9/11

[1ruffryder]

so i went in a rush to get a shot i wanted and in my rush my settings were all messed up. not to mention a cheap tripod and windy conditions didnt help. heres the best i came up with in the conditions before the clouds moved in. i guess you get the point. still its something. and from what theyre saying i dont think they will ever be up again.
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j194/abunadeez/IMG_11702.jpg
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j194/abunadeez/IMG_11703.jpg

[1ruffryder]

wow no comments thnx

[KayakPhotos]

Great capture. Every shot is a "moment in time that cannot be repeated," but in this case, the phrase is as literal as possible.

[neil_r]

Fishing for comments when you already admitted that you screwed up with the settings and used a ****ty tripod could be dangerous.

Soft pictures that could be anywhere with a light shining into the sky.

[Luminodio]

i'm going to have to agree with neil here on this one. your approach to presenting these pictures wasn't exactly the best in order to receive some good feedback and the demeanor that shortly followed as a result of not getting these fished for comments wasn't up to par as far as maturity in concerned.

also, in my opinion, it's hard to find beauty in something that marks the loss of 3,000 lives.

don't get me started on "terrorists" and the 9/11 commission report either...

there's no memorial for WTC-7 nor hardly anyone that remembers it falling without there being a plane involved whatsoever.

[JCH77Yanks]

i'm going to have to agree with neil here on this one. your approach to presenting these pictures wasn't exactly the best in order to receive some good feedback and the demeanor that shortly followed as a result of not getting these fished for comments wasn't up to par as far as maturity in concerned.

also, in my opinion, it's hard to find beauty in something that marks the loss of 3,000 lives.

don't get me started on "terrorists" and the 9/11 commission report either...

there's no memorial for WTC-7 nor hardly anyone that remembers it falling without there being a plane involved whatsoever.


Although it marks the loss of thousands, It is a beautiful gesture to the memory of those lost. Twin towers of light shining where the souls of those people (except for nineteen of them) ascended into heaven. I understand your opinion, I maybe hoped to give you another way to look at it.

As far as 7 WTC, I remember it collapsing at about 5 in the afternoon, and the concern for the structural integrity other buildings in the area as well. There were several false alarms.

[1ruffryder]

Fishing for comments when you already admitted that you screwed up with the settings and used a ****ty tripod could be dangerous.

Soft pictures that could be anywhere with a light shining into the sky.

if you had any sense u would know where the soft pictures are. N I wasn't fishing. I was jus surprised.

[1ruffryder]

i'm going to have to agree with neil here on this one. your approach to presenting these pictures wasn't exactly the best in order to receive some good feedback and the demeanor that shortly followed as a result of not getting these fished for comments wasn't up to par as far as maturity in concerned.

also, in my opinion, it's hard to find beauty in something that marks the loss of 3,000 lives.

don't get me started on "terrorists" and the 9/11 commission report either...

there's no memorial for WTC-7 nor hardly anyone that remembers it falling without there being a plane involved whatsoever.


my approach was just an honest one. I killed myself climbing and doin everything i could with what i had. Still the memory stays with me

[bryan k]

there's no memorial for WTC-7 nor hardly anyone that remembers it falling without there being a plane involved whatsoever.



I think the difference is, nobody died in WTC 7.... The lights aren't to reflect on the buildings lost, but the lives lost.

[neil_r]

if you had any sense u would know where the soft pictures are. N I wasn't fishing. I was jus surprised.

Although I live in England I am able to recognise the New York skyline, but only if the picture gives enough visual clues to point that out. In your case, due to the poor technical execution of the picture this is not the case. Had the title of this picture not been 9/11 then I doubt that many people would instantly recognise what you are attempting to portray.

I offered you honest critique of your picture, you asked for that, you obviously did not want that and then you question my sense.

You really are keen on reenforcing saiminyaku's comment that you lack maturity.

