Photography Thread
Comments
-
4 -
Had been hoping to get some night sky shots over Boscastle harbour last night but there was just some very light cloud that stopped everything other than Venus shining through looking out to sea so had to settle for a shot back towards the village which I'm reasonably happy with. First attempt at stacking images, that's 5 images stacked in Sequator (which is really simple to use for astrophotography but I've done the bare minimum on this).
0 -
Nice atmosphere. I hope you don't mind (I'll self-flagellate if you do), but I had a few seconds' play with the colour balance and exposure level, as I wondered if reducing the blue would improve it.Pross said:Had been hoping to get some night sky shots over Boscastle harbour last night but there was just some very light cloud that stopped everything other than Venus shining through looking out to sea so had to settle for a shot back towards the village which I'm reasonably happy with. First attempt at stacking images, that's 5 images stacked in Sequator (which is really simple to use for astrophotography but I've done the bare minimum on this).
I tried taking a night time photo of Topsham the other night, with the moon poking over atmospherically-lit houses, and totally failed on the technical front. I think I needed a tripod for starters.0 -
I’d played with it in Lightroom but, as ever, once it has then been uploaded to Flickr and then linked into here the image looks different.
Tripod is pretty essential for night landscapes. That picture is a series of 5 x 20 second exposures (ISO 1600). It would probably have benefited from lighting the foreground a bit but I forgot to bring a head torch with me (which also means I’m not going to risk the scramble to some of the best vantage points due to coming back down in the dark).0 -
What a lovely evening to play with a winkle and balls. (And limpet)
2 -
Pross said:
I’d played with it in Lightroom but, as ever, once it has then been uploaded to Flickr and then linked into here the image looks different.
Tripod is pretty essential for night landscapes. That picture is a series of 5 x 20 second exposures (ISO 1600). It would probably have benefited from lighting the foreground a bit but I forgot to bring a head torch with me (which also means I’m not going to risk the scramble to some of the best vantage points due to coming back down in the dark).
Ah, yes my camera on auto just did one exposure of probably three seconds, and what with the noise and slight camera movement on a longish lens, it was very, erm, 'impressionistic' (i.e. wobbly and grainy at the same time).0 -
Pure cheese, and a couple of stops lower than my eyes perceived it, but I quite like it all the same... mostly thanks to the boat.
2 -
Are you doing what I was and linking the images (from Flickr) at low resolution (low/medium size)?Pross said:I’d played with it in Lightroom but, as ever, once it has then been uploaded to Flickr and then linked into here the image looks different.
IMO, what you’re attempting would be difficult to pull off. A long exposure for stars, is going to blow out street lights as they are many times brighter.
If you get the correct exposure for the street lights, the sky will be dark with no stars
It’s either or.
Does stacking add noise?0 -
I’m using the embedded link, I don’t think it gives any options on quality as far as I know. The download option gives various choices.masjer said:
Are you doing what I was and linking the images (from Flickr) at low resolution (low/medium size)?Pross said:I’d played with it in Lightroom but, as ever, once it has then been uploaded to Flickr and then linked into here the image looks different.
IMO, what you’re attempting would be difficult to pull off. A long exposure for stars, is going to blow out street lights as they are many times brighter.
If you get the correct exposure for the street lights, the sky will be dark with no stars
It’s either or.
Does stacking add noise?
My initial subject was looking out over the harbour and out to sea with no street lighting but the stars were obscured by thin cloud. I ended up taking the one above as I was walking back, there were a few stars visible so I gave it a try. It actually came out better than I thought, the stars are just about visible and I was able to significantly reduce the glare from the lights by dropping the highlights right down in LR.
Stacking allows you to reduce noise as you can keep the ISO lower without having such a long exposure time and as the exposure is shorter the stars are also sharper https://photographylife.com/night-sky-image-stacking/amp
Sequator (which is free software) overlays the stars from each image on top of each other whilst keeping the foreground from just a base image.
1 -
^That's^ what I'm getting and for ages I had it set low or medium.1 -
Hadn’t noticed that option before, will try it thanks.masjer said:
^That's^ what I'm getting and for ages I had it set low or medium.
Just took a look outside hoping for clearer stars but they’re still very faint so won’t bother going out. It may be that the sky is still too light at this time of year but it certainly seems better when I’m in your neck of the woods. Not sure I want to go out in the early hours to try.0 -
Exposure time was a bit too long on this so I can't quite take the highlights down as much as I'd like but still quite like the effect. Trying the 'original' option too
1 -
You can do exposure stacking which is basically what in camera/phone software does with HDR except with more control and hopefully better results. You need a lack of movement for stacking to work though.masjer said:
Are you doing what I was and linking the images (from Flickr) at low resolution (low/medium size)?Pross said:I’d played with it in Lightroom but, as ever, once it has then been uploaded to Flickr and then linked into here the image looks different.
IMO, what you’re attempting would be difficult to pull off. A long exposure for stars, is going to blow out street lights as they are many times brighter.
If you get the correct exposure for the street lights, the sky will be dark with no stars
It’s either or.
Does stacking add noise?
