October 24, 2014, 07:26:36 AM

Author Topic: Big Sur and San Fran 5D3 Long Exposure  (Read 9305 times)

Cgdillan

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 288
  • HDSLR Cinematographer/Photograper
    • View Profile
    • Stockham Media
Re: Big Sur and San Fran 5D3 Long Exposure
« Reply #15 on: February 16, 2013, 05:45:13 PM »
The GGB looks great with the reflection on the water. To cool the color temperature a bit down gives the edge. But that is up to one's personal preferencies...Keep them coming. Are you on flickr?

Thank you! I'm not on flickr. Should I be?
2x 5D mkiii, 7D, 60D, T2i, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Bower 14mm f/2.8, Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, 24mm L f/1.4 ii, Sigma 35mm ART f/1.4, 24-105mm L f/4.0 IS, 50mm f/1.8 ii, 85mm L f/1.2 ii, 100mm L Macro f/2.8 IS, 135mm L f2.0 75-300mm f/4-5.6, 70-200mm L f/2.8, Sigma 70-200mm OS f/2.8. StockhamMedia.com

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Big Sur and San Fran 5D3 Long Exposure
« Reply #15 on: February 16, 2013, 05:45:13 PM »

Cgdillan

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 288
  • HDSLR Cinematographer/Photograper
    • View Profile
    • Stockham Media
Re: Big Sur and San Fran 5D3 Long Exposure
« Reply #16 on: February 16, 2013, 05:46:40 PM »
Awesome shots.  Lucky you had the opportunity to get out there.  I had a look at the whole gallery on your site.

Some C&C:

  • Remove the obviously blurry ones (due to camera shake) from your web gallery, they detract from the rest.
  • Towards the end you've got visible sensor dust in the sky towards the right side of the frame in a series of shots.  This tends to show up the worst in narrow aperture shots, which was pretty much the order of the day for your long exposures.  It's easy to correct in post but you need to give that thing a wipe with an Arctic Butterfly or something.
  • There are some really great long exposures in there, but a few of them don't seem to have a long enough exposure.  They're merely a bit blurry in the areas of motion & lack that nice silky fog of reality that comes with a dark ND filter & a good solid tripod.

But don't let my comments detract from the good ones, there are some really sweet shots in there.  Good luck & keep shooting :-).

Thank you very much. I am actually going through a huge website overhaul right now. I make my money with wedding video so the only ND I have is a variable 2-8 stop ND. I would love to get a nice one, i'm just short on mula right now.
2x 5D mkiii, 7D, 60D, T2i, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Bower 14mm f/2.8, Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, 24mm L f/1.4 ii, Sigma 35mm ART f/1.4, 24-105mm L f/4.0 IS, 50mm f/1.8 ii, 85mm L f/1.2 ii, 100mm L Macro f/2.8 IS, 135mm L f2.0 75-300mm f/4-5.6, 70-200mm L f/2.8, Sigma 70-200mm OS f/2.8. StockhamMedia.com

Jesse

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 215
    • View Profile
    • Flickr
Re: Big Sur and San Fran 5D3 Long Exposure
« Reply #17 on: February 16, 2013, 06:33:03 PM »
No Bixby Bridge?


692A9977 by Jesse Herzog, on Flickr

Pfeiffer Beach?


692A0136 by Jesse Herzog, on Flickr
5D3, 8-15 f/4 L, 24-70 f/2.8 II L, 50 f/1.4, 70-200 f/4 IS L, 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2.8 L, 135 f/2 L 600EX-RT x2, CS6, LR5

Cgdillan

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 288
  • HDSLR Cinematographer/Photograper
    • View Profile
    • Stockham Media
Re: Big Sur and San Fran 5D3 Long Exposure
« Reply #18 on: February 16, 2013, 09:42:30 PM »
No Bixby Bridge?


692A9977 by Jesse Herzog, on Flickr

Pfeiffer Beach?


