some night shots but I dont really like them **56k warning

[Chicagophotoshop]

what do you think? please and thank you :hug::

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

 

[Chicagophotoshop]

anyone?

 

[Peniole]

Very nice detail and sharpness in the first, I would however have used a smaller aperature on some of them. With a smaller perature you end up with a starburst pattern (number equal to your aperature blades) around lights instead of blobs, especially with closer lights. I think it would make for a more pleasant scene, but what do I know

 

[Chicagophotoshop]

Very nice detail and sharpness in the first, I would however have used a smaller aperature on some of them. With a smaller perature you end up with a starburst pattern (number equal to your aperature blades) around lights instead of blobs, especially with closer lights. I think it would make for a more pleasant scene, but what do I know

the last 2 do? but your right. this area is soooo bright at night. its tough to get the settings right. thanks for commenting.

 

[jon_k]

I agree. They're great, but the blobs aren't so cool on the lights.

If you use f/64 or so it should be more starlike vs a flood of light.

I do like them though, but what do I know.

 

[Chicagophotoshop]

I agree. They're great, but the blobs aren't so cool on the lights.

If you use f/64 or so it should be more starlike vs a flood of light.

I do like them though, but what do I know.

f/64 ???? wow I was using f/11-f18 if I remember correctly

 

[oldd_cassettes]

wow i love the 2nd, 6th and 7th

really good!

 

[Garbz]

I agree. They're great, but the blobs aren't so cool on the lights.
If you use f/64 or so it should be more starlike vs a flood of light

f/64 on a D100 would result in a picture blurry beyond recognition thanks to diffraction. This isn't a MF camera The starlight effect is already very evident in all of the photos. You could make it even more pronounced by going to f/22 but you'd loose significant sharpness.

 

[LaFoto]

Pssst, Garbz: what is "diffraction" and why is it so prominent the smaller your aperture is?
And why don't MF camera have that effect at such small f-numbers?

All in all I would say that if these were mine, I'd be happy about them, though I might feel that Photo 4 is too glaring.

I sure like Photo 7 where the use of a small aperture is quite evident in the lights already.
Photo 2 has a nice sky-at-dusk but the street lights do look like blobs there...

 

[Peniole]

the last 2 do? but your right. this area is soooo bright at night. its tough to get the settings right. thanks for commenting.

Yes it is tough to get the right setting with the scene being so bright. I agree the last two are better, hence why I said some would benefit from a smaller aperature. #6 is your best followed by #1 IMO, pretty brave too standing in the middle of the street with cars going by.

 

[Chicagophotoshop]

Yes it is tough to get the right setting with the scene being so bright. I agree the last two are better, hence why I said some would benefit from a smaller aperature. #6 is your best followed by #1 IMO, pretty brave too standing in the middle of the street with cars going by.

I was hoping they saw the tripod at the last second are avoiding hitting me

 

[JTHphoto]

i really like #6, the symmetry and perspective from the middle of the street... nice shots...

 

[andatron83]

I like number 7 for it's pronunced vanishing point, and how it disipates to the night sky.