[Jamie Holladay]

ruffryder your photos are a little soft and under exposed. I am not sure if the B&W is working. You lost the detail in the skyline, and in a photo like this it is important to maintain that so the viewers will know where they are. NYC skyline is recognizable world wide, but these don't depict it very well.

With that being said, let's make sure that we all stay on the Topic of the Photos and not the events that the photo signafies, Please.

[1ruffryder]

Although I live in England I am able to recognise the New York skyline, but only if the picture gives enough visual clues to point that out. In your case, due to the poor technical execution of the picture this is not the case. Had the title of this picture not been 9/11 then I doubt that many people would instantly recognise what you are attempting to portray.

I offered you honest critique of your picture, you asked for that, you obviously did not want that and then you question my sense.

You really are keen on reenforcing saiminyaku's comment that you lack maturity.

had you responded like this the 1st time i would have been ok. but just the way you came out was not correct. and as for the skyline i think you are correct. i was a few miles away at the highest point i could find and unfortunately all i had was a wide angle lens with me. and you might recognize the new york skyline only from its most popular view points or those only shown on tv. this was taken from uptown manhattan looking down. not the usual brooklyn or jersey looking towards manhat. i figured this would be a different perspective on things. isnt photography about perspective and not always the most common?

also where was it stated i lack maturity? i treat others as they treat me.

[neil_r]

had you responded like this the 1st time i would have been ok. but just the way you came out was not correct. and as for the skyline i think you are correct. i was a few miles away at the highest point i could find and unfortunately all i had was a wide angle lens with me. and you might recognize the new york skyline only from its most popular view points or those only shown on tv. this was taken from uptown manhattan looking down. not the usual brooklyn or jersey looking towards manhat. i figured this would be a different perspective on things. isnt photography about perspective and not always the most common?

also where was it stated i lack maturity? i treat others as they treat me.

I apologise for the brusqueness of my first reply.

Taking photographs at night can de difficult but with practice you can get some very good results. I really was focusing on the pictures and the technique rather than the emotive subject. I have had some success with night shots and would be happy to give you some advice were you to ask or it.

some evidence....

http://www.ambrosiabbs.com/gallery/photo/small/Newcastle_Jan06_N6H7115.jpg

http://www.ambrosiabbs.com/gallery/photo/small/Newcastle_Jan06_N6H7119.jpg

http://www.ambrosiabbs.com/gallery/photo/small/London_Hotel_Sep06_N6H0299.jpg

So if you would like some advice on technique PM me.

[Luminodio]

Although it marks the loss of thousands, It is a beautiful gesture to the memory of those lost. Twin towers of light shining where the souls of those people (except for nineteen of them) ascended into heaven. I understand your opinion, I maybe hoped to give you another way to look at it.

As far as 7 WTC, I remember it collapsing at about 5 in the afternoon, and the concern for the structural integrity other buildings in the area as well. There were several false alarms.
i have some very, very deep-seeded issues with what went on that day and the confusion put upon NORAD with war games administered by Cheney. i know we are not of liberty to be political at POTN, but i think this is rather on-topic.

i understand your rationality when it comes to these lights and what they stand for, but i think it is an incredibly poor gesture made by NYC for what they surely had some previously knowledge of; especially with WTC 7 holding no one within it during the time of it's "demolition style" falling.

my approach was just an honest one. I killed myself climbing and doin everything i could with what i had. Still the memory stays with me
i apologize if even my approach to responding to you came off inappropriate and rash; it certainly was not my intention but your second post definitely did smell of fish. however, i do understand now what lengths you may have to do undergo to get that perspective.


I think the difference is, nobody died in WTC 7.... The lights aren't to reflect on the buildings lost, but the lives lost.
you're probably right, but i think the fact that nobody died in WTC 7 was an assurance that there would be no need to further cover the unmentioned collapse of this building in both the commission's report and by the press.

i think it was a cop-out, but that's just my opinion.
I apologise for the brusqueness of my first reply.

