1st Try at "Painting with Light" Night Photography

First image was painted by a couple of larger torches combined with a long exposure.

I think you did very well. The last one looks perfectly exposed on my calibrated monitor. I'd print it and frame it.

I love the way you Aussies and Brits say "torchlight" instead of "flashlight". Every time I read about someone lighting a scene with a "torch", I get this mental picture of a villager standing next to you holding a burning log.

Anyway, nicely done.

The second one looks fine exposure-wise, just punch some blacks back into it so they aren't grey and it'll fix that slightly off look


I love the shot

From a strictly novice perspective I think the first one would have benefited from a longer exposure and less direct and more focused lighting to bring out the stars in the night sky and less illumination of the foreground.

I really like the last picture.

The problem with this technique is that distant objects never get enough illumination and will always look "false". However in the third the light is nice and balanced and could pass for natural light, so this gets my vote. Great work.

Good stuff! I like the third one except for the starry lights, which might stick out in a large print. They would be easy to get rid of though. The clouds and the water look amazing.

The trees look cool in the first one, but everything else looks like it was hit with a giant on-camera flash.

Are you using any gels? They are really fun to play with for these night pictures.

And finally you might appreciate this photographer:

http://www.lostamerica​.com/index.html

His subject matter is different than yours, but you can learn a lot from his techniques.

gibbit1 wrote in post #11124482
I think you did very well. The last one looks perfectly exposed on my calibrated monitor. I'd print it and frame it.

I love the way you Aussies and Brits say "torchlight" instead of "flashlight". Every time I read about someone lighting a scene with a "torch", I get this mental picture of a villager standing next to you holding a burning log.

Anyway, nicely done.

Thanks! Had a chuckle with your comment too.

davie rogue wrote in post #11125448
The second one looks fine exposure-wise, just punch some blacks back into it so they aren't grey and it'll fix that slightly off look

I love the shot

Thanks will try that.

GaryS1964 wrote in post #11127812
From a strictly novice perspective I think the first one would have benefited from a longer exposure and less direct and more focused lighting to bring out the stars in the night sky and less illumination of the foreground.

I really like the last picture.

When I get home from work I will check the rest of the shoot photos as I know I have some with longer exposures but I think from memory the illumination was very patchy and did not improve the sky detail. Certainly will pay attention to that detail next time though, thanks.

corkneyfonz wrote in post #11128503
The problem with this technique is that distant objects never get enough illumination and will always look "false". However in the third the light is nice and balanced and could pass for natural light, so this gets my vote. Great work.

Thanks!

mltn wrote in post #11129848
Good stuff! I like the third one except for the starry lights, which might stick out in a large print. They would be easy to get rid of though. The clouds and the water look amazing.

The trees look cool in the first one, but everything else looks like it was hit with a giant on-camera flash.

Are you using any gels? They are really fun to play with for these night pictures.

And finally you might appreciate this photographer:

http://www.lostamerica​.com/index.html

His subject matter is different than yours, but you can learn a lot from his techniques.

Great advice and thanks for the link I do appreciate it - always looking to learn more!
Gels I have, but haven't really got around to experimenting with yet - hence my signature