Two night shots

[snevs]

I just went out to experiment with shooting in low light. I would like to hear what do you think about these.
I took quiet a few of these minimal landscpape shots. At home I realized that a lot of them were VERY grainy. This one is actually a little on the edge. It's easier to see when it's bigger of course. Later I realized that I had ISO 800. Also the most grainy shots were taken with the longest focal length of 125mm (Sigma 18-125). Do these two factors increase the graininess?
Here's the first one:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/213/490429552_f00feac588.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/snevs/490429552/)

On this one I already had changed the ISO to 100 also used a lot shorter focal length. I like the sharpness in this one, not sure though if I'm happy with the composition.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/231/490475559_89cd85afd9.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/snevs/490475559/)

Thanks for comments and critics in advance

[hatmandue]

My understanding is that the two factors you mention (focal length & ISO) do have a direct correlation with the grainy images you are getting. With a long focal length any movement of the camera is intesified, resulting in a grainy image. Were you shooting with a tripod?

[strmrdr]

1st is over blue.

iso is the biggest culperate, under exposure makes it worse when you bring it up in PP.
focal length and the resulting smaller(higher number) apartures can make it worse, but I doubt its a direct result of the focal length.
f/2.8 at 18 and at 125 with the same shutter speed should have the same noise. (depending on the shutter speed, motion blur might be more at 125 however.)
But 125 f/5.6 and a slower shutter speed would have a lot more.

[snevs]

1st is over blue.

iso is the biggest culperate, under exposure makes it worse when you bring it up in PP.
focal length and the resulting smaller(higher number) apartures can make it worse, but I doubt its a direct result of the focal length.
f/2.8 at 18 and at 125 with the same shutter speed should have the same noise. (depending on the shutter speed, motion blur might be more at 125 however.)
But 125 f/5.6 and a slower shutter speed would have a lot more.

Thanks.
I just checked all the EXIF and all the pictures from this series have a higher ISO than the later ones. Also those which show the most grain are actually underexposed (was trying to go manual for some shots). When checking on the screen the pictures looked very bright, almost as shot in daytime, but I wanted to cover the dark blue light of that moment, so I underexposed some of that series. Maybe it would have been better to do that in PP.
I guess this is a lesson to be learned ;)

@hatmandue: Thanks also. Yes was using a tripod.

[VegasGeorge]

The first shot isn't much by itself, but it will make a nice "stock" sky/clouds photo for you to use in other images.

The perspective of the second image is too straight down the pier, it would have been nicer if taken off at a slight angle. Otherwise it is a fine image.

[snevs]

Thank you. I'm not too happy about the composition in the second shot either. Unfortunately the situation in that case was such that I could have posted the picture also in this thread ;)

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=281288
(http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=281288)

There were some creepy people around, and that didn't made me stay long enough for a second shot. But I plan to go back there tonight.

[MikePrattPhotography]

I am fairly new at all of this, but I like both photos. The first one i believe the horizon should be moved up a tad bit (following the"golden mean"), and is a tad bit too much blue. The second one seems good to me. maybe a little much going on..but still.. very well done.

[snevs]

Thank you for taking your time and I'm happy that you like them.

I still have to learn about decent shots. Although in the first one it was my intention to have as little of the horizon in it, to give it a more minimal approach. Maybe it would be more minimal with more horizon.

[slappy sam]

Composition on first one is great (don't change to rule of 3rds) and the colors are cool as well (haha, get it?). I agree the 2nd one should have been taken at an angle to make the composition more interesting.

[snevs]

Composition on first one is great (don't change to rule of 3rds) and the colors are cool as well (haha, get it?). I agree the 2nd one should have been taken at an angle to make the composition more interesting.

Thank you for the nice comments.

[Glenn NK]

This is the first time I ever heard that lens focal length contributed to "graininess" in a photograph, whether film or digital. Longer focal lengths require higher shutter speeds to prevent image blurring due to camera movement (not to be confused with graininess).

Underexposure is the greatest contributor to noise (graininess?), high ISO will also contribute. That being said, I use ISO 800 frequently with no problems, but push the exposure to the right of the histogram, sometimes even clipping slightly.

[snevs]

Underexposure is the greatest contributor to noise (graininess?), high ISO will also contribute. That being said, I use ISO 800 frequently with no problems, but push the exposure to the right of the histogram, sometimes even clipping slightly.

Thanks for the tip. I will try that next time.

I remember that when I took the "grainier shots" I undexposed them a little because what I saw on the screen looked so much more brighter than it happend to be at that moment. I thouhgt underexposing it, brings it closer to reality. Was a mistake as I now realize :oops:

I actually did some yesterday and they were a lot better.