the best.

Absolutely. And the lighting is great. Lots of mood and atmosphere.

[John 2]

Aperture Priority (Tripod, Mirror up, remote release)

...........................................+ Manual focus. With long exposures, the movement of the auto focus can undermine sharpness.

Prefer the saturation of no.2 3 has lost the distracting highlights to the RHS which I prefer but it has moved the orange Highlight too near the edge of the comp. A bit of both might be better but that would mean cloning the bright highlights in 2 rather than cropping them.

[Mike Buckley]

#3 works really well as a black-and-white converted using a blue filter. Shame on Donald for not mentioning that.

I agree with all of the people who have already posted, except that I'm ignorant of the following:

With long exposures, the movement of the auto focus can undermine sharpness.

I don't remember ever reading that. What causes that to happen?

[Donald]

With long exposures, the movement of the auto focus can undermine sharpness.

That's a new one on me as well. What lens(es) do you experience that with and do you know what the cause is?

[John 2]

It's the kick of the focus motor that can cause it. It's more of a problem with longer lenses, particularly where it's the camera rather than a lens collar that is mounted on the tripod. I puzzled for some while over why some of my landscapes using my 18-200mm Nikkor were not quite sharp even though the camera was tripod mounted. A fellow club member who occasionally indulged in astro-photography suggested the cause based on his experience and showed me a couple of images to demonstrate the point. Two ways around the problem are either to pre-manual focus or to use a remote and hold the first pressure on the shutter until the focus settles. Solved the problem for me.

[Mike Buckley]

It's the kick of the focus motor that can cause it.

Does it matter whether the motor is in the lens or the camera?

[ajohnw]

I posted a shot using the D focus 300mm F4 recently - really pixel sharp and hand held. The camera usually focuses before the shot is taken or there are going to be other problems anyway.

John
-

[mknittle]

#s 2 and 3 are real nice. I like #2 only slightly more than #3.

I'm with Donald on #1 I think one thing or the other. Maybe a different angle could connect the city and the pier?

[Geoff F]

Just a thought, going on from Donald's comments about composition.

I wonder if a slight crop from the bottom (and left side or different size ratio) would bring the pier closer to the bottom edge and hold everything together a little better?

[John 2]

Does it matter whether the motor is in the lens or the camera?

Don't want to hijack this thread but I'm not sure Mike. I would guess that anything that moves in the lens barrel is potentially a problem (for long exposures - John). Getting back to Christina's question and my earlier comment, I would crop left and top having first lost the bright lights on the RHS. Something like the version below (the heavier saturation is just my taste)(Christina, give a good telling off if you mind my playing with your image):

[Brownbear]

Donald, John, John 2, Mark, Geoff, Isabel and Mike. Thank you for your helpful analysis and comments.

Mark... A better angle is likely not possible and the fog is going away but when it returns for sure I will try this again.

John 2.... Thank you for showing me your edit and the possibilities. This forum is all about learning for me and that you took the time to share your version with me is truly appreciated. I will try manual focus next time around.

Mike... I tried the b&w and I like it, albeit I know it is likely not done well.

I've been peeking at the comments and I've tried to reprocess incorporating as much input as I could manage. I lessened the degree of the curve pulls and the vibrancy (it seems that these images can't handle very much post processing if any)

1A. Deeper coloured version cropped from the top and on the other side.



2A Lighter midtones



3A One with a blurred boat passing



4A Black & White (Lightroom Preset with a Blue filter applied in Elements 9



I did have another scene with the fog rolling in where the highrises were more visible (taken at the beginning of the fog formation but I just think the photo is plain ugly so I'm not sharing.

I think I prefer 2 and the B&W.

Thank you to all!

[mknittle]

I wish we got more fog here!

[Mike Buckley]

You did a wonderful job with the B&W. It's now my favorite.

[Brownbear]

I'm surprised but delighted to hear that I managed a B&W... Thank you

You did a wonderful job with the B&W. It's now my favorite.

Mark, Fog is not so common here either and new to me but I do love photographing everything in it. (except for eagles and dark birds)... Sending the fog your way!