692A0136 by Jesse Herzog, on Flickr

Nice Shots! We didn't know any of the main attractions at all. We had only decided to do the road trip the night before and had never been to big sur. I wanted to stop at Pfeiffer Beach but we were running out of time =-( We will definitely be going back though! Thanks for sharing =-)

The second photo is just a tad too glow-ee around the edges for my taste but it is a nice shot.
2x 5D mkiii, 7D, 60D, T2i, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Bower 14mm f/2.8, Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, 24mm L f/1.4 ii, Sigma 35mm ART f/1.4, 24-105mm L f/4.0 IS, 50mm f/1.8 ii, 85mm L f/1.2 ii, 100mm L Macro f/2.8 IS, 135mm L f2.0 75-300mm f/4-5.6, 70-200mm L f/2.8, Sigma 70-200mm OS f/2.8. StockhamMedia.com

corey.kaye

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: Big Sur and San Fran 5D3 Long Exposure
« Reply #19 on: February 16, 2013, 11:08:59 PM »
It should be evident, that my edit is the superior picture.  If nothing else,....

WOW! 
1st - We're in a Gallery -> Sample Images forum.  At no point did anyone ask for your $0.02.
2nd - One does not simply come in, tear apart another's copyrighted image w/o asking, re-post a badly photoshopped low rez version and stand on a box proclaiming to the entire forum ones clear superiority in every way.  How embarrassing this must be for you, had you been born with any shame.

At lease that's how we roll where I'm from. 
Maybe I'm just too Canadian.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2013, 11:19:21 PM by corey.kaye »

Cgdillan

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 288
  • HDSLR Cinematographer/Photograper
    • View Profile
    • Stockham Media
Re: Big Sur and San Fran 5D3 Long Exposure
« Reply #20 on: February 17, 2013, 04:01:30 AM »
It should be evident, that my edit is the superior picture.  If nothing else,....

WOW! 
1st - We're in a Gallery -> Sample Images forum.  At no point did anyone ask for your $0.02.
2nd - One does not simply come in, tear apart another's copyrighted image w/o asking, re-post a badly photoshopped low rez version and stand on a box proclaiming to the entire forum ones clear superiority in every way.  How embarrassing this must be for you, had you been born with any shame.

At lease that's how we roll where I'm from. 
Maybe I'm just too Canadian.

I'm Canadian too!! well... only half canuk.. but it still counts!
2x 5D mkiii, 7D, 60D, T2i, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Bower 14mm f/2.8, Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, 24mm L f/1.4 ii, Sigma 35mm ART f/1.4, 24-105mm L f/4.0 IS, 50mm f/1.8 ii, 85mm L f/1.2 ii, 100mm L Macro f/2.8 IS, 135mm L f2.0 75-300mm f/4-5.6, 70-200mm L f/2.8, Sigma 70-200mm OS f/2.8. StockhamMedia.com

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Big Sur and San Fran 5D3 Long Exposure
« Reply #21 on: February 18, 2013, 11:49:39 PM »
It should be evident, that my edit is the superior picture.  If nothing else,....

WOW! 
1st - We're in a Gallery -> Sample Images forum.  At no point did anyone ask for your $0.02.
2nd - One does not simply come in, tear apart another's copyrighted image w/o asking, re-post a badly photoshopped low rez version and stand on a box proclaiming to the entire forum ones clear superiority in every way.  How embarrassing this must be for you, had you been born with any shame.

At lease that's how we roll where I'm from. 
Maybe I'm just too Canadian.

The OP thanked me for my criticism.  I certainly expect harsh criticism whenever I post anything (although I haven't received any yet, that I know of.) 

The whole point of posting images in a gallery here, is for people to look, to comment, to enjoy.  Corey, I think you might be in need of a chill pill the size of the meteor over Russia...But at least a couple users thought my edit was better.  I do apologize if I offended anyone for altering the image!  And I apologize for not getting permission first.  However, he did post it here in a public forum...the original posted image itself is not a full resolution image...and thus could never be printed even postcard size at high quality.  I made no effort to remove the copyright tag, nor would I.  If it had been a full resolution image...I would not have even attempted to copy and edit it. 

