| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/11/2008 10:08:56 PM · #26 |
| Re: mirror lockup--- I'd say that it has little bearing on the sharpness quality of a 30 second exposure. I've tried it both ways and can't see any difference. I figure that the vibration from the mirror is so short lived, the sensor hasn't had time to gather much, if any light during a 30 sec exposure. I may be mistaken though... |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 10:26:11 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
Re: mirror lockup--- I'd say that it has little bearing on the sharpness quality of a 30 second exposure. I've tried it both ways and can't see any difference. I figure that the vibration from the mirror is so short lived, the sensor hasn't had time to gather much, if any light during a 30 sec exposure. I may be mistaken though... |
That was my thought too. I think mirror lockup is probably fairly important for shots from say 1/5th of a second to 1 second. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 02:46:45 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just remember you can bring stars out fairly well in Photoshop. If you don't want trails you need to be able to take a shot of 30 seconds or less. The more your zoom the more exaggerated the trail will be. Also the more your shot is away from the north star. |
So how exactly can you bring out the stars in photoshop? |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 08:57:05 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Jac:
The less trails you'll get or is it the opposite? I'll be doing lots of night shots this winter and I would like to know what you wanted to say, or am I still asleep this morning and didn't get point. |
Sorry, I probably wasn't clear. Stars close to the north star will not trail much because they don't move that much over time. The further away from the north star you point your camera (assuming you are only shooting a portion of the sky and not a really wide angle shot) the more trailing you will get because those stars move more over the same period of time. |
Thanks Doc for clearing that up.
Thanks to Mephisto too for the example. I've seen so many of these starry night shots I never realised that was occurring.
Look forward to starry night shots from me this winter, I just need to get away from this city to do it. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 09:02:03 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by mpeters:
Re: mirror lockup--- I'd say that it has little bearing on the sharpness quality of a 30 second exposure. I've tried it both ways and can't see any difference. I figure that the vibration from the mirror is so short lived, the sensor hasn't had time to gather much, if any light during a 30 sec exposure. I may be mistaken though... |
That was my thought too. I think mirror lockup is probably fairly important for shots from say 1/5th of a second to 1 second. |
I always lock it up too but haven't seen any difference in my night city-scapes compared to when I don't lock it. But I'll keep Doc's suggestion in mind next time and even test his theory out. There's one photographer here who swears by it on every exposure, I think he's the one who does astrophotography as his main subject or he does night city shots. Darn memory. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 01:12:48 AM · #31 |
Hey guys how is this picture? and what else could I do to make it look a little better? I really liked the picture but i feel like there is still more I could do to make it nicer.
 |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 10:03:25 AM · #32 |
Most of the photos in this thread have an overall blue cast. This one doesn't.
How important is the overall blue cast to creating a pleasing night shot?
|
|
|
|
11/20/2008 01:37:35 AM · #33 |
|
|
|
11/20/2008 02:23:21 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by landon1013:
Hey guys how is this picture? and what else could I do to make it look a little better? I really liked the picture but i feel like there is still more I could do to make it nicer.
|
left you a long comment, didn't mean to be harsh but just offered some advice! |
|
|
|
11/20/2008 02:28:10 AM · #35 |
| I agree with what you said with the houses and the trees but on the other hand would it look good with nothing but sky? I didn't have time to go and look for a better location the sun was setting very quickly... |
|
|
|
11/20/2008 02:34:36 AM · #36 |
No i hear ya, the sky alone wouldn't look great, it's just that whatever is to be the subject needs to seem clear and deliberate. Here, the chopped off tops of the houses and tree do not seem so, and all I'm saying is I think the photograph would be better served by the inclusion of a full house or a full tree or something of more substance.
Now if you didn't have time to go somewhere more interesting that's another story, I just thought you wanted a critique on the shot as it stood. |
|
|
|
11/20/2008 02:40:04 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by AP:
No i hear ya, the sky alone wouldn't look great, it's just that whatever is to be the subject needs to seem clear and deliberate. Here, the chopped off tops of the houses and tree do not seem so, and all I'm saying is I think the photograph would be better served by the inclusion of a full house or a full tree or something of more substance.
Now if you didn't have time to go somewhere more interesting that's another story, I just thought you wanted a critique on the shot as it stood. |
I did. Lol so yes it did help but the fact that I was running out of time and it was when i was walking out the door to a photography group I go to. I pulled out my camera and took it. So it wasn't well thought out as you can see. ;) |
|
|
|
11/20/2008 02:45:20 AM · #38 |
| But also the tip about using the noise ninja on only the sky was a good tip. I will try it out sometime... (when its not 1am....) ;) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 05/17/2024 06:17:28 PM EDT.
