Night Picture of Cement Manufacturing Plant

[Gerry F]

The lighting gives the impression of something much more interesting than a cement manufacturing plant. Looks more like rocket launching pads or something similar.


DSC04211 by gerald fraser, on Flickr

[FootLoose]

Interesting. I think it would be better if you cropped out the bright foreground.

[Shadowman]

Nice one.

[John 2]

Interesting. I think it would be better if you cropped out the bright foreground.

Definitely for me as well. After that, it's a very nice image.

[Gerry F]

Interesting. I think it would be better if you cropped out the bright foreground.

As new member I ask is it usual to make suggested changes and resubmit?

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Gerald and welcome to the CiC forums,

As new member I ask is it usual to make suggested changes and resubmit?

I would say only if you feel they have some validity, or just wish to try them, then yes, by all means make some changes and add the new version to this thread.

If not, it is polite to at least acknowledge other's comments, even if you don't agree with them and have no intention of doing that, even if collectively after a few have been left. (e.g. "thanks for all the feedback and comments")

As you're new, we should perhaps also 'warn' you that sometimes a member might 'do it for you' (i.e. they process your image and add an edited version here), in an effort to demonstrate what they mean. Not really necessary in this instance, since the suggestion was effectively to crop off the brighter foreground, something that can be easily replicated by all members when viewing the image in the LyteBox feature (click on the image, then click & drag it down so the bright area goes off the bottom of the screen).

Sometimes such an edited version might be accompanied by text such as: "I have demonstrated what I mean, but if you object to my version, just let me know and I'll remove it", others may not say that, but would usually respond to a polite request to remove an edited version.

If a member feels strongly that they don't want anyone else editing and reposting a new version of their image, even in the realms of them just trying to be helpful, then it is suggested that is made clear when an image is posted, from hundreds of members, we have one or two who do this and that's fine, their wishes are respected.

Enough on forum etiquette.


Looking at the shot, what I personally find most distracting about the foreground is the fact it is so 'bright noisy' and sharp, however, cropping removes the depth it adds to the scene. It would be interesting to see whether another way could be found to alleviate that, either by masking so that area wasn't sharpened (which is probably the cause of the bright speckles), or retrospectively significantly blur and dim that area, so a more 'misty' foreground area gives the depth, but without competing with the subject.

It is a good image, with lots of detail if viewed larger (via the Flickr link), well done.

Hope that's helpful,
Dave

[Gerry F]

Hi Gerald and welcome to the CiC forums,



I would say only if you feel they have some validity, or just wish to try them, then yes, by all means make some changes and add the new version to this thread.

If not, it is polite to at least acknowledge other's comments, even if you don't agree with them and have no intention of doing that, even if collectively after a few have been left. (e.g. "thanks for all the feedback and comments")

As you're new, we should perhaps also 'warn' you that sometimes a member might 'do it for you' (i.e. they process your image and add an edited version here), in an effort to demonstrate what they mean. Not really necessary in this instance, since the suggestion was effectively to crop off the brighter foreground, something that can be easily replicated by all members when viewing the image in the LyteBox feature (click on the image, then click & drag it down so the bright area goes off the bottom of the screen).

Sometimes such an edited version might be accompanied by text such as: "I have demonstrated what I mean, but if you object to my version, just let me know and I'll remove it", others may not say that, but would usually respond to a polite request to remove an edited version.

If a member feels strongly that they don't want anyone else editing and reposting a new version of their image, even in the realms of them just trying to be helpful, then it is suggested that is made clear when an image is posted, from hundreds of members, we have one or two who do this and that's fine, their wishes are respected.

Enough on forum etiquette.


Looking at the shot, what I personally find most distracting about the foreground is the fact it is so 'bright noisy' and sharp, however, cropping removes the depth it adds to the scene. It would be interesting to see whether another way could be found to alleviate that, either by masking so that area wasn't sharpened (which is probably the cause of the bright speckles), or retrospectively significantly blur and dim that area, so a more 'misty' foreground area gives the depth, but without competing with the subject.

It is a good image, with lots of detail if viewed larger (via the Flickr link), well done.

Hope that's helpful,
Dave

Thanks so much Dave. Extremely helpful - both about the photo and also about the way the site works. I have a lot to learn and probably will have many more questions. For example there is a huge amount of amazing information with diagrams etc on the site. Who constructed it and what is the history? If I have questions which are not necessarily about a specific picture -how and where is it best to place them? Thanks again. Gerry

[rpcrowe]

I definitely like the image and agree that I might crop out the bright foreground. Your image avoids a problem that is often seen in night shots of lighted areas: overexposure.

