Tungsten: L. A. nightscape

[nimitzbenedicto]

Nikon D5100. kit lens: 18-105mm. @18mm. Program mode: f/3.5, 1/50. ISO6400.WBTungsten. handheld. pp/LR4.4

[Kodiak]

Hey Victor,
Not bad at all! …but you were just a tad too late!
Tips:
A bit earlier and you could have mixed some rest daylight in your shot.
Try "aperture priority" mode • use lower ISO to avoid noise • and a tripod will
keep your camera steady during the longer exposition. Let there be magic!

[bnnrcn]

I agree with Kodiak's comments above. I would also suggest you should use f/8-f/11 which are usually the sweet points of lenses , so that you would get better results

[Shadowman]

Nice image. How are you liking that lens?

[IzzieK]

Very nice, Victor...I like it. How long were you in LA?

[nimitzbenedicto]

Hi Izzie,

How are you , Just got back from 7 months in Manila.
Thanks for your comments. Really appreciate it.

[Mike Buckley]

My first reaction is that I rarely see images taken at this time of night when the sky is still indigo blue and just moments away from turning to black. I like the mood.

[Manfred M]

Very nice shot, Victor, and I agree that this really needs to be done off a tripod at a much lower ISO setting to maximize the look. I might be tempted to crop a bit off the top; all that dark sky above the building isn't doing anything for you compositionally.

I also like Daniel's suggestion; about shooting at "blue hour", where there is still some of the last bits of daylight in the sky and the two light sources intermingle. I also like shots at last bits of "magic hour" when you get relatively equal light contribution from the both the ambient and artificial light; again that can make for some very dramatic images.

[IzzieK]

Compared to last night, I am OK for now...hoping there won't be anymore disasters from my crews tonight or the next and the next. Seems you are really getting busy with your photography too. That was really a nice shot you did up there...

I have not seen Manila since I left. I was whisked away after my grandmother died. It must be very different now. What were you doing in Manila? We are off to Florida sometime this month and Australia in October. My passport is up for renewal soon. The TSA people gave me the bad look last time I went through customs in March.

Hi Izzie,

How are you , Just got back from 7 months in Manila.
Thanks for your comments. Really appreciate it.

[DanK]

Nice shot. some good suggestions. I'll add one: get yourself a remote release. It can be as simple as one of the cable releases you can get on eBay for $15 or so. The point is that with a slow shutter, you want to avoid jostling the camera.

I'd paritially disagree with one set of comments. I wouldn't stick with any particular time. The blue hour is nice, but it can also be interesting to shoot at other times. It's just a different look. I have seen beautiful night shots taken at all hours. A nice exercise is to find a nice spot and stay put, taking shots as the light fades and the colors change.

Re the suggestion about settings: I use manual, not aperture priority, for almost all night shots. One way to do this when it gets really dark is to use a very high ISO to get a meter reading and a shutter speed at the aperture you want. You can do test shots at that ISO can be done quickly, and you can make adjustments as needed. Then do the arithmetic to figure out the longer exposure at ISO 100. Since your camera has ISO 6400, the arithmetic can be simple. From ISO 6400 to 100 is 6 stops. So, get an exposure in seconds using ISO 6400 and then use that many minutes at ISO 100. That will be very close. (To be precise, you would use 64 seconds at 100 per second at 6400.)

There is another reason to use a narrower aperture in night photography that I think is more important than hitting the sweet spot: it's hard to focus, so extra depth of field is helpful. Some people carry bright lights and illuminate a surface to obtain focus, but you can't do that if the subject is very far away, as it was in your case.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Dan I have a question . I mentioned sweet points in my post #3 , because he shot with 18 mm and f/3,5 and hiperfocal distance is already very short for those aperture and focal length and he has enough dept of field already in order to focus. So that's why I said using sweet points of the lens is better in his case because even if he has enough DOF , the image gets softer with small f points. So, is there anything wrong with my logic about the matter?

For the focusing issue, I have difficulties to focus properly too even if I usually use f/8 and f/11 for my after sunset and night shots, so I sometimes try manual focusing and I turn the focus ring to infinity , I find it useful. It would be very helpful if I could have your thoughts about it too.

For calculating the exposure I usually follow the way you mentioned above , because when it gets dark aperture mode is not enough and my camera warns me for the bulb mode, so I calculate the exposure in the same way as you do and I turn to manual mode. But I also take shots with longer and shorter shutter speeds for the same scene in order to be on the safe side and I choose the best one for editing.

Thanks for your valuable comments in advance

Nice shot. some good suggestions. I'll add one: get yourself a remote release. It can be as simple as one of the cable releases you can get on eBay for $15 or so. The point is that with a slow shutter, you want to avoid jostling the camera.

I'd paritially disagree with one set of comments. I wouldn't stick with any particular time. The blue hour is nice, but it can also be interesting to shoot at other times. It's just a different look. I have seen beautiful night shots taken at all hours. A nice exercise is to find a nice spot and stay put, taking shots as the light fades and the colors change.

Re the suggestion about settings: I use manual, not aperture priority, for almost all night shots. One way to do this when it gets really dark is to use a very high ISO to get a meter reading and a shutter speed at the aperture you want. You can do test shots at that ISO can be done quickly, and you can make adjustments as needed. Then do the arithmetic to figure out the longer exposure at ISO 100. Since your camera has ISO 6400, the arithmetic can be simple. From ISO 6400 to 100 is 6 stops. So, get an exposure in seconds using ISO 6400 and then use that many minutes at ISO 100. That will be very close. (To be precise, you would use 64 seconds at 100 per second at 6400.)

