Night Photography Question (Clarity)

[lonkcphoto]

How can ones take picture like this (first pic) and mine is like that (second pic).

See the green lines are so clear on his.

I already am using my 5D mk II and a 16-35 ii lens.

F/10
30s
ISO 100
good tripod
not windy

What am I doing wrong?

I mean I can still photoshop it a little bit but how can he takes it so sharp and clear? It's just another level.

Did he take many larger pictures and merge them tgt so that the picture is looking much more detailed?

 

[photoguy67]

Maybe shoot a little bit earlier in the evening? It looks to me like the bridge is in sharp focus but the buildings are not. I see you used f10 so I am thinking you might need a smaller f stop and since you are already shooting at 30 seconds you need just a bit more light, so maybe earlier or higher iso.

 

[astroNikon]

If you look at the first pic you'll see much more office window lights on compared to yours. Thus it was done earlier in the evening. More light for a more even exposure across the sky and water though done on an overcast day.

The first photo also did not include the bridge, so the subject was essentially at one plane versus your which has the bridge right up front - aperture setting.

Can you see the EXIF data in the first photo? It could have the settings and time/date in it to give you a better idea of when it was done.

Also, use a remote trigger and Mirror Up function. These will help minimize any shake. Also, do not stand next to the camera - if you move around during exposure that can shake the tripod/camera.

 

[Ron Smith]

possible it is the point of view also, was there water in the foreground of your shot? Half of the example image is water reflecting all the lights. In your photo- the sky and bridge have similar amount of light as the example photo, but if it was trees and non-reflective stuff in the front, you would definitely need to try what photoguy67 said and shoot earlier

 

[Alexr25]

You missed focus in the second picture. The near end of the bridge is sharp but the far end and the distant buildings are completely out of focus. The focus so far out that using a smaller aperture is not going to help.
You are using a wide angle lens so focused at infinity it should have enough depth of field to get both the bridge and the distant building in focus.

 

[lonkcphoto]

First of all, thank you for all the responses.

photoguy67, I haven't tried shooting earlier. Maybe I'll try that next time.

astroNikon, here is what the EXIF shows

• Quality - 80%

• XMPToolkit - Adobe XMP Core 5.0-c060 61.134777, 2010/02/12-17:32:00

• Original Document ID - xmp.did:2C0C237D5C2068118A6D89B5B0EDBDC6

• Document ID - xmp.did:16ECF049FFFA11E1AB3EA3ABC681B1ED

• Instance ID - xmp.iid:16ECF048FFFA11E1AB3EA3ABC681B1ED

• Derived From Instance ID - xmp.iid:C48BEEDBF62068118A6D89B5B0EDBDC6

• Derived From Document ID - xmp.did:2C0C237D5C2068118A6D89B5B0EDBDC6

• Creator Tool - Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh

• Viewing Cond Illuminant - 19.6445 20.3718 16.8089

• Viewing Cond Surround - 3.92889 4.07439 3.36179

• Viewing Conditions Illuminant Type - D50

• Measurement Observer - CIE 1931

• Measurement Backing - 0 0 0

• Measurement Geometry - Unknown (0)

• Measurement Flare - 0.999%

• Measurement Illuminant - D65

• DCTEncode Version - 100

• APP14 Flags0 - [14], Encoded with Blend=1 downsampling

• APP14 Flags1 - (none)

• Color Transform - YCbCr

Did he block it or what?

Ron Smith, the water level is not going to raise till the level in that example unless there's huge amount of rain. I guess my next trial can be done a little earlier.

Alexr25, it makes sense too. I'll try focusing at infinity as well next time.

I'll try to do it these couple days to show you guys how it looks. Thank you!

 

[astroNikon]

One does not have to include "FULL" EXIF
Full exif looks like this .. scroll down and click on "Show EXIF" under the camera information ==> YankeeAir-19 Flickr - Photo Sharing

It just helps if you want to duplicate something as much as possible and to increase your understanding of how someone may have done it with what settings, time of day, etc.

 

[lonkcphoto]

One does not have to include "FULL" EXIF
Full exif looks like this .. scroll down and click on "Show EXIF" under the camera information ==> YankeeAir-19 Flickr - Photo Sharing

It just helps if you want to duplicate something as much as possible and to increase your understanding of how someone may have done it with what settings, time of day, etc.

yes. I found that helpful too some time. but with this partial EXIF data, it is not telling anything useful here. is that right?

 

[astroNikon]

One does not have to include "FULL" EXIF
Full exif looks like this .. scroll down and click on "Show EXIF" under the camera information ==> YankeeAir-19 Flickr - Photo Sharing

It just helps if you want to duplicate something as much as possible and to increase your understanding of how someone may have done it with what settings, time of day, etc.

yes. I found that helpful too some time. but with this partial EXIF data, it is not telling anything useful here. is that right?

yes, not much useful data. I was hoping the Time/Date was in there to help you know when about the other photographer made the picture. Though you should be able to replicate it without issues.

 

[lonkcphoto]

So I found one of his other photos, it does show the full EXIF data. and it is showing that it was taken at around 8:30pm in September.

But this one is not as clear.