Not something I’ve tried but I expect the lower ISO foreground layer controls noise.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
Slightly on topic, I was listening to a podcast about light pollution last night. Basically it was saying that light pollution is increasing by 7-10% year on year, making astronomy (or astrophotography) increasingly difficult.0
-
Shame about that bit of overexposure on the windows, but you've almost cracked it.Pross said:Exposure time was a bit too long on this so I can't quite take the highlights down as much as I'd like but still quite like the effect. Trying the 'original' option too
Just had a quick check and your last image is 19MB whereas the blue light one is 367KB so it's working.0 -
Just in case you are not aware highlight retrieval is only possible to a fraction of which shadow retrieval is capable of.Pross said:Exposure time was a bit too long on this so I can't quite take the highlights down as much as I'd like but still quite like the effect. Trying the 'original' option too
In summary if you can’t get the exposure spot on in a single shot it is better to underexpose and pull back the shadow detail in post processing.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
pblakeney said:
Just in case you are not aware highlight retrieval is only possible to a fraction of which shadow retrieval is capable of.Pross said:Exposure time was a bit too long on this so I can't quite take the highlights down as much as I'd like but still quite like the effect. Trying the 'original' option too
In summary if you can’t get the exposure spot on in a single shot it is better to underexpose and pull back the shadow detail in post processing.
Yup, that's what I tend to do on my auto HDR shots on the Sony, if in doubt... a couple of stops down.0 -
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
et/6030865/uploads/editor/11/ct96t2owvcyl.jpg" alt="" />
Bike porn at the new Orro factory this morning0 -
-
Bit of a dump from my last night in Cornwall. Need a new muse now.
2 -
Every evening walking the dogs and seeing this made me think of the lyrics of Sound Of Silence - "In restless dreams I walked alone, narrow streets of cobblestone, 'Neath the halo of a street lamp..." It just started raining as I took this so should have taken one 10 minutes later when it was glistening but couldn't be bothered to get my kit out again.
2 -
I saw this old lens for sale (£12.99) and couldn’t resist its dinky polished aluminium charm. It turns out to be quite rare, so fetches a fair price (£140-425 on ebay). I spent the afternoon cleaning and servicing it inside and out. There were a few issues, mainly oily/dirty glass, dried out grease, and a couple of chewed up screws, but in nice condition for a lens over 60 years old.
Anyway, as always, I’ll have to try and find something to shoot, but so far it looks good.
UFO has landed.
A grave test shot (wide open).
3 -
masjer said:
I saw this old lens for sale (£12.99) and couldn’t resist its dinky polished aluminium charm. It turns out to be quite rare, so fetches a fair price (£140-425 on ebay). I spent the afternoon cleaning and servicing it inside and out. There were a few issues, mainly oily/dirty glass, dried out grease, and a couple of chewed up screws, but in nice condition for a lens over 60 years old.
Anyway, as always, I’ll have to try and find something to shoot, but so far it looks good.
UFO has landed.
A grave test shot (wide open).
Nice. I'd never have the courage or skill to disassemble something like that. Well, I'd probably manage to take it to pieces if I had small enough tools, but with no hope of it returning to its original state.0 -
I’ve serviced quite a few, and practice definitely helps. Being methodical, writing notes and taking pictures is essential. I've only stripped prime lenses right down, as they’re simpler in design. Stripping down something like a macro zoom, and I’d probably be left with a few extra bits left over.briantrumpet said:masjer said:I saw this old lens for sale (£12.99) and couldn’t resist its dinky polished aluminium charm. It turns out to be quite rare, so fetches a fair price (£140-425 on ebay). I spent the afternoon cleaning and servicing it inside and out. There were a few issues, mainly oily/dirty glass, dried out grease, and a couple of chewed up screws, but in nice condition for a lens over 60 years old.
Anyway, as always, I’ll have to try and find something to shoot, but so far it looks good.
UFO has landed.
A grave test shot (wide open).
Nice. I'd never have the courage or skill to disassemble something like that. Well, I'd probably manage to take it to pieces if I had small enough tools, but with no hope of it returning to its original state.
Having a lens that’s been assembled wrongly (be someone else) is a real headache. The threaded parts (helicoid) have to be assembled just so, with many wrong ways of threading them. It can take many frustrating attempts to save it from being a paperweight.
1 -
Some crazy geology near Branscombe. I'm just disappointed that the ice cream was bought there, and not Beer, as it would have been mildly amusing to have referred to Beer ice cream. Mind you, the photo is in front of the anchor of the beached ship 'Napoli', which did have a beer named after it, by Branscombe Brewery. I can't think why no-one's started a brewery at Beer though, because everyone would like asking for a pint of Beer beer.
The amazing geology is gypsum in sandstone, about 160 million years old, I think.
2 -
I see what you mean, that is amazing. It looks like fungal mycelium. The dog's cool too.0
-
masjer said:
I see what you mean, that is amazing. It looks like fungal mycelium. The dog's cool too.
I'm half way through reading the absolutely mind-boggling fungus book 'Entangled Life". Do you know it?0 -
Not that book in particular, but have read about these things. BBC 4 has had a few interesting programs, The Wood Wide Web is something fairly newly discovered.0
The images are significantly better set to original. 