I simply like the bridge and the picture, and wanted to show what I remember the color looking like, when I visited what must be almost the exact same location...also at night, back in 2005. 

Cgdillan, I didn't mean to imply you were getting paid to do this shot, but I see where you would like to sell prints of it.  I hope you do. 

It's also nice to see that you are admitting you like a warmer color balance.  That's fine, I even said it certainly is open to interpretation.  I just didn't like what the color did to the bridge itself.  It's an American Icon!  If it were just the city or something else that wasn't painted orange, where the amber city lights would give a nice urban feel or something, then I wouldn't have thought as much about it. 

Also, what I posted was not a reduced resolution picture...it is only barely smaller than his original post, due to the barrel correction edit that I did...unless of course someone else altered what I reposted and made that image smaller.

And the exif didn't show whether it was the f/2.8 or the new f/4 lens...or rather which f/2.8 it is (old or new).  If that's the old f/2.8, then that appears to be quite a bit sharper than the one my cousin uses on his 5D3.  I can only guess, but the corner sharpness is quite decent, and middle 2/3 is very sharp.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Big Sur and San Fran 5D3 Long Exposure
« Reply #21 on: February 18, 2013, 11:49:39 PM »

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3093
    • View Profile
Re: Big Sur and San Fran 5D3 Long Exposure
« Reply #22 on: February 19, 2013, 01:28:19 AM »
Only the Pfeiffer Beach looks interesting here.

Cgdillan

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 288
  • HDSLR Cinematographer/Photograper
    • View Profile
    • Stockham Media
Re: Big Sur and San Fran 5D3 Long Exposure
« Reply #23 on: February 19, 2013, 01:33:59 AM »
It should be evident, that my edit is the superior picture.  If nothing else,....

WOW! 
1st - We're in a Gallery -> Sample Images forum.  At no point did anyone ask for your $0.02.
2nd - One does not simply come in, tear apart another's copyrighted image w/o asking, re-post a badly photoshopped low rez version and stand on a box proclaiming to the entire forum ones clear superiority in every way.  How embarrassing this must be for you, had you been born with any shame.

At lease that's how we roll where I'm from. 
Maybe I'm just too Canadian.

The OP thanked me for my criticism.  I certainly expect harsh criticism whenever I post anything (although I haven't received any yet, that I know of.) 

The whole point of posting images in a gallery here, is for people to look, to comment, to enjoy.  Corey, I think you might be in need of a chill pill the size of the meteor over Russia...But at least a couple users thought my edit was better.  I do apologize if I offended anyone for altering the image!  And I apologize for not getting permission first.  However, he did post it here in a public forum...the original posted image itself is not a full resolution image...and thus could never be printed even postcard size at high quality.  I made no effort to remove the copyright tag, nor would I.  If it had been a full resolution image...I would not have even attempted to copy and edit it. 

I simply like the bridge and the picture, and wanted to show what I remember the color looking like, when I visited what must be almost the exact same location...also at night, back in 2005. 

Cgdillan, I didn't mean to imply you were getting paid to do this shot, but I see where you would like to sell prints of it.  I hope you do. 

It's also nice to see that you are admitting you like a warmer color balance.  That's fine, I even said it certainly is open to interpretation.  I just didn't like what the color did to the bridge itself.  It's an American Icon!  If it were just the city or something else that wasn't painted orange, where the amber city lights would give a nice urban feel or something, then I wouldn't have thought as much about it. 

Also, what I posted was not a reduced resolution picture...it is only barely smaller than his original post, due to the barrel correction edit that I did...unless of course someone else altered what I reposted and made that image smaller.

