More night shots

[rob marshall]

Shot last night. I think I'm improving, but it isn't as easy as I thought it might be. Noise is a problem - even with a 5D Mk2. It's also tricky getting the right location. These were shot on ISO800.

[Skitalez]

just great!

[Shadowman]

Very nice.

[ascott]

Rob, why are you shooting at ISO800? are you using a tripod? Personally I'm not keen on the yellow light that most night shots take on so using an ISO100 on a tripod would get you a shutter speed that might whiten the ambient light more, either that you could try PS.
Other than that for me they're very good images, remember you can use grads for night photography to

[arith]

Blue sky at night shepherds delight; I don't think so. The sky needs to be black and maybe HDRI is needed. I'm fascinated by deep blackness or shadows at night, interspersed with pools of light.

I know you are taking your tripod out next time, night shots are really hard, especially with people around.

I like the second and it is possible with PP to get the sky dark, but I wouldn't have the moon in it.

[XSi 88]

I am pretty green at night photography I have tried different ISO's and F stops along with various exposure lenghts. Do you over expose your shots and then correct the brightness in Photoshop? I think that they look great, none of my night shots have turned out that good yet. Any tips are appreciated.

[rob marshall]

I am pretty green at night photography I have tried different ISO's and F stops along with various exposure lenghts. Do you over expose your shots and then correct the brightness in Photoshop? I think that they look great, none of my night shots have turned out that good yet. Any tips are appreciated.

I've tried under and over-exposing. It really depends on the scene. I've also tried ND grads (as Alex suggested above), which work well when the sky is still fairly light as they make the very dark areas less dark.

[rob marshall]

Rob, why are you shooting at ISO800? are you using a tripod? Personally I'm not keen on the yellow light that most night shots take on so using an ISO100 on a tripod would get you a shutter speed that might whiten the ambient light more, either that you could try PS.
Other than that for me they're very good images, remember you can use grads for night photography to

Yes, used a tripod. I used a high ISO as there were people around in some of the shots (but not these two) that I did that night, and I didn't want blurring. The 5D Mk2 is supposed to be very good at holding back noise, but night shots are always going to create some noise, I think. I used grads on some of the shots I took where the sky was still light.

[jeeperman]

Nice shots Rob, something I will strive to achieve as my skills grow will be night shots such as these.

[rob marshall]

Version of the second one with a cooler WB - makes it less yellow I think. I suppose that comes from artificial lights. Just behind me was a large orange Sainsbury neon sign which cast a glow over the scene.

[rob marshall]

Nice shots Rob, something I will strive to achieve as my skills grow will be night shots such as these.

Seattle must be good for this type of shot? Lots of bright lights in the city.

[Donald]

Version of the second one with a cooler WB - makes it less yellow I think. I suppose that comes from artificial lights. Just behind me was a large orange Sainsbury neon sign which cast a glow over the scene.

Nice ... but not so nice! Cityscapes at night are about yellow casts, I suggest. The first version is a true night-time scene.

[jeeperman]

I believe it will be....once it stops raining. lol The only issue I will face is the distance. The side of the city which offers the nicest view and water can only be shot from the a boat or from land across the bay that is quite a ways off. However there are ample other opportunities I will be exploring heavily a couple months from now or inbetween showers. The liquid sunshine is still a bit cold yet.

[ANSORB]

As always with Rob's photos these two are beautifully shot and, as far as I can tell, technically as near perfect as they could be. A suberb eye, and a mastery of both the camera and post processing which makes me wish a genie would pop out of the bottle and grant me the same.

But they don't work well for me. Thinking about it I remembered reading some one (I think John Ruskin) saying that it is the small imperfections which make for greatness in architecture (I may have got that a bit wrong but that was the burden of it) and I think something like that is bothering me here. These are so good they look as if they could have been taken in the studio. That gives them a suggestion of artificialty which I can't accept in a natural (albeit urban) landscape.

That apart, they are superb Rob. I am very glad to have seen them.

[Sahil]

Even I had the same question in my mind "Why ISO 800?"
Then I thought that it was to capture the moon sharp....
Anyways, awesome shots, Rob. I like the first shot more...

[rob marshall]

As always with Rob's photos these two are beautifully shot and, as far as I can tell, technically as near perfect as they could be. A suberb eye, and a mastery of both the camera and post processing which makes me wish a genie would pop out of the bottle and grant me the same.

But they don't work well for me. Thinking about it I remembered reading some one (I think John Ruskin) saying that it is the small imperfections which make for greatness in architecture (I may have got that a bit wrong but that was the burden of it) and I think something like that is bothering me here. These are so good they look as if they could have been taken in the studio. That gives them a suggestion of artificialty which I can't accept in a natural (albeit urban) landscape.

That apart, they are superb Rob. I am very glad to have seen them.

Very intrersting observation. I am aware that when I both take and process shots I am keen to remove obstructions. I'll temporarily move things, which makes my wife aghast sometimes, before shooting. I'll avoid people in my shots, but then sometimes I'll deliberately include them. It's never accidental or 'natural', but planned. In post-processing, I'll sometimes spend ages removing minor blemishes that I notice other people leave in their shots (and may not even notice). I am more than a little obsessed about the clean look of my shots, and I think that comes through with the finished products. Maybe it's becoming part of my 'look'? I've noticed it with other CiC members - I can often tell who has taken a shot before I look. Not necessarily because of the subject matter, but more by the manner in which it was shot and processed.

To be honest, the shots don't entirely work for me either. I think they are good, but they are quite alienating and cold. I suppose that's inevitable with night-time shots with a lot of artificial light, and no people in the scene. You mentioned a 'natural landscape' - I don't really think it exists, Even the 'natural' landscape has been fashioned and shape by man so much as to be un-natural, Maybe that's what some photography aims to do - to get to the core nature of things (even simple things) and visually present them?