Project 52 - First Quarter - by Nicola

[Geoff F]

That reworking of the building in Week 2 looks a lot better to me now, Nicola.

With regard to the first of the Week 3 jetty scenes; I think those dark rocks on the right side look a lot better at full screen size. Possibly try a very slight crop from the bottom and right side?

I see what you mean about the bottom of #2 but I wouldn't really want to lose anything from either side, so if you did crop tighter, it would mean having a different size ratio.

There appears to be a very small dark object (rock?) on the right frame edge level with the end of that jetty which I would clone out.

[Nicola]

Thanks a lot Frank and Geoff
your feedback is precious.
This was the kind of crop i had in mind for 2nd picture. It should be in line with your though Geoff. (and rock removed)



about the first one, I think cropping part of the rocks on the right can works:



instead flipping the image doesn't work for me. maybe because I'm used to see the pier as in the original image.

it seems to me that the visual loop Frank was talking about has not effect in this version, and the eye just goes from left to right.

[FrankMi]

Looking better I think, Nicola. In both of these there are strong horizontal lines so a wider aspect ratio, as you did with these, works well.

On the second, I'd agree that flipping the image doesn't work as well in this case, possibly because the counter-clockwise rotation of view doesn't seem to lend itself to this particular image as well as it might with a different image. I do think the crop on the second one works better, at least from my viewpoint.

I am interested to see what others think about these options.

[Geoff F]

Yes, Nicola, those edits are just like my thoughts.

Somehow that flipped image does seem to be slightly easier on the eye, but I'm not sure there is any firm logic about the reasons.

[Nicola]

This is my first attempt to a very long exposure shot. I didn't care so much about composition and subject. I included the bright castle in the frame , very close to the border in order to cut it away in case I didn't like it (I was not sure about how it would be appeared on the photo).
It was just a trial shot, I'll be back soon there to get something good.
Please feel free to suggest me in any way, for instance if I may/may not include the bright castle or not in the next composition.


While processing this image, something leaped out suddenly to my eyes: the incredible number of hot pixels in the image. See below a detail of the SOOC picture.


Is that abnormal? Should I guess something is not working properly in my sensor?

(In the final edit on top I removed them by blurring 1,5 pixel)

Thanks a lot!

[Bunty Plumchip]

These are the kind of shots I too would like to learn how to make, so I will be watching for any advice you are given!

[FrankMi]

Hi Nicola, given the things that you do not care about in this image, to be able to determine if any constructive feedback is warranted I would need to understand what you were trying to achieve by shooting a very long exposure?

I ask because I use long exposures as a tool to accomplish a specific goal for an image and I'm not clear on what your goal for this image was.

[Nicola]

Hi Nicola, given the things that you do not care about in this image, to be able to determine if any constructive feedback is warranted I would need to understand what you were trying to achieve by shooting a very long exposure?

I ask because I use long exposures as a tool to accomplish a specific goal for an image and I'm not clear on what your goal for this image was.

Hi Frank,
thanks for the feedback. I try to clarify.
My goal was just to capture a night view and understand how the gear respond in this situation. During the night, long exposure are closer to a need than to a tool, as far as I can imagine, and there were (and partially still are) some concerns on what are the milestones of this branch of photography. For instance:
1- I was not sure on how many stops there were from the sky light to the artificial light of the building. The DR can record it in one shot? what about reflection on water?
2- I have got some street lights on my left, could they produce some flares in the lens? With the sun, usually the light coming from the front is much more brighter
3- Is my tripod sturdy enough to keep my camera for some minutes without micro-motion?
4- How long may I expose to get decent star trails?

after post processing I must also add:
5- Why all those hot pixels at low ISO setting (160)?

So, this was a test shot, and I can write the following questions for you:
Do you guys usually get long exposure pictures framing direct artificial light? or do you avoid artificial light surces? or it doesn't matter?
HDR technique is more frequent in night shots than during daytime?
How do you manage hot pixels?

