Dark sky, should I replace?

[rammy]

I went around London and took a few night time shots of famous
landmarks. This is one of my favs but the sky kinda lets it down.

Have a look and see what you think, do you reckon I should go out again
and try and get a sky with some clouds or more interest?

I was going to put a fake moon in the corner ;)

All comments welcome and greatly appreciated.

[Rob612]

Personally, I will let it as is. My opinion, of course.

[rent]

me too. i like it the way it is.

i think it'll be difficult to replace the sky, as you would need to replace the reflection in the water in the foreground as well, to make it realistic looking.

-alex

Personally, I will let it as is. My opinion, of course.

[fitz]

that is a really nice shot. i like the sky the way it is. if it had more to it...it could become a bit busy and distract from the colors of the city lights.

NICE!

care to share you technique...lens, exif.

[OwenR]

I like the sky the way it is. My eyes were immediatly drawn to the domed building, which to me, was the intent. A cluttered sky would take attention away from where it belongs. That's my artistic viewpoint, not my photography knowledge. :-)

[RAriola]

beautiful, leave it as is. Did you stitch that shot or you had a wide angle lens?

[Croasdail]

I like it too.. but if you happen to shoot some other times of day, it would be coold to compare. Great location and shot.

[shootitup]

I agree with all the others, leave it as is. The sky is what gives the show to the rest of the picture. It would be too overpowering if changed. The lights of the buildings and the bridge. They are what tells the story in this picture. The sky is just a support for the rest of the picture.

[kawter2]

really great shot!! leave it as it is.


You took that with the kit lens? Foreground makes it look like the focal length was a bit wider

[PhotosGuy]

This is one of my favs but the sky kinda lets it down. I like it, but it sounds like we both think that a after sunset glow in the sky might improve it. So, if you have the time, why not try it? If you don't, you'll probably always wish that you had. ;-)

[rammy]

Thankyou very much everyone for your comments and in helping make a decision.

I'll keep this one as the "night time shot" and I will go out and do another at dusk to get some cloud detail.
I like it, but it sounds like we both think that a after sunset glow in the sky might improve it. So, if you have the time, why not try it? If you don't, you'll probably always wish that you had.

That is what I am thinking. At the moment the image has two levels, the foreground (the Millenium Bridge) and the main body (the City skyline) but no background (the sky). I like levels/layers in pictures :)

To answer the queries, here is what I did to get this image:

USED: The 18-55 Kit lens at it's widest point. Attached an inverted ND grad to keep the lights on the bridge from burning out. Used a tripod with a spirit level.

TECHNIQUE: Everything set to Manual. F8, focusing halfway up the bridge. Took five panning shots. Yes, I then stitched them together. It is because the first and fifth images stretched the horizontal vertices, that you get that effect on the bridge. When I took three instead of five panning shots, the bridge did not look as good as it does. i.e. both the left and right hand rails stretch to the edge of the picture.

I'll post a follow up with a dusk image when I get to capture it. Gonna be really hard getting the people off the bridge though, at that time of day ;) Maybe I should try and wobble it again :)

[JX]

Rammy,

Very nice. I would not change it.

Jim

[foxbat]

I like it as it is. I think detail in the sky would add clutter and detract from the two main parts of the image, i.e. the wide angle millenium bridge leading to the bright lights of the city with st. pauls dome at the center.

By the way how long did you have to wait to get the bridge with no-one on it or did you use photoshop to remove some unsightly commuters (like me!)

[rammy]

Thanks JX, I do like it. Thanks all for the positive messages, greatly appreciated.

By the way how long did you have to wait to get the bridge with no-one on it or did you use photoshop to remove some unsightly commuters (like me!)
:) No photoshoping. I was lucky in that at 11pm at night, not that many people are around on the South Bank. Funnily enough though, when I was composing the shots and checking the readings through the lens, as I looked up to start taking the shots, several people where standing behind me to the left and right, taking the same shots :) A really nice lady turns to me and asks me if I have finished, I ask them to hold on a second, pan and snap as quick as I can and then let them go by.

Thanks to the public (and tourists) for waiting! I think me in my work suit , camera bag and tripod, I may have looked like a "professional", which may have helped. This is a hobby for me, BTW.

[embdaw]

I would not change a thing, looks great as is.

[davepgh1]

Like it as is, any adjustment you make to the shy would have to be balanced by the water.

[DxHatchback]

i'd leave it as it is, looks good

the bridge makes it look like you took it with a wide angle lens

[grego]

The short answer is: yes.

Go do it till you feel completely confident and happy about the photo. Each and every night should give you something slightly different. Just keep shooting.