First post - What's the difference between technique in these two pics

[dasmith232]

And to be clear, the *quality* of the tripod will matter. If (generically speaking) "tripod" is all that mattered, we'd all be using the cheapo units. If sharpness matters, then the tripod and also properly using it makes all the difference.

My "serious" tripod weighs 12 lbs. It doesn't move easily or often unless I want it to.

When you get a tripod (hopefully not "if", but "when"), here are some tips:

• Don't believe the "weight limit" claims from the manufacturer. They lie. Always get a tripod that will support significantly more weight that your heaviest camera/lens setup.
• Don't extend the center column whenever possible. The sharpness of your picture is proportional to how close the camera is to where the 3 legs meet at the head joint.
• Splay the legs out wider than you probably think. Some tripods (the good ones, at least) allow you to open the legs out to 3 different positions. The first position can sometimes be too narrow to get steady support.
• If you extend the legs (length), then have the larger diameter tubes do the work. Extend the narrow leg segments as a last resort only.
• Hang some weight from the head joint or the center column to settle the whole rig down even more. But don't exceed the capacity.

[IzzieK]

Ok,
Well, if AP means aperture what does F means?
Exif has been explained..
I still see 1 picture.
George

I just followed the link.


George


@ Izziek, my real name is George, the same you use.

George

George I wasn't referring to you. When I responded to his post, he did not have the details there about his name he want us to call him by and also his location...Strange name but I like it..Jitu...Jitu...Jitu..can you say that faster than I can...?

I made a mistake by mentioning your name because he didn't have one before...sorry....

[Manfred M]

And to be clear, the *quality* of the tripod will matter. If (generically speaking) "tripod" is all that mattered, we'd all be using the cheapo units. If sharpness matters, then the tripod and also properly using it makes all the difference.

My "serious" tripod weighs 12 lbs. It doesn't move easily or often unless I want it to.

When you get a tripod (hopefully not "if", but "when"), here are some tips:

• Don't believe the "weight limit" claims from the manufacturer. They lie. Always get a tripod that will support significantly more weight that your heaviest camera/lens setup.
• Don't extend the center column whenever possible. The sharpness of your picture is proportional to how close the camera is to where the 3 legs meet at the head joint.
• Splay the legs out wider than you probably think. Some tripods (the good ones, at least) allow you to open the legs out to 3 different positions. The first position can sometimes be too narrow to get steady support.
• If you extend the legs (length), then have the larger diameter tubes do the work. Extend the narrow leg segments as a last resort only.
• Hang some weight from the head joint or the center column to settle the whole rig down even more. But don't exceed the capacity.

One thing I like about my heavy-duty tripod (which weighs a tad less than yours, Dave) is that I can remove the whole centre column and replace it with a solid plate. Add some weight to the hook and the darn thing won't budge, even during very long (multi-minute) night time exposures with a bit of a wind blowing. The legs are large diameter and there are only three sections, so it's very rigid, but not all that portable...

The legs are one part of the equation, and you need to use a nice, rigid head as well. It's no good having a tripod that is rock solid, if your camera and lens combination sway in the breeze. I find on a long lens, using a lens bracket to achieve good, neutral balance is also critical.

That being said, a heavy duty, very stable tripod and head does not come cheap; starting prices are likely to be in the same range as a decent mid to high end consumer DSLR.

[dje]

Hi Jitu

The tripod issue has been covered more than adequately but there are a couple of other issues you need to consider.

You don't say what shooting mode you have used but I would recommend either Aperture Priority or Manual, definitely not Auto, for this sort of shot. You need to have control over aperture and ISO.

Choose an aperture consistent with the depth of field you require. In the case of your image, a large depth of field is not required as the important part of the image is the buildings area when it comes to sharpness. But if there are foreground objects you want in focus as well, it becomes more critical.

Use base ISO (100 for your camera I think) to get the cleanest noise performance.

