London St Pauls at night - advice

nzeaglei

Standard Member
Hi all

First post to the forum, so be gentle...:thumbsup:

Trying to get better at the photo taking game (arent we all!!), so I am looking for specific advice. First pic was taken back in Jan, the second two last month. I think the lighting is far better in the 2nd two as there is colour in the sky, versus the all black of the first shot, thats why I went back!

Im taking these with a Canon 350D with the kit lens....and have been taking these at an aperture of around 11. Am I right to use this aperture rather than say 22, as Ive read somewhere a long time ago that it causes problems, and also my lens is sharpest at between f8-11 also?

Other than that, any other ideas on how to improve my night shots?






 

jonnypb

Well-known Member
I think they look good, prefer 2&3. Not a great deal you could do to improve them when using the kit lens. Agree with you as to not go to f22 in night time shots
 

denno75uk

Well-known Member
I'm no expert but I can't really see room for improvement on these shots. Very high quality.
Can't wait to see more posts.
 

senu

Distinguished Member
I agree with Denno there..
Apart from being pleasing to the eye already .. they really isnt much more you can do to "improve" them.
You can certainly "change" them in Photoshop with HDR or such other techniques. This would generate different versions but not nessesarily better ones IMHO

I also agree that using an aperture of 22 may be counter productive in a DSLR with APS-C sized sensor , with your lens and especially as it is also a night time image and youd need either high ISO and/ or very long shutter speed to achieve adequate exposure
Well done:smashin:
 

ghibbett

Novice Member
Sorry but I disagree in that I believe there is some PP that can be done to improve images #2 & #3, albeit just a few small mods.

#2: I would crop the left side of the image to remove the outer crane, but not as far as removing the smaller tower/dome. This would have the benefit of ridding the crane from the image and moving St Pauls cathedral more over to the left-hand vertical third. I would then clone out the final remaining crane.

#3: I would just clone out the cranes and also the small boat & its wake on the left of the picture as, personally, I find this distracting.

However, it must be said, some cracking shots there :thumbsup:

Cheers,
 

Sam24

Novice Member
Can i just quickly ask, what differences did you make to turn the look of the 1st image into that of the 2nd and 2rd? Settings wise?

Thanks
 

nzeaglei

Standard Member
Can i just quickly ask, what differences did you make to turn the look of the 1st image into that of the 2nd and 2rd? Settings wise?

Thanks
Hmmm, the main difference between the two was not the settings at all, but rather the different time of day the photos were taken.

Obviously the first set was taken when it was pitch black, the second shoot was about 30min to an hour after sunset, so while there is still colour in the sky. I like this time of night much better, plus exposure times are less which means more pics get taken, which means better chance of getting a good one!!!
 

Sam24

Novice Member
Hmmm, the main difference between the two was not the settings at all, but rather the different time of day the photos were taken.

Obviously the first set was taken when it was pitch black, the second shoot was about 30min to an hour after sunset, so while there is still colour in the sky. I like this time of night much better, plus exposure times are less which means more pics get taken, which means better chance of getting a good one!!!
Ok, thanks, i thought it was mainly that too, but thanks for confirming!

Sam
 

electrolyte

Well-known Member
I agree with the others that these are really good photos. My only comment would be on my monitor they seem a little dark and lacking contrast. This is something you can easily correct using software. I hope you don't mind but I had a play with one of them in Lightroom and produced the attached.

I increased the exposure by +1.5, the recovery to +100, the fill light to +44 and blacks to 14. This, to my eyes, improves the image and makes it more "punchy" but you and the others may disagree.

Anyway, will delete this post if you're offended mate.
 

Attachments

Stormy234

Standard Member
I really like all three. On my monitor the 1st shows more of a very dark red nightsky than deep black. Tomorrow I will take a look from my desktop. I took some night shots recently and would agree that dusk/twilight time can provide perhaps more interesting possibilities/results than when it is pitch black. Maybe what I am thinking of is that taking 20 shots between 11 and 11:30pm will produce a group of similar shots, whereas taking 20 shots in 30 minutes around the edge of that sunset/twilight/darkness time will produce a set of shots with a lot of differences in lighting and perhaps mood? I found that it was much much more difficult to predict what sort of results you may get in terms of colours in the sky at twilght times than later in the night.

Thanks for posting them :)
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Best Hi-Fi products of 2020, Plus Best of the Month for TV Shows & Movies
Top Bottom