Thanks a lot
Nicola

[FrankMi]

Hi Frank,
thanks for the feedback. I try to clarify.
My goal was just to capture a night view and understand how the gear respond in this situation. During the night, long exposure are closer to a need than to a tool, as far as I can imagine, and there were (and partially still are) some concerns on what are the milestones of this branch of photography. For instance:
1- I was not sure on how many stops there were from the sky light to the artificial light of the building. The DR can record it in one shot? what about reflection on water?
2- I have got some street lights on my left, could they produce some flares in the lens? With the sun, usually the light coming from the front is much more brighter
3- Is my tripod sturdy enough to keep my camera for some minutes without micro-motion?
4- How long may I expose to get decent star trails?

after post processing I must also add:
5- Why all those hot pixels at low ISO setting (160)?

So, this was a test shot, and I can write the following questions for you:
Do you guys usually get long exposure pictures framing direct artificial light? or do you avoid artificial light surces? or it doesn't matter?
HDR technique is more frequent in night shots than during daytime?
How do you manage hot pixels?

Thanks a lot
Nicola

Book learning is great but really making the best choices comes down to testing (as you are doing) and practice.

Any time that a wide dynamic exposure range is involved, and that is almost every night shot, I always exposure bracket, usually 5 shots wide. For night photography with city lights, I tend to shoot around F11, 20 sec, and ISO 100 on a tripod. For scenes like this I use the camera's metering system and apply some experience if I need to compensate, and use that for my 0EV image. You'll need to capture more light than a city night scene so without the lights on the left, your normal exposure settings are probably good.

So to answer your first question, I don't avoid artificial light sources but rather I use bracketing and image merging to expose those bright areas appropriately. For me, this is one of those areas where you just can't get it right for all parts of the with a single image SOOC.

That's a starting point so now it turns to exactly what is my goal for this image? I usually want the scene to look like it was when I was viewing it, which means for me, being able to see all of the detail without blown highlights, loss of detail in the shadows, and plastic looking water. You may have different goals.

I'm not fond of mushy looking water though some folks love it. I would blend in the water from an image with a faster shutter speed and wider aperture for just the water.

For the blown out lighting areas, I would blend in an image with much lower exposure so that the detail in the bright spots are retained.

Often, I will process using HDR techniques but won't use the result unless I can see a clear benefit to the image. Blending multiple images using layers and masking can avoid much the noise that intensive processing, like tonemapping, can introduce.

I also commonly will use layer opacity to selectively blend the best of the HDR result with as much SOOC pixels as I can to retain clarity.

I've never really noticed hot pixels in any of my images but as I check every image noise and selectively manage it before doing any sharpening I may be addressing hot pixels without realizing it. I would try shooting multiple dark panels to see if they really are hot pixels and not noise. If the hot pixel appears in the exact same location in every image, then you should be able to confirm your suspicions. If you apply noise reduction in dull flat areas it should address the issue. If the area has high frequency sharpness, I doubt you'll be able to see the hot pixels even if they are sharpened.

[Geoff F]

Looks like a bit of reflection to me rather than hot pixels.

Reflective hard substances like metal, as shown here, can produce bright spots even under reduced light if the angle is correct for enhanced reflection. Just being brighter than the surrounding area will produce this sort of result. A problem which I regularly encounter with insects and flowers.

[Wavelength]

All images are rich in colors and re-inviting; awesome shots

[Nicola]

Thank you very much Frank
It helped me. You touched an hurting point: my HDR and tone mapping skills...

To get a picture as close as possible to what I see, is usually my task too. In that case, instead, I wanted to use the camera to get more light than my eyes can do, in order to obtain a typical night picture. The exposure of that photo was F\4 ISO160 and 600 sec of shutter. With my 50D there were no way to get it with fast enough shutter speed to freeze the water (at ISo1600 the noise is annoying).

I've never found what I called "hot pixels" in my pictures too, I've not shot with shutter speed longer than 120 s, up to now. I guess it is a phenomenon goes out of control after some minutes of exposure...

