Night time, the right time...post your late hours photos here.

i_am_hydrogen wrote in post #11514570
Welcome to the matrix

Great shot!

Here's two from last night as well.. some road shots.

Wow. Where do you live? The sky is fantastic!

Ha! I live in one of the most light polluted areas in the country! I have to work at getting sky shots like that, by driving hours away from the Dallas area. These were in the far upper corner of Texas where there's much less pollution.

I do use this a lot: http://www.jshine.net …tion=true&selec​ted_id=418

a_roadbiker wrote in post #11564612
Shot in Heidelberg, Germany on the Neckar River...

That's a tough shot.. getting the moon to show as a sliver and not a white blob. Good job!

Westfield, Sheperd's Bush
Canon 7D
EF-S 15-85mm
F22
30 shutters speed
ISO 400
unedited

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

jald3rd, that's kind of an odd shot - why would you be ISO 400, but then ƒ22? I'd take this down to ISO100 and then bring the aperture to something about ƒ13 or so. I'd also set the WB to Tungsten.

At about ƒ13 or smaller, you'll start to see difraction on the 7D.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #11568756
jald3rd, that's kind of an odd shot - why would you be ISO 400, but then ƒ22? I'd take this down to ISO100 and then bring the aperture to something about ƒ13 or so. I'd also set the WB to Tungsten.

At about ƒ13 or smaller, you'll start to see difraction on the 7D.

thanks for your comment. im a beginner, i just started playing with the traffic light trails. ill try your setting next time i use f22 to get star effects on lights

No sweat, I understand. I only mentioned it because you have one element that's letting more light in (ISO) bumped up... and then you have another element that’s letting less light in (ƒstop). You're kind of counteracting each other a bit.

You should be able to still get star effects with a larger aperture setting, and you won't be degrading the quality of your image by using such a small aperture.

Basically, in a shot like that, you're going to get the frame exposed no matter what (unless you have just ridiculous shutter speeds, etc..) so what you're really going for is determining the least amount of exposure time to get the trails that you're after. Too long, and you get the trails, but you get too much light for the rest of the frame. Too little, and your trails aren't as long as you want. Start with ISO 100 (unless you're really trying to pull in light, like stars or inside a dark barn or something) and then pick you're aperture. You'd be amazed out how sharp stuff is, no matter what the aperture is, because of the nature of long exposures.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #11569200
Here's a shot that's actually at ƒ2.8, which you'd think would cause only the focal point to be in focus. Here, the DOF extends all the way, even at ƒ2.8, simply because of the exposure time.

Exposure time is not a factor in what determines your total depth of field. What matters are focal length, aperture, where you place the focus, and of course the size of your camera's sensor.

So, taking your shot of the rusted old car as an example: your exif says 16mm and f/2.8 on a 5D Mark II. With that combination, if you focus just 10 feet into the frame (which you probably did because that's about where the old car is), then everything from five feet in front of you to infinity would be in focus. The length of your exposure has absolutely no bearing on DoF.

http://www.dofmaster.c​om/dofjs.html

Sorry, you're absolutely right... I did not explain that very well. I didn't mean to say it affected DOF, just trying to make the point that a large aperture doesn't affect these types of shots as much as others.

Thanks for the clarification.

i_am_hydrogen wrote in post #11514570
Welcome to the matrix

Nice conversion! Isn't that one of "Niko's" hideouts in the GTA4?

i_am_hydrogen wrote in post #11514570
Welcome to the matrix

Without reposting the image for the third time on a page......awesome.

jald3rd wrote in post #11568711
Westfield, Sheperd's Bush
F22
30 shutters speed
ISO 400

To me your image seems overexposed and would have been better a stop or two darker. It would add more contrast to the bikes and shopping centre, which feels lost in a flood of light, and make the great effect with the street lights pop out better.

The ISO seems to be the problem here as in the same situation I would have been looking at a similar aperture for the star effects and exposure time for the trails with a medium to low-ish level of traffic.

In general though you want to leave the ISO as low as possible at night though unless you are unable to extend shutter time or aperture as long exposures increase noise and so increasing the ISO just compounds that problem.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #11569200
You should be able to still get star effects with a larger aperture setting, and you won't be degrading the quality of your image by using such a small aperture.

It has been a while since I have taken those kind of shots, but I found you needed f/18 to f/22 to get those really nice big star effects from street lights. Larger apertures like f/11 will still give the same effect but not to the same degree, and for me that creative decision is more important than the small loss of quality from diffraction.

Although when shooting in the city at night I prefer to bracket both exposure and shutter speeds when I can, both for blending and to create different effects, especially when there is water or motion involved, and so this gives the freedom to make such decisions on quality afterwards.

Michael.

mij wrote in post #11570749
To me your image seems overexposed and would have been better a stop or two darker. It would add more contrast to the bikes and shopping centre, which feels lost in a flood of light, and make the great effect with the street lights pop out better.

The ISO seems to be the problem here as in the same situation I would have been looking at a similar aperture for the star effects and exposure time for the trails with a medium to low-ish level of traffic.

In general though you want to leave the ISO as low as possible at night though unless you are unable to extend shutter time or aperture as long exposures increase noise and so increasing the ISO just compounds that problem.

It has been a while since I have taken those kind of shots, but I found you needed f/18 to f/22 to get those really nice big star effects from street lights. Larger apertures like f/11 will still give the same effect but not to the same degree, and for me that creative decision is more important than the small loss of quality from diffraction.

Although when shooting in the city at night I prefer to bracket both exposure and shutter speeds when I can, both for blending and to create different effects, especially when there is water or motion involved, and so this gives the freedom to make such decisions on quality afterwards.

Michael.

I agree with all of this, though you can get away with smaller apertures than f/18. My shot above, post 1228, is f/16, though I was shooting stage lights, not street lights. I chose that aperture specifically to exaggerate the starburst effect, and it came out as emphatic as can be. I could have gone even smaller and still had very noticeable starbursts. Here's one I did at f/11, this time with street lights:

http://www.megethos.co​m …/ALBUM-GLOWING/Gallery-59

So you don't necessarily have to be stopped down to the point of gross diffraction in order to get the effect. You can also resort to a screw-on starburst filter, of course. (I've never used one, but I've seen them employed to good effect.)

The point about ISO is a very good one. Long exposures will exacerbate the noisiness of higher ISO settings, so I only ever depart from ISO 100 as a last resort. My 5D Mark II handles noise quite well, but ISO 100 will always be better than anything higher.