And the exif didn't show whether it was the f/2.8 or the new f/4 lens...or rather which f/2.8 it is (old or new).  If that's the old f/2.8, then that appears to be quite a bit sharper than the one my cousin uses on his 5D3.  I can only guess, but the corner sharpness is quite decent, and middle 2/3 is very sharp.

I think some of the comments about having the superior edit is offensive to some people. And the lens is the 24-70mm f/2.8 version 1 at 24mm and f/7.1
2x 5D mkiii, 7D, 60D, T2i, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Bower 14mm f/2.8, Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, 24mm L f/1.4 ii, Sigma 35mm ART f/1.4, 24-105mm L f/4.0 IS, 50mm f/1.8 ii, 85mm L f/1.2 ii, 100mm L Macro f/2.8 IS, 135mm L f2.0 75-300mm f/4-5.6, 70-200mm L f/2.8, Sigma 70-200mm OS f/2.8. StockhamMedia.com

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Big Sur and San Fran 5D3 Long Exposure
« Reply #24 on: February 19, 2013, 02:33:47 AM »
There was only the one comment by me about having the superior edit.  It was my opinion that it was.  I'm biased though, I had just gone to the trouble to do it.  I really don't find it all that offensive.  Rude certainly.  I think I've apologized enough, but ok...since you own the rights to the picture, and it is your picture...I am certainly sorry again that I edited it.  It was presumptive.

That is quite impressive for the version 1, I do commend the sharpness!  I wish they made wide zoom lenses for crop cameras that could go remotely that sharp at the wide end, toward the borders.  I have to close mine down a ways past f/7.1 to get anything detailed, that's for sure.

There's a print advertisement for Gigapan, in the latest Outdoor Photographer, that uses a very similar shot of the Golden Gate to yours, but it's either a longer exposure night shot, or else a low light twilight shot (the water and sky are a bit more lit up)...but their color temperature is similar to my take on it.  I searched but couldn't find it online, I suppose it's out there somewhere (they did a graphic of it where one end is coming apart, to show it was stitched, etc.).

I don't necessarily think the bridge calls for a gigapan shot, I think good pictures can be done with one shot...but I like panoramic shots too.

So here is another gigapan night shot of it (I found this while searching for the other), which is a bit too underexposed.  The street lights and city lights look plenty amber to me in this shot, but the bridge looks like the correct color...which is what I tried to hint at when I edited yours:

http://onemansblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Golden-Gate-at-Night.jpg

« Last Edit: February 19, 2013, 02:36:32 AM by CarlTN »

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Big Sur and San Fran 5D3 Long Exposure
« Reply #25 on: February 19, 2013, 02:41:58 AM »
Jesse, I like the way your sepia tone works with the aqua color of the water, and I also like the fog element.  Your bottom image is very bold with its blacks.  I wouldn't have gone quite so black, but it does depend on what your monitor is set to, or how much light is on the print, if you printed it.  If there is decent light, then I'd say it works well.

Again, I am envious of you west coast people.  I love where I live too, but I think there's only so much here to photograph.  I'm trying, though. 

funkboy

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 422
  • 6D & a bunch of crazy primes
    • View Profile
Re: Big Sur and San Fran 5D3 Long Exposure
« Reply #26 on: February 19, 2013, 08:07:17 AM »
Again, I am envious of you west coast people.  I love where I live too, but I think there's only so much here to photograph.  I'm trying, though.

Ever been to the Pea Island wildlife refuge on the NC Outer Banks about an hour before sunset?  Even if you're not a fan of bird photography, the Outer Banks are one of the few places on the east coast where you can see the sun set over water.  Drive across the endless swamp & take the Cedar Island ferry to Ocracoke sometime.  If you're lucky you'll see a bear or maybe even a red wolf on the way.  Hit Beaufort, Harker's Island, & Cape Lookout while you're at it.

& of course the Smoky Mountains are closer to your neck of the woods...

