Not sure how this happened

[Rhoads238]

heres a shot of the culinary institute of america at night. im not sure how it came out looking like this. i didnt use any editing softwear on it. its a five second exposure on a tripod

C&C please

[peterb533]

Two things strike me, one, it looks slightly overexposed and two the white balance looks off. From the EXIF it seems you used 'cool white fluorescent' but my gues is that the main lighting is tungsten or something near that. I'll let other more experienced confirm these thoughts.

Peter

[Sahil]

Going off the track, but, Peter, I want to know how did you check the pic's EXIF data? Photobucket doesn't show it like Flickr does, Does it?

[carregwen]

Culinery institute, eh? They obviously covered it in pink icing just before you arrived! I put it in the PS RAW converter but couldn't change the WB to anything that looked normal. Very strange.

Sahil

You can view the EXIF by many methods. I use Opanda Exif with Firefox browser. Here... http://www.opanda.com/en/iexif/iexif_firefox.htm

[peterb533]

Going off the track, but, Peter, I want to know how did you check the pic's EXIF data? Photobucket doesn't show it like Flickr does, Does it?

I use a Firefox add-on called FxIF. Tried Opanda as Rob mentioned but for some reason didn't on my PC.

[Colin Southern]

Got to run, so quickly ...

3 things ...

1. WB is Waaaaay off - was it shot in RAW?

2. The lights in the centre have caused a degree of over-exposure,

3. You've tilted the camera upwards and that's caused the change in perspective.

[Dave Humphries]

Here's my PP attempt, although I don't doubt (by past experience) that someone can do a better job than I.

This is roughly what I did:
Colour curves to lift shadows,
added a few handfuls of green,
a bit of cloning,
some burning,
some desaturation,
sharpened.



The EXIF also says the colour profile was "Vivid" and the Active D-Lighting was "extra high", these probably all, along with jpg and the WB, contributed to the overall result.

Cheers,

[arith]

I think f8 or f11, the green is too vivid for my eyes and the sky too dark. But you sure can do an excellent pic here just the same Tv with stopped down aperture, I think there is a strong light to the left.

[Sahil]

I am using Chrome. No convenient plug-in for EXIF data as yet

[Rhoads238]

Here's my PP attempt, although I don't doubt (by past experience) that someone can do a better job than I.

The EXIF also says the colour profile was "Vivid" and the Active D-Lighting was "extra high", these probably all, along with jpg and the WB, contributed to the overall result.

Cheers,

Wow good job. this was one of the first night photos ive taken. i deliberately over exposed this picture because i wanted the main enterance to look like you are entering a mystical place of blinding knowledge hahaha. to me it looked like the picture itself was made with a computer as opposed to taken with a camera. but now i see why it came out this way. im looking at the orignal on a computer at school with a different screen from my labtop and the saturation looks much much higher than on my labtop. but i was always curious as to why this picture came out so strange. im hoping to sell this photo to the school. maybe ill use your edited version.

as for everyone else great insight, its been really helpful.

[Dave Humphries]

I am using Chrome. No convenient plug-in for EXIF data as yet

No problem Sahil.

1) Copy the image's URL to the 'clipboard'.
2) Open this page http://regex.info/exif.cgi
3) Paste the image's URL (from clipboard) into top box
4) Click adjacent "View Image At Url button
5) Assuming EXIF data wasn't blocked, study the results carefully, you will be AMAZED what is there, although it varies significantly from camera to camera, brand to brand and one PP software package and another.

If you do it for both the original posted image and my PP edit, you can see the differences the PP software makes to it.

Cheers,

[Dave Humphries]

im hoping to sell this photo to the school. maybe ill use your edited version.

I hope you're joking

a) because this isn't the best that can be done
b) because that isn't the terms under which I took the job
c) I only did a tiny version, it won't print at more than say, 6 inches across without looking really naff

btw, have you got a first name we could use? - thanks.

Cheers,

[Rhoads238]

I hope you're joking

a) because this isn't the best that can be done
b) because that isn't the terms under which I took the job
c) I only did a tiny version, it won't print at more than say, 6 inches across without looking really naff

btw, have you got a first name we could use? - thanks.

Cheers,

i guess i never really introduced myself. my names Jason Taylor, im 21. i see what your saying about selling it. ill take another picture of the school soon and do a much better job. i had just purchased my first DSLR about a week before taking that shot.
"b) because that isn't the terms under which I took the job"
thats fair i wasnt trying to step on your feet. the school is really cheep about these things and would probably only pay $20 if anything.

[Sahil]

No problem Sahil.

Thanks, Dave
I figured that out soon after posting my reply, but found it a bit tedious. Yea I am way tooo lazy
Chrome has come up with new 'Extensions' and a few are for reading the EXIFs on mouse-overs.
Thanks again.

[Dave Humphries]

i guess i never really introduced myself. my names Jason Taylor, im 21. i see what your saying about selling it. ill take another picture of the school soon and do a much better job. i had just purchased my first DSLR about a week before taking that shot.

Hi Jason,

Good-oh, now I can do the officail "Welcome to the CiC forums" speech.
Ah, there, done it

If you're trying to do this kind of shooting, there's a lot to learn, you really ought to be shooting RAW because of the dynamic range and that'll require some PP software - if you can't manage PS yet (reading another post elsewhere), try Elements, it's a lot cheaper.

Cheers,

[Ashwin]

heres a shot of the culinary institute of america at night. im not sure how it came out looking like this. i didnt use any editing softwear on it. its a five second exposure on a tripod

C&C please

My version if you like