alright, what am I doing wrong

[Mike_E]

If you have a filter on, you might remove it for this shot. You might also have to wait until the humidity is very low to get better definition.

Rick's suggestion is a good one because otherwise you are going to have the same problems with this photo as seeing stars. (In other words you see stars at night and they twinkle but the planets don't- this is much like what you are seeing here.) It may turn out that the bridge is not steady enough to allow you the exposure time for a clean shot.

 

[chris]

The lights are over exposed, the surrounding hill etc is underexposed. If you just want the lights against a dark background then reduce the exposure. However, the dusk/dawn suggestion is probably the best way to do it; you should be able to get a little detail in the sky and background while correctly exposing for the lights.

You are getting flare because you are shooting directly into the lights, hence the six-point star effects and the general blurring of the lights. This will blur the illuminated letters. Any dust, moisture etc on the lens will contribute to this; make sure that the lens surface is spotless and remove any filters.

Finally, have the camera firmly supported on a tripod or solid object such as a wall; any camera movement will degrade the image.

 

[WolfSpring]

I'm still a noob so don't kill me for my thought, but the trees in the fore ground are lit up, is there lighting on the bridge? would that not interfere with the lighting of the shot?

 

[JerryPH]

It won't affect the camera's metering much, therefore I doubt it will make any great changes, so no.

If he could somehow get closer (zoom anyone?), take the picture when there is a touch more light and of course all the little tricks for steady shots like:
- tripod
- don't take a pic as cars are crossing the bridge, if possible
- use a remote shutter release or use a 2-3 second timer
- mirror up
- bracketing


He can accomplish this shot successfully. It is just a matter of experimentation.

 

[Battou]

Yup, good thought. Decrease exposure under the same ligting circumstances or leave it as it was and take the pic during a time that there is slightly more light will have the same effect in terms of seeing the letters of the sign... matter of fact, your suggestion should be better as using my suggestion everything surrounding the sign will appear black whereas taking the pic at dusk under slightly more light will give you some detail around the sign.

The lights are over exposed, the surrounding hill etc is underexposed. If you just want the lights against a dark background then reduce the exposure. However, the dusk/dawn suggestion is probably the best way to do it; you should be able to get a little detail in the sky and background while correctly exposing for the lights.

You are getting flare because you are shooting directly into the lights, hence the six-point star effects and the general blurring of the lights. This will blur the illuminated letters. Any dust, moisture etc on the lens will contribute to this; make sure that the lens surface is spotless and remove any filters.

Finally, have the camera firmly supported on a tripod or solid object such as a wall; any camera movement will degrade the image.

Truth be told the original thought was of the lights on the black background as it is seen by those driving across the bridge at night. I do intend to continue to try to get the original image I wanted as well, but the suggestion of more ambient light could prove to be a better idea in the long run and is worth a try. Dawn however is out of the question, they shut down the lights around 4:00 AM and the sun rises directly over that building around 7:00am this time of year, the back lighting will completely loose the subject in it's entirety until mid morning. Dusk it will have to be as the sun will set to my back, the only draw back is heavy traffic at that time is common.

If you have a filter on, you might remove it for this shot. You might also have to wait until the humidity is very low to get better definition.

Rick's suggestion is a good one because otherwise you are going to have the same problems with this photo as seeing stars. (In other words you see stars at night and they twinkle but the planets don't- this is much like what you are seeing here.) It may turn out that the bridge is not steady enough to allow you the exposure time for a clean shot.

I don't currently own any filters so.... But any who, I had taken the bridges stability into consideration during the planning for this shot and have two other locations one of witch from the same angle only further away, a few test shots are still awaiting processing as I had to do an overhaul on the 200mm lens I needed for the added distance before I could do them, so they are on the next roll. Given the consistency of these as well as the ones with the 50mm I am guessing it's a safe bet those will be the same. I have not gotten any shots from the third location yet as it's a last resort.

I'm still a noob so don't kill me for my thought, but the trees in the fore ground are lit up, is there lighting on the bridge? would that not interfere with the lighting of the shot?

The lights you are seeing are not from the bridges lights, they actually belong to the street lights on a side road on the far side of the river. You are right however in the fact that bridge is well lit and can effect the shot if I am not paying attention, I set up right directly under one of the street lights in the shadow it casts, to take them out of play.

It won't affect the camera's metering much, therefore I doubt it will make any great changes, so no.

If he could somehow get closer (zoom anyone?), take the picture when there is a touch more light and of course all the little tricks for steady shots like:
- tripod
- don't take a pic as cars are crossing the bridge, if possible
- use a remote shutter release or use a 2-3 second timer
- mirror up
- bracketing


He can accomplish this shot successfully. It is just a matter of experimentation.

As I mentioned earlier experimentation is planned and will be taken to an extreme if I have too. I tried the mirror lock once, In fact the one in this thread may be the locked mirror, unfortunately I am still learning the log book thing and seem to have made some errors in documentation, If I am correct this one was documented at FD 135mm - f/16 - 1/500 ML- ASA 800. What burns me the most is I took more shots of this, I have 24 documented shots and 18 prints, somewhere along the lines the lab discerned several shots (of this subject) unprintable and I am going to have to go threw the negs to find out why and what frame numbers the printed ones are.

*EDIT*

Lol... yeah walking on water may not be an option for you.

Question, is that condensation or dust on the lens that we are seeing? It looks as if there is a lot of artifact on the picture that looks like dust or someting. Hard to tell.

Likely debris from the scanner, I did this scan after just short of fifty some odd exparimental opentop scans placing numorous diffrent things onto the scannerbed.

confermed debris on scannerbed, cleaned scanerbed but newly placed hair from the cleaning cloth made the new scan just as bad but all abnormalities are in diffrent locations.

 

[confucious]

I haven't tried night shots like this before but if I were to set out to do it I wou7ld try these settings:

1. 200 ISO I cannot stand noise in my pics)
2. Aperture - f11-f16
3. Exposure - 1/80 - 3 seconds

But most importantly I would:

1. Manual focus
2. USE A REMOTE!!!

For any and all low light tripod shooting I've done I've found the remote makes the difference between focussed and unfocussed. I need my shots to be tack on sharp, and without a remote this just doesn't happen. You are shooting with a fairly closed up aperture and a fairly long focal length...both of these create focus difficulties as they will make the exposure time longer and every time you zoom in you increase the shake effect exponentially.

A rule I have for telephoto lens shooting - if the exposure time necessary given my desired ISO and Aperture ends up being longer than 1/50 (and I really really want the shot to work) I use the tripod and the remote. Otherwise I get indistinct and blurry images.

Of course, it could always be the flare effect from direct shooting.

GOod luck!!!