Make sure your camera focuses on what you want it to, in this case the buildings. To this end, I suggest you try Live View mode and either use Auto focus in this mode if the amount of light permits or use manual focus with the screen view highly magnified. (Nikon camera don't have a brilliant Live View mode but just make sure you have aperture set to the widest value before switching to LV mode so that the screen is as bright as possible. Once in LV mode, you can reduce the aperture without changing the screen brightness).

Add some extra sharpening to the buildings in pp. I find this is usually necessary for this sort of shot.

Anyway, have fun with this sort of shooting, practice will definitely help.

Dave

[Gshockneo]

Thanks a lot everybody for your very helpful advices and tips. Looking forward to put them into practice soon.

[george013]

Thanks a lot everybody for your very helpful advices and tips. Looking forward to put them into practice soon.

Once you've control over the movement, you should play with the aperture. A small diafragma, high f-number, gives the small lights a starlike look. Some like it, some don't like it. You can see that in the shown picture too.
I use FF. When I click on that image, I get a isolated image here on the forum. Right-click and select "View Image", then you get to the website directly and the image is browser sized. Click on the image again, and it's real size. You can see the stars in the lights. If you have an exif viewer installed, you can read that f11 and 15s was used.
George

[rpcrowe]

BTW: Try this for night photos of a cityscape. I can just about guarantee you one correctly exposed image with this very simple technique. However, I strongly recommend that you have your camera on a steady tripod and use a remote shutter release to get sharp images...

Use the "P" or programmed exposure mode...
Use whatever ISO your camera can manage - I mostly use between ISO 100 and ISO 400 for night shots of cityscapes...
Set your camera on AEB (auto exposure bracketing) at one stop intervals...
Use a -1 stop exposure compensation and shoot in three shot groups..
This will give you one exposure as the meter reads, on exposure at -1 stop below what the meter reads and one exposur at -2 stops below what the meter reads...
With most Canon DSLR cameras (except entry level rebels) you can run through the gamut of shutter speed f/stop combinations to get one that you like by simply rotating the main dial.
This shot was done at ISO 320 using f.5.6 at 1.3 seconds. The water is not flattened out by this relatively (for night shots) fast exposure.
This image was shot using ISO 160, f/14 at 30 seconds which really flattens out the water.

This image was shot at ISO 100, using f/8 at 2 seconds.

This shot was done at ISO 400, using f/5.8 at 2 seconds...

All four of the above images were parts of three shot AEB bursts using the system described above...

[Gshockneo]

BTW: Try this for night photos of a cityscape. I can just about guarantee you one correctly exposed image with this very simple technique. However, I strongly recommend that you have your camera on a steady tripod and use a remote shutter release to get sharp images...

Use the "P" or programmed exposure mode...
Use whatever ISO your camera can manage - I mostly use between ISO 100 and ISO 400 for night shots of cityscapes...
Set your camera on AEB (auto exposure bracketing) at one stop intervals...
Use a -1 stop exposure compensation and shoot in three shot groups..
This will give you one exposure as the meter reads, on exposure at -1 stop below what the meter reads and one exposur at -2 stops below what the meter reads...
With most Canon DSLR cameras (except entry level rebels) you can run through the gamut of shutter speed f/stop combinations to get one that you like by simply rotating the main dial.
This shot was done at ISO 320 using f.5.6 at 1.3 seconds. The water is not flattened out by this relatively (for night shots) fast exposure.
This image was shot using ISO 160, f/14 at 30 seconds which really flattens out the water.

This image was shot at ISO 100, using f/8 at 2 seconds.

This shot was done at ISO 400, using f/5.8 at 2 seconds...

All four of the above images were parts of three shot AEB bursts using the system described above...

Thanks for the tip on auto exposure bracketing. I did not know about it and it sounds really helpful. I have already got a tripod. Just waiting to try it out.

And these are some incredible pics! I have just one question - Why is the third pic so different than the rest of others? Is it because of low ISO and small aperture combined with less exposure time?