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Big Sur and San Fran 5D3 Long Exposure
« Reply #27 on: February 19, 2013, 04:37:02 PM »
I am a fan of bird photography, and I've been to the outer banks only as an infant.  I need to return.  I appreciate your suggestion, mr. funkboy!  I visit the Smokey Mtn's twice a year or more.  Love them. 

I just really think the area around the southeast, doesn't lend itself to wide angle landscape, as well as the parks of the west, such as the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, much of the west coast, etc.

We certainly have a unique river canyon here in southeast TN, which I have shot many times.  It still doesn't look as striking as the Rocky Mtns.

The issue is, that's the type of landscape most people seem to like...wide angle.  I actually prefer to do narrower field landscape work.  Most of my shooting is what I would call "tree portraiture", besides wildlife.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Big Sur and San Fran 5D3 Long Exposure
« Reply #27 on: February 19, 2013, 04:37:02 PM »

funkboy

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 422
  • 6D & a bunch of crazy primes
    • View Profile
Re: Big Sur and San Fran 5D3 Long Exposure
« Reply #28 on: February 19, 2013, 09:59:17 PM »
I just really think the area around the southeast, doesn't lend itself to wide angle landscape, as well as the parks of the west, such as the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, much of the west coast, etc.  We certainly have a unique river canyon here in southeast TN, which I have shot many times.  It still doesn't look as striking as the Rocky Mtns.

I'll agree with you there.  Only been out west a couple of times but the landscape certainly does just seem "bigger".  But the seafood in North Carolina makes up for it <grin>.

BTW a friend of mine at Google just finished a big project to get all the data from the backpack-mounted street view cams they walked through several hiking trails in the Grand Canyon processed & up on to the public Maps servers.  It's about as close as you can get to being there & there are some pretty spectacular panorams in it.

If you're ever further north up in Appalachia check out Seneca Rocks in eastern WVA.  It's not exactly Devil's Tower but the rock formations are still really cool & unique, and it's about as extreme as cliffs get on the east coast :-).

Clingmans Dome is pretty close to you.  I probably went up there once as a little kid & a lot of people talk about it.  Definitely one to check out if you haven't done it already (though I imagine you have).  Some fond memories from that era visiting a Cherokee reservation in the Smokeys as well.  I imagine if I went back now it might be kinda depressing, but as a 5-year-old it was really cool...
« Last Edit: February 19, 2013, 10:53:59 PM by funkboy »

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Big Sur and San Fran 5D3 Long Exposure
« Reply #29 on: February 21, 2013, 04:05:33 AM »
funkboy, yes that is very cool.  I'm glad to chat with someone from the southeast, on here!

I saw that about google's pan shots in the Grand Canyon, on several of the network news broadcasts a couple of months ago.  Fantastic stuff!  Very cool that your friend did that!!

Seneca Rocks is a fabulous suggestion, thank you very much!  I will certainly try to visit there.  We actually need to visit my great aunt, who moved to WVA last year, from Atlanta.

I visited Clingmon's Dome a few times as a teenager, I need to go again.  I shot some early morning fog there back then, with a Pentax K-1000 film camera.  This was back before Columbus sailed the ocean blue, 1983...haha!  Last fall we travelled on part of the Blue Ridge parkway, from Franklin, NC, to Gatlinburg.  And in 2011, we had gone toward Franklin, and saw snow on fall foliage.  I managed a few shots with a rented 200 f/2, and also my Sigma DP2 compact camera.  I will post some shots here in the next day or so.  Snow on fall foliage is about as beautiful as it gets around here, in my opinion.  It's too rare though, really the first time I had ever seen it in person.  But I've gotten to where I like most of the seasons.

I do love the southeast, it will always be home, and it is beautiful.  But I definitely feel the need to see all the parks of the west...besides the rest of the world.  I just need to find the funds, and stop buying lenses!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Big Sur and San Fran 5D3 Long Exposure
« Reply #29 on: February 21, 2013, 04:05:33 AM »