See http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/ but this question is only about the first two images. As long as I don't add anything, they should be side-by-side for your comparison. Of course, you can click on either one to enlarge it for a better look.
Yes, they are dark, but that's part of my vision here. It was about half an hour after sunset and there was still a bit of a glow on the white sycamore trees. At first, I waited for any passing cars to go by, but then I decided to capture one just to see how it would come out.
What's your opinion? Do you like it better with or without the car lights? Maybe you don't like it at all and you can say so.
This is another one of those times when I was glad I had a camera in my pocket, but I wish I had the D200 and a tripod with instead... I'll have to try this another night, unless the peanut gallery tells me not to bother.
Thanks.
2007-12-17 16:34:51 · 21 answers · asked by Picture Taker 7 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Photography
lemondrop, I understand you completely.
Terisu, yeah... The one without the car is only a one second exposure rather than four seconds. I'm not THAT steady!
Lidybeff, good point. I think I like the lights better myself, but I couldn't put my finger on it.
Mere Mortal, Elvis would be proud of you. Now I try to be amused.
2007-12-17 17:00:32 · update #1
Koyaanisquats1, here is the original without any adjustments except for down-rezzing.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/2116336403/
2007-12-17 17:09:01 · update #2
Vienna, there is nothing spectacular going on here. I was just struck by the "whiteness" of the huge trees against the background of the "darkness" of the branches of the other trees and the ground. It was a little like the flag that was backlit by the glow of the setting sun. http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/2072183331/ The problem is showing what it really looked like without washing out the darkness is difficult to do.
2007-12-17 21:07:04 · update #3
AVA - Of course it's not normal for an infection to return after one year. You need someone who can actually see you to evaluate and treat this problem.
I hope you find this message, because I don't do e-mail here.
2007-12-19 22:38:48 · update #4
...and I see you don't either...
2007-12-19 22:39:22 · update #5
These are technically very nice pictures. Very steady, especially for 1 sec and 4 sec shutters without a tripod. An excellent exercise in the skills of shooting and how to set up your exposure. I like the one with the lights better of the two (IMHO).
But their artistic value is pretty minimal - there isn't anything really striking or emotional about them. Keep these as good examples of how to set up your camera for the environment, but you need to work on your artistic eye.
I would be interested to see the originals without any level adjustment.
Definitely keep shooting!
Edit:
Mmmmm, I like the richness of the sky in the original shot. The level-adjusted images lose that twilight sky. I can tell what you were after in the trees. But I'm not sure you needed to adjust the images to get it. (that's a compliment)
(Opinion, idea) If you shoot this scene again, try to frame the trees in such a way as to give them some sort ominous feel. Twilight silhouettes can be a very powerful image. You may want to try and zoom in on a smaller set of trees or branches. Look for something that sort of reaches or stands out from the rest of the mottle of branches.
Another edit:
I just read your response to Vienna and realized I missed a significant point - that you were going after the whiteness of the tree bark. I wonder if a flash would provide just enough of a reflection off the bark at that distance? It would be subtle at most I think, but it could provide just enough extra foreground light so that you don't have to wash out the sky to see the trees. Maybe an external flash too? It would have to be pretty powerful.
2007-12-17 16:56:04 · answer #1 · answered by koyaanisqats1 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
There is an image there. I don't think you have got it yet. Is a reshoot possible?
The scene is pleasing, the textures are there. I just think you are missing something there. Looks like a 100iso F8 at 2-4 seconds to me, I would work on the view point and the exposure. I see it "perfectly" exposed and composed a bit stronger, the 2nd one is stronger I agree the light trail doesnt help much.
a
2007-12-17 22:45:21 · answer #2 · answered by Antoni 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Don't much care for the lights. It might be worth shooting again with a tripod. I can see what you were hoping for and they're pretty clear for hand held, did you brace against something? I'd probably do something a little closer in addition to these to capture the details in the glow of the bark against the darkening background.
2007-12-18 03:09:31 · answer #3 · answered by Dawg 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's so hard for me to decide. I like both of them. No 2 seems to be more balanced/equal/even if that makes sense. I don't know though. I looked at them over and over covering one and looking at the other. They are both different and both have their own "specialness". For example no 2...I like the way the Sycamore trees are centered and seems to be the focus of the picture and everything seems to balance in the picture. No 1 I like how the light of the sky shows and the "evergreen" is off balance, but is the focus because of the lights. I hope I'm making some sense here. I know what I'm saying but having diffuclty explaining it.
2007-12-17 16:48:43 · answer #4 · answered by lemondrop 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm leaning to #1 or the one on the left. The cars definitely add to the composition, and I personally love to shoot at that time of the day. You never know what beauty you'll find during civil twilight...
Thanks for sharing !!
2007-12-18 13:49:02 · answer #5 · answered by J-MaN 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Does Flowers 4 have a F/1.7 or F/2.?
I learned all this stuff in my Inro to Photo class in the past week!
2007-12-18 02:49:30 · answer #6 · answered by king of jersey 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I prefer No.1, I feel it came closer to achieving your goal. I would like to see this done with your D200, I think the shot has potential, and if possible in full resolution, I have to squint hard to see these resized pics.
2007-12-18 07:25:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
My choice is Sycamore at Night (#1). Nifty Red Shoes, too.
2007-12-17 19:01:13 · answer #8 · answered by Flywheel 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like the second one, without car lights. They don't really add anything to the scene. And the trees seem a bit sharper in the second one, also.
2007-12-17 16:48:17 · answer #9 · answered by Terisu 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I like the one with the lights in the middle.
The extra light makes for a great contrast of warm and cool, while adding much depth to the image.
Another plus to this one is that it draws us into the image rather than scattering our attention.
Beautiful image sam.
2007-12-17 16:40:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