Personal opinion about this photo

[raffy997]

Hi I'm getting into photography and I would like your opinion on this photo. Please tell me if there is something wrong and how I can improve it. Thank you

 

[raffy997]

Here's the photo
Clear Night by Raffaello Plevano 500px

 

[Nettles]

It looks OK technically, Raffaello. If you're trying to master long exposures it certainly looks like you're well on your way.

But if you haven't already, share "Sunset skier" here. Very good indeed.

 

[Designer]

Please tell me if there is something wrong and how I can improve it.

Are you holding the camera in your hand?

This (and others) look unsharp to me, so I wonder if it could be camera movement?

What is the exposure time for this shot and your other night-time shots?

If you are not using a tripod for low-light photography, then you should.

 

[KmH]

Beginners forum - Moderator Notice Photography Forum

From the diffraction spike around the bright lights in the foreground I would suggest your lens aperture was quite a bit smaller than it needed to be.
As lens aperture gets small diffraction causes a loss of image sharpness.

As point of focus distance increases the need to use a small aperture to have a deep depth-of-field (DoF) decreases.
Unfortunately many that really don't know what they are talking about recommend using a small lens aperture to shoot landscape shots.
Shorter lens focal lengths also decrease the need for a small lens aperture to have a deep DoF.

 

[dennybeall]

Technically you captured the scene. Could be sharper and you could choose to have less halo around the lights, or not. What I don't see is a center of interest or a story being told. A glance at the photo tells me it's a town at night - and then I move on. Nothing to make me want to look more.

 

[soufiej]

The information provided beneath the image says the shutter speed/exposure time was 25 seconds and the aperture was f5.6. ISO was set to 100.

There is a slight lack of sharpness to the shot, I agree. However, it's not bothersome to me unless I try to tell myself photography is all about sharp edges in the shot. If this is the kit lens for the Nikon, then I'd say the camera was more at fault than the photographer. And that, then, can only really be improved by spending more money. Therefore, I would ask, just how sharp does any photo need to be? I'm rather of the opinion that "sharpness" is a useful justification for buying more expensive gear and setting yourself apart from the rest by what you own not what you can do with what you have.


But, gee, this is Italy we're talking about. A shot of Vicenza! If you're options are being in Italy or buying a better lens, take the trip and then sharpen things up in post production. You could give us a photo of Italy almost completely out of focus and I'd still be enchanted. And the ski photos are quite exceptional IMO. Very nice work and they indicate you are learning your camera well.

On the op shot, if you don't own a tripod, then shots such as this are going to be difficult. Selecting 100 ISO only makes them more difficult to capture hand held. Therefore, if you want to increase the sharpness (and you are not using a kit lens), then you should decide which is more important, getting the shot hand held or increasing the ISO sensitivity. The thing is, though, this type of shot really does need a steady camera which can't be accomplished by hand holding the camera for several seconds.

There's a general haze to the image outside of the central objects. That, IMO, is the strongest detractor of this shot. Not sure why it's there or how exactly to correct it on a long shutter speed shot like this. I would think it could be corrected though in post production. No?

 

[yellow ant]

I like your later image 'serradacenter' on that site

 

[sashbar]

Too yellow on my office monitor