Taking photographs at night can de difficult but with practice you can get some very good results. I really was focusing on the pictures and the technique rather than the emotive subject. I have had some success with night shots and would be happy to give you some advice were you to ask or it.

some evidence....

http://www.ambrosiabbs.com/gallery/photo/small/Newcastle_Jan06_N6H7115.jpg

http://www.ambrosiabbs.com/gallery/photo/small/Newcastle_Jan06_N6H7119.jpg

http://www.ambrosiabbs.com/gallery/photo/small/London_Hotel_Sep06_N6H0299.jpg

So if you would like some advice on technique PM me.
OP, be sure to take advice from neil because he title certainly does not lie and nor do these examples he have posted (all beautiful, by the way).

not saying that what you posted was not worth a second glance; in fact, i gave each picture multiple glances but for all the wrong reasons. i was just unsure of exactly the setting and like said before, if the title of the thread wasn't 9/11 i would have no idea as to where these shots were taken.

the B&W conversion definitely did not work out to benefit the results of these shots, in my opinion. although, i rarely see any nighttime shots dealt B&W conversion yield exceptional results anyhow.

invest in a GOOD, sturdy tripod -- they are your support system and should not be short-handed.

[short5]

i have some very, very deep-seeded issues with what went on that day and the confusion put upon NORAD with war games administered by Cheney. i know we are not of liberty to be political at POTN, but i think this is rather on-topic.

i understand your rationality when it comes to these lights and what they stand for, but i think it is an incredibly poor gesture made by NYC for what they surely had some previously knowledge of; especially with WTC 7 holding no one within it during the time of it's "demolition style" falling.


[[FONT=Arial]you're probably right, but i think the fact that nobody died in WTC 7 was an assurance that there would be no need to further cover the unmentioned collapse of this building in both the commission's report and by the press.

i think it was a cop-out, but that's just my opinion.
The moderator posted before P.O.T.N. is not a place for politics especially laughable lies and rumors that disgust and insult people who were involved in the rescue, the friends, and the families of those murdered that day by people who hate you not by your government.

[Luminodio]

my deepest apologies, but take into account my geographical location and that my father was a firefighter; none of my words have the intent to insult or hurt the hearts of those that have gone through the very same that i have. i believe that insinuation, is more hurtful than any of the broad gestures i have made in these short span of posts.

i will digress from this topic seeing the potential that you've brought to my attention, but that is the only reason. i do not find what i believe to be "laughable" and i never made mention of anyone else who thought differently of me holding "laughable" ideas about what went down that day. in addition, i almost feel as if you're trying to administer hatred within my heart for a ghost that no one has been able to find (and potentially, a race of people). that is what i got from your words, sir, and honestly, i am not one to be so ethnocentric.

i hold a job and a position that entitles me to a collective of information and the like; meaning, my words and thoughts are not based around loosely formed conspiracy theories that have been spreading like wildfire for the last three years.

again, please no one take offense to my previous projection of personal thoughts on a day that will live forever in infamy.

[Jamie Holladay]

. i know we are not of liberty to be political at POTN, but i think this is rather on-topic.
No it is not On Topic, and I politely asked that it be left out of the conversation. The Topic is the Photographs. Let us keep it on track or this thread will go to the Hauler and the door will be slammed closed.

Thanks for playing.

[1ruffryder]

back on topic. can anyone suggest ways to do better landscapes at night? seems the more i learn the worse my pictures get

[NeutronBoy]

a good tripod is probably the best start you can have. Get a little closer too.

[1ruffryder]

ive been driving myself crazy trying to find a good tripod for no more than 150. im open to suggestions

[JCH77Yanks]

+1 on the tripod... One of the most important specs is the load capacity. I myself use a Sunpak 7500 pro. Not the best by any means, but it is very stable and gets the job done. The load capacity is around 11-13 pounds. I bought it at best buy for about $80 if my memory serves me correctly.

