What’s Your Preference?

Matt McCord · #1 (**permalink**) 08-06-2011, 06:26 AM

http://www.flickr.com/photos/64449319@N04/5984046340/

[/IMG]Hello, All
This is one of my very first attempts at night photography. I would love some suggestions from some more experienced photographers on what I can do to improve, and some general critiquing. I don't have a tripod yet, so these were shot at:
ISO 400
1/6 sec
f/6.2

and the bench was shot at
ISO 400
1/1.6
f/5.6
with a Nikon D3100, they were both done hand held.

Glendezza · #2 (**permalink**) 08-06-2011, 09:17 AM

Tripods are always nice for night-time shotting, but where you were was still pretty bright anyway. Not sure what lense you're using, but if you can open the f stop more, it will let more light in and you can lower your ISO or have a faster shutter, letting you get even more crisp photos. Other than that, I think it was nicely shot, and the title "yesters news" made that shot for me, otherwise I wouldn't know what was going on...

Matt McCord · #3 (**permalink**) 08-06-2011, 03:30 PM

Thank you for the input. I was using the 18-55 kit lens with the Nikon D3100, so I could have opened it up a little more. I'm saving for a faster lens because I love low light photography, especially because of the fact that where live gets extremely hot during the summer and its basically impossible to shoot during the day! One question: If I open the aperture to, say, as wide as it will go (f/3.5) won't anything that's not right in front of the camera be soft and out of focus?

Doug Sundseth · #4 (**permalink**) 08-06-2011, 05:22 PM

Wider apertures mean shorter depth of field, but that doesn't necessarily mean short DoF. At 18mm and f/3.5, if you focus at 16' (hyperfocal focusing), everything from 8' to infinity will be in focus on that camera. For more information, see Online Depth of Field Calculator .

With that camera, you're probably fine to increase the ISO above 400 as well, to reduce the exposure time, especially if you're post-processing with a package that has good noise reduction (like Lightroom, among others).

FWIW, though, the storefront shot (the only one I see) looks acceptably sharp even though hand held.

When I'm hand holding at long exposures (like in this photo), I'll take several photos using continuous shooting, then pick one of the sharp ones to publish. I usually get around 60% sharp photos in the 1/4 to 1/2 second range, so 4 to 6 normally works for me, but that can change with technique and steadiness.

For this photo, I like your exposure and the subject is interesting. I'd prefer to see it cropped in toward the window, especially from the top and right. The top is pure negative space (not inherently bad, but not helping much here) and the right has a distracting light and edge detail that distracts me from the subject.

If you were to shoot again, you might want to come in just a hair higher to take out the direct view of the light under the canopy. (Unless you think that adds to the effect you're trying to create, of course.)

HTH

Matt McCord · #5 (**permalink**) 08-06-2011, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Sundseth

Wider apertures mean shorter depth of field, but that doesn't necessarily mean short DoF. At 18mm and f/3.5, if you focus at 16' (hyperfocal focusing), everything from 8' to infinity will be in focus on that camera. For more information, see Online Depth of Field Calculator .

With that camera, you're probably fine to increase the ISO above 400 as well, to reduce the exposure time, especially if you're post-processing with a package that has good noise reduction (like Lightroom, among others).

FWIW, though, the storefront shot (the only one I see) looks acceptably sharp even though hand held.

When I'm hand holding at long exposures (like in this photo), I'll take several photos using continuous shooting, then pick one of the sharp ones to publish. I usually get around 60% sharp photos in the 1/4 to 1/2 second range, so 4 to 6 normally works for me, but that can change with technique and steadiness.

For this photo, I like your exposure and the subject is interesting. I'd prefer to see it cropped in toward the window, especially from the top and right. The top is pure negative space (not inherently bad, but not helping much here) and the right has a distracting light and edge detail that distracts me from the subject.

If you were to shoot again, you might want to come in just a hair higher to take out the direct view of the light under the canopy. (Unless you think that adds to the effect you're trying to create, of course.)

HTH

Thank you so much for the info and the link. I'm gonna go reshoot theses soon and try your suggestions. I love your photos on flikr btw, I would kill to be able to shoot these areas out west. I live in Alabama and, while there are some interesting scenery, nothing here compares to the majesty of the Rockies.