First Attempt at Fireworks

Please let me know how I did and what I could do to make them better. These were taken at a distance of 1/2 mile from event.
Thanks

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

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

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=341145


I had my first DSLR attempt at fireworks too last night. I admit that I could not follow all the guidelines described in the above thanks to my family who cannot keep track of time -- I began setting up as the first fireworks were going off.

The first pic looks noisy - was the ISO set to 100 or the lowest possible?
The second picture is very nice.

I think you managed to position yourself well, though those branches are not the most pleasing looking complement to the fireworks - I think you can crop them out.

The first is, as said, very noisy. I'm going to guess that because it's already at base ISO that you simply underexposed the image. If that's the case I wouldn't bother with the sky and haze and just blacken them out and recompose the shot.

I like the second, it has great composition and your timing was great, but you really need to add more umph to the capture with more contrast. I played with S curves a little bit(bringing up the highlights and midtones and bringing down the shadows) and slightly adjusted the red hue to contrast it more with the white.

Mu Eugene wrote in post #10482282
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=341145


I had my first DSLR attempt at fireworks too last night. I admit that I could not follow all the guidelines described in the above thanks to my family who cannot keep track of time -- I began setting up as the first fireworks were going off.

The first pic looks noisy - was the ISO set to 100 or the lowest possible?
The second picture is very nice.

I think you managed to position yourself well, though those branches are not the most pleasing looking complement to the fireworks - I think you can crop them out.

ISO was at 100.

I was sitting on my front porch taking these across the field. I'm like you I read everything I could before attempting these. I don't think I did too bad for the first time. Thanks for looking. I'll try your suggestions.

lonelyjew wrote in post #10482361
The first is, as said, very noisy. I'm going to guess that because it's already at base ISO that you simply underexposed the image. If that's the case I wouldn't bother with the sky and haze and just blacken them out and recompose the shot.

I like the second, it has great composition and your timing was great, but you really need to add more umph to the capture with more contrast. I played with S curves a little bit(bringing up the highlights and midtones and bringing down the shadows) and slightly adjusted the red hue to contrast it more with the white.

edit*
I have to get a better image host than photobucket, it decided to upscale the image and "adjust" the colors. Still though, I think you should up the contrast a bit.

This looks much better. Thanks for your insight.

In the UK, one AP reader had a firework shot printed where several camera club judges had dismissed it as being rendered in photoshop. Personally it looked good to me. However, with these, they do not look natural. It's as if they've been pasted into different skies and the edit only seems to diminish it's authenticity. Apologies if I am wrong but those fireworks are looking far too saturated for a non black sky.

dharlow wrote in post #10482421
ISO was at 100.

I was sitting on my front porch taking these across the field. I'm like you I read everything I could before attempting these. I don't think I did too bad for the first time. Thanks for looking. I'll try your suggestions.

You did great - I wish I could see fireworks from my front porch too.
Here's mine - hope you could CC them.

@corkney:
I might have said the same thing had I not attempted the fireworks shot, but seeing (or shooting) is believing. Some fireworks do come out looking that way, especially towards the end when the smoke from earlier rounds begin to drift and fill the air.

corkneyfonz wrote in post #10482626
In the UK, one AP reader had a firework shot printed where several camera club judges had dismissed it as being rendered in photoshop. Personally it looked good to me. However, with these, they do not look natural. It's as if they've been pasted into different skies and the edit only seems to diminish it's authenticity. Apologies if I am wrong but those fireworks are looking far too saturated for a non black sky.

Actually I cropped the image and sharpened them in Gimp, I made a minor adjustment on the saturation and that is all. The smoke is for real as these were near the end of the event. I don't have Photoshop and I am struggling using Gimp.

To the op, please accept a rare humble apology from myself. Originally, I couldn't get my head around the brightness of the sky. It was mu eugine's explanation that made me realise just what the hell was going on. Sadly there was a link to his captures which may have meant that is why my original aplology disappeared last night as I certainly did type one but must have forgotten to press the post button first. Therefore I am happy to accept that these are indeed genuine captures which are to a high standard.

corkneyfonz wrote in post #10488938
To the op, please accept a rare humble apology from myself. Originally, I couldn't get my head around the brightness of the sky. It was mu eugine's explanation that made me realise just what the hell was going on. Sadly there was a link to his captures which may have meant that is why my original aplology disappeared last night as I certainly did type one but must have forgotten to press the post button first. Therefore I am happy to accept that these are indeed genuine captures which are to a high standard.

No need to apologize, I value your opinion. Please keep critiquing ( not sure that's spelled correct) my photos, that is my most valuable learning tool. I'm going to look at my raw photos again and maybe I can tell exactly how much I bumped up the saturation.

Thanks again.

corkneyfonz wrote in post #10488938
To the op, please accept a rare humble apology from myself. Originally, I couldn't get my head around the brightness of the sky. It was mu eugine's explanation that made me realise just what the hell was going on. Sadly there was a link to his captures which may have meant that is why my original aplology disappeared last night as I certainly did type one but must have forgotten to press the post button first. Therefore I am happy to accept that these are indeed genuine captures which are to a high standard.

/Attached is the raw file only converted to jpg format. No processing whatsoever. Feel free to work with this photo to teach me what I could have done better.

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

Not necessarily better but a different take using the fractalius filter and face smiling/frowning plug in from redfield.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

corkneyfonz wrote in post #10495901
Not necessarily better but a different take using the fractalius filter and face smiling/frowning plug in from redfield.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

If you hate it advise me immediately and I'll remove asap

I think it looks cool!