My first try at Night Stream

[manaheim]

Oh and no problem on the help. Glad to do it.

The people here on this forum have been an unbelievable valuable resource to me over the years, so I like to help others as much as I can to keep that spirit flowing. I only hope I'm not filling your head full of LIES!

 

[DexGtr]

The ACR...when I double click the RAW image, it opens up the "Image Data Converter", which is a program that I installed that came with my camera. So, I guess it's the same thing. So, I'm going to play around with that and see what I come up with. I've never used it yet. I'm so use to using the actual photoshop 3.

I think shooting in RAW all the time would actually be better, unless you have limited space, but for now I've been coming right in and downloading them onto the computer and wiping it clean after every photo shoot so I have plenty of space. Shooting with JPEG, I would still have to go into PS3 to correct anything I don't like...so why not just use RAW and correct as needed with it? It just sounds easier to me. Either way, you are correcting what you don't like to begin with. Right? I do have "some" PS experience, so I know about adjusting the colors and I just played around with the IDC program and it seems pretty easy. Now, that's not saying that I'm good at what the colors should be. But, at least I know how to do it.

I SOOOOO appreciate your help and experience. I'm going to go play with the IDC and see what I come up with. Wish me luck.

Image Data Converter...then i would pressume you have a Sony...i have the same program on my comp...for some reason PS cannot open RAW files from my Sony also...i got Lightroom 2 and that works out good...and use that now instead of the Image Data Converter.

 

[SlimPaul]

#3 is great!! If only not that car on the bottom left, taking up 25% of the frame. I'd love to see that photo without the car. Looks like a pleasant neighborhood. What I would do is wait for the "blue hour" and move a bit to the left to loose that little tree and the car.
btw, what camera did you use?

 

[mitsugirly]

If you want to dive in and use RAW all the time, you won't hear me complaining. It's what I do. It does add a lot of work to the process, but I like the results.

I'm so glad you said that. I didn't want it to come across as a newbie telling an experienced person, "no I think it's better this way" and you thinking..."what an idiot that don't listen". I can definitely take criticism and welcome any pointers. (I actually typed what I did above, then erased it thinking it would come off the wrong way, then retyped it and hoped for the best) lol

I worked with the filters you mentioned, except for the sharpening. I figured I'd try to get the colors first and go from there.

I thought about trying to play around with it in photoshop because that's what I'm use to working with...but we'll see. I kinda fell into photoshop in a weird way. I had a newborn and Sears Portraits had a "special effects" picture that they did with the baby sitting on a flower. I thought it was the coolest thing I'd ever seen and desperately wanted one however, I had to wait until my baby could sit up. When she got to that age, they discontinued doing those photo's 2 weeks prior. I WAS PISSED! So, that prompted me to learn photoshop and do it myself. I've learned a lot, but have a lot more to learn. Most of what I've done, if not all, have been weird photo's that include putting my daughter in something weird.

This is what I'm use to doing. However, the photo quality wasn't very good on the pictures I've been working with, which prompted me to buy a good camera.

I also want to learn to take pictures and do things like a person I found on flickr...he's my hero...so to speak lol. His skills are just amazing and I've done a few things like this, but want to learn how he does what he does. My main thing is shooting my kids (or at least the baby because my other 3 are grown). I spent hours looking at every one of his pictures (both the photo shopped and the regular) on flickr and also his blog of his kids. I just can't get enough of this guy. He's amazing. He's actually a wedding photographer in CA that just loves to do photo shoots with his kids.

sisters

Flickr: jwlphotography's Photostream

 

[mitsugirly]

Image Data Converter...then i would pressume you have a Sony...i have the same program on my comp...for some reason PS cannot open RAW files from my Sony also...i got Lightroom 2 and that works out good...and use that now instead of the Image Data Converter.

I've had a lot of people mention lightroom to me. Where do you get it? Is it a part of photoshop? I'll have to check into this. I have a few friends of my husbands that does photography that says their pictures were edited using lightroom.

#3 is great!! If only not that car on the bottom left, taking up 25% of the frame. I'd love to see that photo without the car. Looks like a pleasant neighborhood. What I would do is wait for the "blue hour" and move a bit to the left to loose that little tree and the car.
btw, what camera did you use?

I know, I was complaining about my car in the picture, but we moved the tripod over as far as possible. The only other option was to zoom in more and loose half of the picture to cut it out. What's the blue hour?
I have a Sony a300.

 

[DexGtr]

you could download Lightroom in the Adobe website...it offers a 30 day full trial....check it out and see if it you like it better than Image Data Converter.