As far as Cityscapes at night are concerned, the key is not to overexpose too much. Light pollution can give your photos a brownish tint and the lights in the buildings can get blown out. Start with an exposure setting of about 8 to 10 seconds at f/11 and work from there. One little technique I've recently been employing is to use a 2 stop GND to keep the sky dark and give the lower part of the sky a "city glow".

[JCH77Yanks]

... Get a little closer too.


That's also a good point. Even the best of lenses can't resolve small details as sharply if your subject is to far away. Especially in the summer, with all of the haze and moisture. Fall or winter are best for the clearest shots.

[Luminodio]

No it is not On Topic, and I politely asked that it be left out of the conversation. The Topic is the Photographs. Let us keep it on track or this thread will go to the Hauler and the door will be slammed closed.

Thanks for playing.
i usually never overlook your contributions to a thread, Jamie. however, it seems that i most certainly did in this case. i extend my apologies to you, as well.

::moving back to topic::

a sturdy tripod is pretty much a must for 'scape shooting and as a previous poster has indicated, load capacity is one of the biggest things to look at. that, and the amount of segments in each leg. you generally never want to fully extend your tripod as you lose some rather useful stability.

[neil_r]

As has been said a sturdy tripod is a must, as is a remote shutter release (or use the timer if you don't have one). I have played with locking up the mirror, but to be honest I have noticed no discernible difference between shots where I did this and where I didn't. I try and keep the ISO to 100 (or below) to avoid noise. I use manual and bracket my exposures. The smaller the aperture the more pronounced the "star" effect is around lights.

Sodium lights can give a really unpleasant brown sky, but this can be dialled out in PP.

The real trick is to plan what you want to do, check that all your settings are what you want them to be. Take your time and work methodically. Knowing where everything is in your bag helps as can carrying a small torch.

[Jamie Holladay]

carrying a small torch.
Flash light for us left ponders. ;)

[Coastwatch203]

The smaller the aperture the more pronounced the "star" effect is around light.

Hey Neil,

So what aperture did you set for your fantastic night shots ?

By smaller aperture do you mean like f16 - or even smaller than this to get the "Star" light effect?

-Great tip, and honestly something ive never really thought about till I read what you wrote.

Looking forward to your reply, and any other insights on night photography you have!
Cheers, Mark

[neil_r]

By smaller aperture do you mean like f16 - or even smaller than this to get the "Star" light effect?

Yes that is correct HERE (http://www.ambrosiabbs.com/gallery/photo/large/Newcastle_Jan06_N6H7115.jpg) is a link to a larger version of one of the pictures above. You can see the star effect very clearly. It was taken @ ISO 100 - 25 Seconds @ f/16

[Coastwatch203]

Yes that is correct HERE (http://www.ambrosiabbs.com/gallery/photo/large/Newcastle_Jan06_N6H7115.jpg) is a link to a larger version of one of the pictures above. You can see the star effect very clearly. It was taken @ ISO 100 - 25 Seconds @ f/16

That is an absolutely fantastic shot Neil! Superb! - well done!
I was lucky enough to get a great lightning shot a couple of years ago, but it always peeved me off that the jetty's lights looked crappy. Mind you i had a crappy 18-55mm standard lens on at the time.
This is the picture im referring too.

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa138/Coastwatch203/Nightcliff-lightning.jpg

It was probably the lens, but do you see anything else that it might have been?
Settings were 3s @ f18 iso 400 Canon 30D on tripod with remote shutter release.
Cheers,
Mark

[Luminodio]

That is an absolutely fantastic shot Neil! Superb! - well done!
I was lucky enough to get a great lightning shot a couple of years ago, but it always peeved me off that the jetty's lights looked crappy. Mind you i had a crappy 18-55mm standard lens on at the time.
This is the picture im referring too.

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa138/Coastwatch203/Nightcliff-lightning.jpg

It was probably the lens, but do you see anything else that it might have been?
Settings were 3s @ f18 iso 400 Canon 30D on tripod with remote shutter release.
Cheers,
Mark

...bra-vo.