[Nicola]

All images are rich in colors and re-inviting; awesome shots

thank you Nandakumar!

[Nicola]

Looks like a bit of reflection to me rather than hot pixels.

Reflective hard substances like metal, as shown here, can produce bright spots even under reduced light if the angle is correct for enhanced reflection. Just being brighter than the surrounding area will produce this sort of result. A problem which I regularly encounter with insects and flowers.

Geoff
I think I haven't understood your feedback, since I can't get how to link that effect to reflective hard substances.
Just let me post again the detail of my picture to show better what I mean for hot pixels. This is 200% crop



You can see lots of "particles of dust", exactly of 1 pixels, green, red or blue. It should come from the sensor..

[FrankMi]

Thank you very much Frank
It helped me. You touched an hurting point: my HDR and tone mapping skills...

To get a picture as close as possible to what I see, is usually my task too. In that case, instead, I wanted to use the camera to get more light than my eyes can do, in order to obtain a typical night picture. The exposure of that photo was F\4 ISO160 and 600 sec of shutter. With my 50D there were no way to get it with fast enough shutter speed to freeze the water (at ISo1600 the noise is annoying).

I've never found what I called "hot pixels" in my pictures too, I've not shot with shutter speed longer than 120 s, up to now. I guess it is a phenomenon goes out of control after some minutes of exposure...

Let's say that you crank up the ISO really high and grab a shot of the water. In post processing you can freely do noise reduction as the result wouldn't be sharp at night anyway. As long as you mask just the water to merge with the rest of the image it should look natural. There are all kinds of possibilities you could test to see what works best for you.

One thing you could try is to shoot enough earlier in the evening so that you don't need a 10 minute exposure. OR, put the camera on a tripod and shoot for the water just before dark, then, without moving the camera, wait a half-hour or so to grab the rest of the bracketed shots. This kind of time delay between the first and last shot can be very effective when the light is changing dramatically over a relatively short period of time. It can be great for shooting cityscapes to get the buildings 'golden hour' clear and add the lights in the windows after dark.

As you continue your testing Nicola, I'm sure you'll determine what works best for you.

[Geoff F]

If you look at that image, Nicola, there seems to be a metal edging to the jetty and any hard edges which are at a certain angle are reflecting the available light which makes them appear brighter (hotter) than the surrounding areas. Even in that poor light they are reflecting some light.

The really bright area is probably the head of a screw or bolt etc. And on the uncropped image there appears to be some reflection from this bright spot in the water.

In the dark areas you are picking up some background 'noise' which is quite common for this sort of scene and some of these specks will produce a colour.

I'm not really sure of the science here but I certainly get a lot of this effect, but much worse, on my insect photos where there is a shiny surface and a dark colour.

This shot is actually rather clean considering the conditions.

I usually try to simply clone out any false pixel colours.

[Nicola]

I'm trying to recover the time lost the last 3 weeks, when I got pictures but I've not had the time to PP.
For week 5, I'd like to propose to your criticism, two shots of the same spot.
In the 2nd picture, I used a couple of flash shot to light the foreground and "freeze" the motion of the water foam. This is a mix of smoky water effect and "motion freezing".
Does it works in your opinion?

thanks!

Nicola

[Brownbear]

Hi Nicola,

I adore the 1st image... Beautifully composed, gorgeous colours! I also like the 2nd image, a lot but my personal preference is for the lighter mood and colours of the sky in the first image.

The one thing I wonder about in the first image is if the boats on the horizon are just a wee bit too bright? Also when I view the image in the lyte box the edge of the rock face that begins on the left hand side and ends in the middle seems a bit too, sharp? Perhaps it is just the angle and something I've never seen before.

[Kaye Leggett]

I prefer the composition of the first. I think the second needs to be cropped at the bottom as the picture ratio doesn't work for me. I can't decide whether I like the boats on the horizon or not - they are bright, but they're an integral part of the sea and it would be a shame to clone them out.

Lovely colours in both images

[Mark von Kanel]

Beautiful work Nicola, the boats on the horizon need to go i think.