Storm at sunset

Went to do a sunset shoot, and got this.

<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/storm arriving at Port Washington.jpg>


Just made a levels adjustment and ran it through Topaz Adjust 5 & DXO
FilmPack with Velvia 50 adjustment.

 

These are questions for information not criticisms.

I take it that the grainyness and long exposure (making the boats blur) are
deliberate choices, what was your intent there?

It seems monochrome (black/orange) to my eyes, was the scene really like
that or was it done in processing. If so how and why?

David

 

Ummm...
At this stage I think it might best for me to hold my tongue.

 

The burryness of the boats, had the image intention been executed
correctly, could have add some "drama" and/or atmosphere and I do not
have a problem with those. However, the grainyness is very poorly
managed and, truth be told, adds nothing to image, whatsoever.

The "why" bit is easy. Like most post processing, to try and "correct"
things that did not turn out as intended or, as I suggest may be the
case here, to over-dramatise a what may have been a somewhat bland
image.

Had the ambient light been as orange as the image suggests, the
buildings and boats would have, at least, picked up on some of that
orange. It just looks all too fake.

MC

 

i have been experimenting with long exposure. The orange was real. the
gray clouds showed more detail in reality then was captured.

I will post the NEF file for you guys to play with. All comments are
appreciated.

 

I hope somebody has a better solution to the gray issue.

<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC6238_5473.NEF>


Here is the XMP file
<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC4753_4143.xmp>

,--
PeterN

 

I welcome constructive criticism. When one of my images sucks, we can
all learn from it.

To amplify, I am trying to learn long exposure. In this case I was
hoping to catch a lightning bolt from the storm. There is another image
where the lightning was captured, but it was ball lightning. I don't
think I retained that image. I try to

Yes, sometimes I do that in post, but in this case, I did not. I was
attempting to show the shades of gray that I recall during the shoot.

 

OK! I have been toying with this, and I know that you are experimenting
with long exposures combined with low ISO (in this case ISO 50 for 4
seconds @ f/32).
As some others have asked; to what purpose?
Especially in this case I fail to see the reason for the experiment.
The smoothing of wave movement you said you were looking for in your
earlier thread isn't there to be smoothed. The mast movement in the
trimaran is still there with the 4 second exposure. The f/32 is
overkill in this light.
If you had gone for a fairly standard exposure using ISO 200 and
f/8-16, you should have captured a pretty decent sunset across the
harbor. Your result is a mess and an opportunity for a pleasing image
lost.

As much as I have tried I cannot fix this image to make it in anyway
pleasing to my eye.
I don't understand why you insist on dropping the ISO down to 50, and
your heavy hand on stopping down the lens when you have said you are
using a var-ND, and I assume you used it in this case. As I have said
before, you are doing something very wrong in this long exposure
experiment.

 

Here is my best effort which includes a crop to remove the trimaran. It
remains a wishy-washy image.
< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSC6238_5473-E1w.jpg >

 

My God! My eyes!

Is there a way to add Elvis?

 

Funny I thought of saying that when Peter posted his initial rendition,
but I stayed quiet until he posted the NEF.
....and there is nothing fixable in that NEF. His experiment didn't work.

See what I mean? That is beyond redemption.

....and if there was a way to add Elvis (the purple velvet variety)
Peter is sure to do it.

 

On 2013-07-26 21:14:59 -0700, Tony Cooper <> said:
:
: > On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 20:57:46 -0700, Savageduck
: >
: >> On 2013-07-26 20:42:58 -0700, Savageduck <[email protected]{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
: >>
: >>> On 2013-07-26 19:12:37 -0700, PeterN <> said:
: >>>
: >>>> On 7/26/2013 6:04 PM, Savageduck wrote:
: >>>>> On 2013-07-26 14:01:14 -0700, PeterN <> said:
: >>>>>
: >>>>>> Went to do a sunset shoot, and got this.
: >>>>>>
: >>>>>> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/storm arriving at Port Washington.jpg>
:
:
:
: Just
:
: made
:
: a
:
: levels
: >>>>>>
: >>>>>> adjustment and ran it through Topaz Adjust 5 & DXO
: >>>>>> FilmPack with Velvia 50 adjustment.
: >>>>>
: >>>>> Ummm...
: >>>>> At this stage I think it might best for me to hold my tongue.
: >>>>>
: >>>>
: >>>> I hope somebody has a better solution to the gray issue.
: >>>>
: >>>> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC6238_5473.NEF>
: >>>
: >>> OK! I have been toying with this, and I know that you are experimenting
: >>> with long exposures combined with low ISO (in this case ISO 50 for 4
: >>> seconds @ f/32).
: >>> As some others have asked; to what purpose?
: >>> Especially in this case I fail to see the reason for the experiment.
: >>> The smoothing of wave movement you said you were looking for in your
: >>> earlier thread isn't there to be smoothed. The mast movement in the
: >>> trimaran is still there with the 4 second exposure. The f/32 is
: >>> overkill in this light.
: >>> If you had gone for a fairly standard exposure using ISO 200 and
: >>> f/8-16, you should have captured a pretty decent sunset across the
: >>> harbor. Your result is a mess and an opportunity for a pleasing image
: >>> lost.
: >>>
: >>> As much as I have tried I cannot fix this image to make it in anyway
: >>> pleasing to my eye.
: >>> I don't understand why you insist on dropping the ISO down to 50, and
: >>> your heavy hand on stopping down the lens when you have said you are
: >>> using a var-ND, and I assume you used it in this case. As I have said
: >>> before, you are doing something very wrong in this long exposure
: >>> experiment.
: >>
: >> Here is my best effort which includes a crop to remove the trimaran. It
: >> remains a wishy-washy image.
: >> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSC6238_5473-E1w.jpg >
: >
: > My God! My eyes!
:
: Funny I thought of saying that when Peter posted his initial rendition,
: but I stayed quiet until he posted the NEF.
: ...and there is nothing fixable in that NEF. His experiment didn't work.
:
: > Is there a way to add Elvis?
:
: See what I mean? That is beyond redemption.
:
: ...and if there was a way to add Elvis (the purple velvet variety)
: Peter is sure to do it.