• JFIFVersion - 1.02

• X-Resolution - 72 dpi

• Y-Resolution - 72 dpi

• Image Description - Stitched Panorama

• Make - Canon

• Orientation - Horizontal (normal)

• Software - Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows

• Date and Time (Modified) - 2010:09:10 14:24:19

• YCbCr Positioning - Co-sited

• Orientation - Horizontal (normal)

• ISO Speed - 100

• Exif Version - 0221

• Date and Time (Original) - 2010:09:09 20:26:34

• Date and Time (Digitized) - 2010:09:09 20:26:34

• Components Configuration - Y, Cb, Cr, -

• Exposure Bias - 0 EV

• Metering Mode - Multi-segment

• User Comment - MyBpbWFnZXMsIFNpemU6IDExMDcxIHggMzE1MSwgRk9WOiAxNTEuOTewIHgg NDMuMjawLCBSTVM6IDIuOTAsIExlbnM6IFN0YW5kYXJkLCBQcm9qZWN0aW9u OiBTcGhlcmljYWwsIENvbG9yOiBOb25l

• Sub Sec Time - 77

• Sub Sec Time Original - 77

• Sub Sec Time Digitized - 77

• Flashpix Version - 0100

• Color Space - sRGB

• Focal Plane X-Resolution - 5715.545755

• Focal Plane Y-Resolution - 5808.403361

• Focal Plane Resolution Unit - inches

• Custom Rendered - Normal

• Exposure Mode - Manual

• White Balance - Manual

• Scene Capture Type - Standard

• Compression - JPEG (old-style)

• Thumbnail Offset - 968

• Thumbnail Length - 2025

• Application Record Version - 20128

• Caption- Abstract - Stitched Panorama

• IPTCDigest - f63874d5b1b9eefe2f2dc7e89cf6f1fb

• Displayed Units X - inches

• Displayed Units Y - inches

• Global Angle - 30

• Global Altitude - 30

• Photoshop Thumbnail - (Binary data 2025 bytes, use -b option to extract)

• Photoshop Quality - 12

• Photoshop Format - Standard

• Progressive Scans - 3 Scans

• XMPToolkit - Adobe XMP Core 4.2.2-c063 53.352624, 2008/07/30-18:12:18

• Creator Tool - Autopano Pro

• Metadata Date - 2010:09:10 14:24:19-05:00

• Make - Canon

• Orientation - Horizontal (normal)

• Native Digest - 256,257,258,259,262,274,277,284,530,531,282,283,296,301,318,319,529,532,306,270,271,272,305,315,33432;8E439BB3EDE0BFAFEE002FA58DAA8DF8

• Format - image/jpeg

• Description - Stitched Panorama

• Color Mode - 3

• ICCProfile Name - sRGB IEC61966-2.1

• Instance ID - xmp.iid:813C679D0BBDDF119364EFF65DB28D66

• Document ID - xmp.did:7F3C679D0BBDDF119364EFF65DB28D66

• Original Document ID - xmp.did:7F3C679D0BBDDF119364EFF65DB28D66

• History Action - created

• History Instance ID - xmp.iid:7F3C679D0BBDDF119364EFF65DB28D66

• History When - 2010:09:10 14:21:36-05:00

• History Software Agent - Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows

• History Changed - /

• Viewing Cond Illuminant - 19.6445 20.3718 16.8089

• Viewing Cond Surround - 3.92889 4.07439 3.36179

• Viewing Conditions Illuminant Type - D50

• Measurement Observer - CIE 1931

• Measurement Backing - 0 0 0

• Measurement Geometry - Unknown (0)

• Measurement Flare - 0.999%

• Measurement Illuminant - D65

• DCTEncode Version - 100

• APP14 Flags0 - [14]

• APP14 Flags1 - (none)

• Color Transform - YCbCr

• Camera ID - 72157602280763141

• Camera Type - Digital SLR

 

[SurvivalDad]

I think a little earlier is going to be the ticket.

 

[bratkinson]

One of 'our own', Manaheim, wrote a fantastic 'how to' for night photography. It's well worth the time to read and take notes!

Manaheim s Ultimate Guide to Night Photography Photography Forum

 

[Ron Smith]

Just realized that I completely missed the actual question you were asking about - duh... So , what they said about focus above, as they carefully read your question. Seems like the original image also has nothing in the foreground (like your bridge) that required a large DOF between the close end of the bridge and the buildings over the water - miles(?) away. Stop down more and manual focus on the building is what I'd try.

 

[lonkcphoto]

One of 'our own', Manaheim, wrote a fantastic 'how to' for night photography. It's well worth the time to read and take notes!

Manaheim s Ultimate Guide to Night Photography Photography Forum

This definitely is a very detailed article. Bookmarked!

 

[lonkcphoto]

Just realized that I completely missed the actual question you were asking about - duh... So , what they said about focus above, as they carefully read your question. Seems like the original image also has nothing in the foreground (like your bridge) that required a large DOF between the close end of the bridge and the buildings over the water - miles(?) away. Stop down more and manual focus on the building is what I'd try.

Yup. I'm starting to believe I focused wrongly. Next time I will get there earlier and try manual focusing infinity. Hopefully I will be able to get a better quality picture.
Thanks!