 

[Katier]

I usually set 'tungsten' white balance when doing urban night work. It's not perfect but usually the end result is very close and reduces the amount of post processing needed. Some people like the orange glow and with sodium lights it is natural for some orange to be there but some people do overkill on it too.

 

[manaheim]

Despite what some would tell you, I think what you do in Photography and processing is really what works best for you. I -do- think that there are certain levels of quality that can only be achieved by certain methods, but if you can't personally see the difference then using those methods may be pointless.

To use an odd analogy, if every color looks gray to a person and you tell them that blue would have worked a WHOLE lot better in that particular space... and they paint it using that color... but it looks absolutely the same... what did it achieve? What if they missed and accidentally used green (looked the same to them!).

This kind of scenario plays out a lot in photography. I could tell you to use RAW images for everything, but if you don't really know how to do it, and you lack the eye to see when it looks "right", you can actually wind up with WORSE results than if you just let your camera do the work for you and render a JPEG in the way that it thought was right.

Usually this translates into my usual recommendation- which is use JPEG until you can tell that JPEG has failed. Why? Because at that point you have a better "eye" than your camera does, and there are cases where you will actually know better. Up unto that point, why bother? One might argue "BECAUSE RAW LOOKS BETTER AND EVERYONE ELSE WILL LIKE IT BETTER!" but if you don't have the eye to process it properly, that probably won't be true.

I talk about this with musical instruments occasionally. Hand a $2500 Vincent Bach trumpet to a total noob and it will sound (to them) absolutely the same as their $300 King. Hand the $300 King to a trained professional, and the noob will marvel at the sounds the professional can get out of it. Give the professional back his Vincent Bach, and the noob will hear absolutely no difference, but the professional will sigh in relief because they can hear a significan difference in the better horn that the noob cannot.

(I'm not calling you a noob, btw... it's just handy shorthand)

So yeah... you wanna do RAW and you like the results? By all means, go for it. I wound up using RAW earlier than a lot of folks, myself. It just worked for me.

 

[mitsugirly]

I usually set 'tungsten' white balance when doing urban night work.

Do you decrease the value? Will that take out a lot of the orange color? Since I'm just practicing from my house, I can run back in to warm up every so often so I don't mind adjusting the white balance too much at the moment. I would like to try to get this kind of shot under my belt a little before adventuring out somewhere on the streets.

you could download Lightroom in the Adobe website...it offers a 30 day full trial....check it out and see if it you like it better than Image Data Converter.

I just used the IDC for the first time today. I'm going to play around with it a little and see how I like it. Then maybe in about a month I'll try the lightroom and see what my thoughts are on it. I wasn't aware that there was a trial version, so thanks a lot for the heads up on that. Do most people use the lightroom for scenery shots? That's seems to be the pictures I've seen posted saying they edited it with lightroom has been. The colors are magnificent.

Oh and there's only about 5+ hours away from being dark...(my count down has begun for tonights fun filled activities of trying another shoot). Anyone else that can tell me what the "blue hour" is so that I don't miss it?

 

[manaheim]

The blue hour is the time when the light is fading and nearly, but not totally, gone.

In longer exposures it creates a blue sky. I think it's harder to do in the winter merely because its more of a "blue ten minutes" and then POOF! No sun.

 

[SlimPaul]

you could download Lightroom in the Adobe website...it offers a 30 day full trial....check it out and see if it you like it better than Image Data Converter.

I'd recommend Aperture 2. You can find a 30 day full trial on Apple's site as well.

 

[Katier]

Do you decrease the value? Will that take out a lot of the orange color? Since I'm just practicing from my house, I can run back in to warm up every so often so I don't mind adjusting the white balance too much at the moment. I would like to try to get this kind of shot under my belt a little before adventuring out somewhere on the streets.

I just set the WB to tungsten. no other changes. It's rare I'd feel the need to adjust it although it can need it.

 

[mitsugirly]

I just set the WB to tungsten. no other changes. It's rare I'd feel the need to adjust it although it can need it.

Ok thanks. I'll try a couple of shots this way tonight.


So am I right about setting the camera to P for these night shots? I just happen to stumble upon trying it that way. Or, should I be using the sunset, night portrait or M instead?

 

[Katier]

experiment the one big thing with night photography is it's an excellent chance to really work things out. It's completely different to daylight and as such experimentation is a big part of it.

 

[mitsugirly]

I know this doesn't have anything to do with this topic, but I have a lot of people that have commented on this and was wondering if any of you can answer this question for me>>>

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/digital-discussion-q/153264-good-lens-buy.html#post1509280