What are you guys going to say if Peter gets lucky one of these times and
comes up with an interesting effect? That he should pitch it because it
resulted from a silly series of experiments? I don't think this line is likely
to lead anywhere either, but I've had enough screwball shots turn out well
that I'd be wary of ruling it out.

At least Peter admits that he's just hacking around to see where it all leads.
If he posted only his hits and never his misses, his efforts might seem a lot
different.

Bob

 

There is nothing wrong with experimenting, but when, in the face of the
obvious, the result continues to be less than satisfactory, and the
numbers in the EXIF give the reason, the experiment serves little
purpose. There are others who have done the long exposure thing
successfully, but Peter hasn't stumbled on the working formula yet. For
now he is looking for the "magnificent miracle", and I have no doubt
that with the right scene and circumstances it might happen. I have had
similar "magnificent miracles", but they were accidents, not deliberate
and repeatable.
Peter tells us his style and intent leans toward the abstract and while
that produces some interesting images it also produces a high
percentage of failures. In this current series of long exposure
experiments Peter persists, and the results continue to fail for some
fairly obvious reasons. I have given my reasons for those, in my
opinion, failures.

....and I have done my share of hacking around with HDR, long exposure
(without the benefit of a Var-ND), and high ISO/low light, all with
mixed results, but I have taken the lessons learned and done my best to
apply what I learned to get results I which satisfy my taste, again
with mixed results.

Peter has had the courage to share his experiments with us, and invited
our comments. I have tried to provide constructive criticism without
derision, but I am not going to heap praise where that is not going to
help the experiment. All I can do is express my opinion, and/or see if
there is a possible PP fix when the RAW file has been provided. From
there it is up to Peter to accept or reject what I have said. In the
case of this particular image my opinion is to be found above.

Now how about your input so Peter will have another opinion and/or
possible solution for what he is trying to achieve, rather than nit
pick mine.

 

It has to be mounted on black velvet first

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

 

He needs to study the images from - what's his name? Gianni? Long
exposures are his schtick. The main difference is that they are long
exposures of *static* objects and *moving* water. That and general
composition.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

 

I dunno about that. Failures can just be steps toward success.

Success and failure in that category is very subjective. What others
may consider a success is just not quite as bad a failure to me.

 

Exactly. There is a time and place for everything and Giovanni is
masterful at what he produces using long exposures matched with the
right subject.
<
http://www.nostraischia.it/ischia-foto-fotografia/forio-costa-tramonto/14171/
....and even my feeble efforts at capturing water in motion with long
exposures get closer to the concept.
BTW: these were also somewhat experimental as I had never done this
sort of thing before.
< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSC0991-E1w.jpg >
< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSC1007-E1w.jpg >
< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSC1002-E1w.jpg >

 

I think you nailed those pretty well...exposure long enough to give the
sense of motion to the water, not so long as to turn it into a white blob.

All of themare quite nice but I particularly liked #3. Except for the
unfortunate twigs at lower right

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting cold & #er? Tired of the rat race?Taxes out of hand? Maybe
just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

 

I just had a notion. Would take a night with just the right amount of
moon I think, and maybe an ND filter and stopped way down, but I wonder
what the result would be of a shot that includes a full tide cycle in a
single time exposure. Unfortunately I'm not close enough to a tidal
body to be likely to have a chance of trying it out before I forget the
idea.

 

Just a bit garish.