There is another reason to use a narrower aperture in night photography that I think is more important than hitting the sweet spot: it's hard to focus, so extra depth of field is helpful. Some people carry bright lights and illuminate a surface to obtain focus, but you can't do that if the subject is very far away, as it was in your case.

[rpcrowe]

I "almost" always use a tripod for night shots and will always use a tripod when I have planned to shoot at night. I will sometimes support my camera in other ways if I have not planned for a night shot and don't have my tripod with me. Walls, posts, hoods of parked cars, etc. can make decent camera supports...

Sometimes I will hand hold a night shot when necessary. I shot this view of Hong Kong across the bay from the Kowloon Side. I hand held the shot to elevate the camera above the crowd in front of me. (It's nice to be a tall person at times)

I shot this using a Canon 30D using ISO 1,600 (the highest at which the old 30D would give me a fairly decent image) , 1/45 second @f2.8 using a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens with IS turned on...

The H.K. image is noisy even after using a noise reduction software. But it is not "too" objectionable to me...

I always shoot using auto color balance and then tweak that color in post processing.

The balance between using shorter exposures (higher ISO or wider f/stop) and longer exposures (lower ISO and/or smaller f/stop) depends on whether there is motion in the image. DOF is seldom a critical factor in night scenics.

When shooting over moving water (ocean, bays, rivers, etc.) the longer exposures will "smooth out" the water, the shorter exposures will not cause the smoothing of moving water. Examples below of shots across the San Diego Bay in Southern California.

ISO 160, 30 seconds @ f/14 - produces velvet smooth looking water - if I used an even smaller f/stop, the star effect in the lights along the shore would be accentuated.


ISO 320 1.3 seconds @ f/5.6 retains the ripples in the water


If the above shots were to be used together, I would strive to make the color balance look equal. However, since I never planned to use them next to each other, I just chose the color I liked best for each image.

Whenever possible, get to your location early enough to shoot the cityscape in the changing light from late afternoon to dusk...

The lowering sun will produce highlights on shiny objects like windows. Shooting with the smallest f/stop will often produce a star shaped flare around those highlights. This was shot at f/32...


Later sun will often produce a golden glow...


Later during the magic hours, some beautiful muted colors will appear.


For long exposures without a cable release, use your self timer...

[bnnrcn]

Thanks for taking the time to explain things Richard

[Brownbear]

Yes, thank you Richard for taking the time to explain, and demonstrate the exceptionally beautiful images resulting.

[DanK]

I mentioned sweet points in my post #3 , because he shot with 18 mm and f/3,5 and hiperfocal distance is already very short for those aperture and focal length and he has enough dept of field already in order to focus. So that's why I said using sweet points of the lens is better in his case because even if he has enough DOF , the image gets softer with small f points. So, is there anything wrong with my logic about the matter?

Hi Binnur,

My point was just one that Colin has often made: within reason, the diffraction caused by changes in aperture don't make much practical difference. I try to avoid shooting wide open or closed way down, but in the middle of the range, I don't find that it makes much difference. You can test this yourself. Put your camera on a tripod in Av mode and take a series of shots of an image that doesn't require much depth of field, starting at f/5.6 and going to, say, f/13 or even f/16. See how much difference you see. I'll post an image that I took some years ago with a budget Canon rebel when I was first experimenting with macro. Hundreds of people have looked at this, mostly on line, but some printed at 8 x 10 (roughly A4). The number of people who said it lacked sharpness has been exactly zero. Had I used a wider aperture, pixel peeping might have shown a tiny improvement in sharpness from less diffraction, but the overall impression of the image would have been less sharpness because of insufficient DOF. So I follow Colin's advice, and I don't worry about diffraction much unless I expect to crop a great deal or print large.



Re focusing: I don't have any other tricks. Richard is right that for night-time cityscapes, depth of field is not an issue because everything is so far away. However, that is not true of all night photography. For example, one photo by someone who taught a class in night photography that I took a few years ago was a beach shot in which rocks in the foreground had to be in focus. I'll post one of mine where DOF was an issue: I needed the bridge in sharp focus but didn't want the buildings in the far distance too blurred.

This is a new type of photography for me, and I am still trying to learn my way around.



Dan

[bnnrcn]

Hi Dan. I suggested sweet points like f/8- f/11 instead of a wide aperture like f 3,5 because I got soft landscape images in the past with f 3,5 and the tutorials in CinC also confirms that with wide apertures the images get softer. You also say that you avoid shooting wide open or closed way down. So, I think the sweet points are better to be on the safe side anyway. For DOF issue, for me a landscape shooter has to have max. sharpness till infinity in most cases but it is not difficult to get sharpness till infinity with wide angle lenses with whatever aperture you shoot. When the focal length gets longer , then DOF is a problem and I read in a book that some landscape shooters focus stack images for this reason because they want the flowers in the foreground in sharp focus as you wanted the rocks in the foreground in sharp focus in your beach shot. May be you should try this option, I haven't had the opportunity to try such a thing , but it sounds logic

[DanK]

Hi Binnur,

Yes, I agree. I was more suggesting that you don't have to worry about going narrower than f/8. Once I rule out the extremes, I just don't worry about it.

I use focus stacking a lot in macro images, sometimes more than 20 images per photo, but I have never tried it in landscape work. Worth considering. People also stack to get star trails, but I have never tried that either.

I use all sorts of focal lengths in night photography. My bridge photo above was 85mm on a crop sensor.

Dan