It appears that the image could be leveled just a TAD. The left side of the image is slightly lower than the right side.

[Gerry F]

I definitely like the image and agree that I might crop out the bright foreground. Your image avoids a problem that is often seen in night shots of lighted areas: overexposure.

It appears that the image could be leveled just a TAD. The left side of the image is slightly- lower than the right side.

Thanks for you encouraging comment and helpful suggestion. Being new to CiC it’s so nice to have a site with this kind of interaction. Gerry

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Gerry,

I have a lot to learn and probably will have many more questions.
For example there is a huge amount of amazing information with diagrams etc on the site. Who constructed it and what is the history?

The forum was created by Sean McHugh in 2008, so we've now passed 10 years!
The About page on the Tutorials site, created in 2005, gives some detail of that site and Sean.

If I have questions which are not necessarily about a specific picture -how and where is it best to place them?

Here's the 'stock answer' to this question

When you are ready to start your own thread, decide which forum is most appropriate, we have 8, here is some pointers on 'which is for what';

for introductions and general chat, please choose from;

Meet the Members
General Photography Discussion
Community Lounge

if you are posting pictures for feedback, please choose from;

People & Pets
Nature & Architecture (use this one for anything that is not People and Pets)

if you want to ask questions about equipment or Post Processing, please choose from;

Digital Cameras & Equipment
Image Post-Processing & Printing

if you are wanting to enter a Mini-Competition or Monthly challenge, please choose from;

Mini Competitions or
Monthly & Other Competitions

All the best,
Dave

[wilgk]

Nice image & welcome!

[Gerry F]

Nice image & welcome!

Thank you. I have felt very welcome as a newcomer. Much appreciated.

[Gerry F]

Thanks. Really appreciate the time you take to provide details to get me up to speed. Makes a huge difference

[Gerry F]

Would appreciate your comments. Thanks

[Gerry F]

The lighting gives the impression of something much more interesting than a cement manufacturing plant. Looks more like rocket launching pads or something similar.

I wanted to add two additional versions of the same picture based on your comments as well as a black and white version and ask which of all of these is the best. It would certainly be a useful lesson for me in composition.

1. Original version
DSC04211 by gerald fraser, on Flickr

2. This version has the foreground darkened

DSC04211 2 by gerald fraser, on Flickr

3. This a cropped version

DSC04211 1 by gerald fraser, on Flickr

4. This is the b&w version

DSC04216 by gerald fraser, on Flickr

[rpcrowe]

Great job Gerry...
I like the #3 cropped version best because of the mass lighted area that it shows. I like night pictures of things and places lit up rather than of sky, water and dark backgrounds. I tend to crop my night shots a bit closer than most folks because I like to see the lights in my images. Here is an example that I shot at 85mm with a Canon crop camera (136mm equivalent) so I could avoid a mass of uninteresting dark sky.

There are at least two ways to achieve star patterns in the bright lights. First is to use a star filter but that usually overdoes the effect. The second is to use a very small aperture. I shot this one at f/14 which allowed a slow 30-second shutter speed that also smoothed out the water.
BTW: I have an almost foolproof system to achieve the ultimate night exposure of a lighted area. I place my camera in one of the semi auto modes, quite often in aperture priority. I then select 3-stops of auto exposure bracketing and combine that with a minus one stop exposure compensation. This will result in three exposures: one at the meter reading, one 1-stop below the meter reading and one 2-stops below the meter reading. The bane of night exposure is over exposing the lighted areas. I can just about guarantee that one of the three exposures form this system is going to be well within the ballpark...

[Gerry F]

Thanks so much Richard. The picture is great. Also thanks for the suggested setup which I would never have got to in a a million years. I am not too sure how you do the post treatment. Do you combine the three bracketed pictures or use the best of the three?
This is one I did using a filter (I think)

DSC04009 by gerald fraser, on Flickr

[Jim A]

Without repeating anything, Gerry, my main interest is whether you can go back and have another go? All too often, people suggest valuable ways of re-doing my images, but then they are unrepeatable because I was only there once. I get the impression, rightly or wrongly, that you are able to go back to this place. I would certainly suggest that would be a great move. The location and image could be many things to the viewer, fairy-tale, sci-fi, etc. If you can go back - then do so!! Bracketing the images would be a good way to go, using a tripod and timer if you have one or both.

[Gerry F]

Hi Jim, you are right , I would be able to get to the area but not the same place. I was in a group with a guide who had local knowledge and he led us to a field in the middle of nowhere in the dark. No way that I can retrace that. However, I don't exclude trying from some other spot. Thanks