Long Exposure

133 second exposure of the moon over some dimly-lit trees that grow on the far side of the apartment complex in which I live. Myself, I like the colors I got out of it. C&C to improve my technique always appreciated:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Wow... 54 views and 19 hours later and not a single comment? The view-to-comment ratio has really taken a nosedive 'round these parts.

710 Studio wrote in post #9864157
Wow... 54 views and 19 hours later and not a single comment? The view-to-comment ratio has really taken a nosedive 'round these parts.

The image does nothing at all for me, there is no "pop" to it, and the subject in uninteresting to my eye. I usually wouldn't comment in a negative manner, but you seem to really want feedback. I think I can see where you are trying to go with the image, and the positioning of the moon in the frame is well done, but its not working here.

If the branches were crisp it might have helped a bit, but I'm not sure how much.

Stickman wrote in post #9868916
The image does nothing at all for me, there is no "pop" to it, and the subject in uninteresting to my eye. I usually wouldn't comment in a negative manner, but you seem to really want feedback. I think I can see where you are trying to go with the image, and the positioning of the moon in the frame is well done, but its not working here.

If the branches were crisp it might have helped a bit, but I'm not sure how much.

The way I see it is you can't improve without feedback - negative, or otherwise. So, thank you for your honest take. You mentioned that perhaps having the branches sharper may help, but you don't know how much. Any advice as to how YOU would have made it more appealing?

It gives me an erie feel but that's about it. Nice capture nonetheless.

I quite like it. Coming from an illustration background, rather than photographic may have a lot to do with that, but who cares? If someone likes it, it was worth the effort.
IMO - This should be on the cover of a paperback 'mystery'.

SIGMAKIDOWNZ - That's a good thing, actually. Kind of the feeling I was hoping to invoke with this particular experiment.

DECI - Thanks. Sounds like you and SIGMAKIDOWNZ "get it". When I noticed the scene (while walking my dog), I thought it seemed kind of eerie. So, really, that is the feel I was hoping to get. As for being on the back of a paperback mystery... I was thinking it looked kind of "goth album cover"-ish, as well. heh heh heh

It's a good concept, but still just a bit grainy to me.

I haven't tried this out, myself, yet but I wonder if you could get the "star" light effect on the moon by stopping your lens all the way down before running the long exposure. Obviously this would also increase your exposure time dramatically, but could give a nice "pop" to the picture if it works.

Hey.......... I am almost 50, give us a break

Snydremark wrote in post #9872110
It's a good concept, but still just a bit grainy to me.

I haven't tried this out, myself, yet but I wonder if you could get the "star" light effect on the moon by stopping your lens all the way down before running the long exposure. Obviously this would also increase your exposure time dramatically, but could give a nice "pop" to the picture if it works.

I'll have to try that. Thanks for the pointer. As for the graininess, I have long exposure noise reduction turned off (don't remember the events that led to that decision...). Would you recommend turning that on, or does that feature tend to introduce too much blur?

DECI - LOL... hey now - one of my goth friends is almost 50. I'll be 36 in about 2 weeks... feel more like 136!

Dan - most of my friends are 30ish so I guess that makes us even (But no Goths sadly, A few Metalheads but no Goths)

Imo turning noise reduction on would detract from the effect of long exposures of this type, but that is just IMO. Noise (even digital noise) lends itself well to the more macabre.

710 Studio wrote in post #9872248
I'll have to try that. Thanks for the pointer. As for the graininess, I have long exposure noise reduction turned off (don't remember the events that led to that decision...). Would you recommend turning that on, or does that feature tend to introduce too much blur?

I don't know how it would induce blur, but I also haven't used it really. You might try it out, though <shrug>

DECI - Well stated. Most of the long-exposure photography I've played around with has been more along the lines of the creepy and mysterious (most of which were complete failures that I would never post, anywhere!). So, keeping the noise has never bothered me, as long as it was well in check. I do have a few long-exposures that are more pop art than anything. I just dealt with the noise in post-production, which seemed to work well.

SNYDREMARK - Something to play with, anyway.

I hope you dont mind I did some PS edits on it to give them a more creepy vibe.. or one in my opinion. I liked the shot, I wish the star trails would have been a little longer..

PP with Black and while using maxwhite then fading 65%

WILDKC - Don't mind, at all. Nice edits! I wish the star trails were a bit longer, as well. I have GOT to get myself a remote trigger - much easier on the fingers when shooting in BULB mode! =]