Bridge at night - CC appreciated

[Ferrari_Alex]

Hello folks,
I haven't been posting for a while, but I want to get back with my recent shot. Please let me know what do you think. No PP was done apart from setting the sharpness as it was not set on my camera. Colors are real, straight from the camera and only UV filter was used.

[jtjohn]

all in all i like it.

[Ferrari_Alex]

Thanks, John!

[NeutronBoy]

very nice shot, and I don't mean to pick on it, but was the lens dirty? Starbursts off the 1st three lights from the left seem to have a bit of funkiness.

[djthemac]

very nice shot, and I don't mean to pick on it, but was the lens dirty? Starbursts off the 1st three lights from the left seem to have a bit of funkiness.

Agreed. other then that good composition.

[Ferrari_Alex]

Very much possible. I will double check at home, but I noticed that there was some steam on the lens, but it dissapeared when I was taking that shot. It was dark and I was not able to see the lens precisely.
Good catch....and thanks for the feedback.

[bimmeracer3]

great capture. How long was the exposure?

[FlyingPhotog]

Very much possible. I will double check at home, but I noticed that there was some steam on the lens, but it dissapeared when I was taking that shot. It was dark and I was not able to see the lens precisely.
Good catch....and thanks for the feedback.

Any filter mounted on the lens?

I like the leading lines and the sweep of the bridge. Good eye for geometery!

[Ferrari_Alex]

The exposure was 10 sec long. I only used the UV filter.
Thanks for your feedback, folks!

[Keithaba]

I might be wrong, but I have noticed UV filters seem to make starbursts more pronounced during night photography.

I take mine off sometimes for night shots. Escpecially since the camera is on a tripod anyway, and I'm not going to have much chance of bumping the lens into anything.

[Maxxum5]

Very nice! The nearest bridge to me spanning water is like, 500 miles away. : (


Great shot!

[DerekRob]

love the bridge and good lighting.

[Ferrari_Alex]

A good point. In fact, I was never thinking that UV filter does any difference to the way lens captures the light. I am going to try it the other day and will post result. I will try to go to the same spot.
Thanks for your feedback, all, once again!

[tdodd]

Alex, great picture! :)

You will note quite a bit of lens flare, especially from the light on the left hand side of the image. I think this works quite well for your picture here. However, more often than not it is regarded as a negative thing. The flare can be exacerbated by a filter, dirty or not. For curiosity, when you do visit again, you might like to try the shot both with and without the filter and see whether you see a difference and which you prefer. Here is an article on the subject of flare in general and filter flare specifically....

- http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/flare.html
- http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/filterflare.html

Some people, myself included, do not use filters as a general rule, specifically because of the harm they can do to image quality. I prefer to rely on a lens hood for physical protection from knocks and also stray light entering the lens from odd angles. With a deep hood, there is little risk of fingers or doggy tongues reaching the lens so it should stay pretty clean all in all with the hood alone.

In harsh environments, with flying mud/dust/sand/(possibly stones) (I'm thinking windy day on the beach or a car rally) then a UV filter is a worthwhile addition to help protect your lens from harm. At other times, you may be better off without.