December 03, 2016, 11:16:27 AM

Author Topic: San Francisco Long Exposure Cityscapes!  (Read 18692 times)

Jura

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 22
    • Travel, Conservation, Photography
Re: San Francisco Long Exposure Cityscapes!
« Reply #15 on: May 08, 2013, 10:47:57 AM »

The second shot is awesome in terms of the reflections but I feel there's something ever so slightly awkward about the crop. I cant quite put my finger on it.
I like the second one because it makes the bridge look very dainty and elegant. I think it is the contrast of light and darkness that attracts me to the picture. Do you feel about the crop because it breaks the rule of thirds? I like it because it breaks that rule. I think the other thing is that a catenary is indeed a thing of beauty and this picture highlights that.


Looking again I think it might be that there's too much sky above the bridge for my taste and that has the effect of reducing the impact of the bridge and reflection... Perhaps its the small size of the picture. It might look awesome as a 40 inch print....
5DII, Olympus XA, 16-35 f4L, 24-105L, 40, 100L, 70-300L 430EX II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: San Francisco Long Exposure Cityscapes!
« Reply #15 on: May 08, 2013, 10:47:57 AM »

distant.star

  • 1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1818
    • Tracy's Shooting Gallery
Re: San Francisco Long Exposure Cityscapes!
« Reply #16 on: May 08, 2013, 10:53:25 AM »
Anyone could have taken those photographs as there is nothing special about them.

Really constructive criticism(!)

If you want to make your photos stand out, there needs to be something special about them, be it style, composition, post, etc.

I suppose dawn/dusk/night photos that are long exposure is a phase that photographers go through.

So my advice is go take a bunch more long exposure night time photos and get it out of your system.

Perhaps true, but then civility is a phase most adult humans eventually grow into. Stay on the path, and eventually you get there.
You're offended? Oh, really! Life IS offense -- get used to it.

RAKAMRAK

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 306
Re: San Francisco Long Exposure Cityscapes!
« Reply #17 on: May 08, 2013, 10:57:10 AM »

Anyone could have taken those photographs as there is nothing special about them.

I just looked up your profile for more inspirational photos and found this one

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=5334.msg103060#msg103060

I guess difficult for anyone to take this?

Wow, that is a penguin? It took me some time to understand, modernistic rendition of a penguin. Probably taking lots of penguin photos in low light will let that get out of the system too.
Need to learn a lot more.
My Flickr Page

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: San Francisco Long Exposure Cityscapes!
« Reply #18 on: May 08, 2013, 11:02:08 AM »
I think dilbert is close to saying the right thing, but saying it in the wrong way.

These are technically accomplished, but creatively sparse, you've nailed the magic hour technique, but with such an iconic landmark you really need a new angle to stand out.  We've seen these before & we'll see them again.

I live on the west coast of Scotland and I am spoiled by some of the most beautiful coastal and mountain scenery in the world, and most of it fairly accessable.  Which means that you'll have seen most of the landmarks, in HDR with ND110's at dusk, at dawn, with snow, etc time and time again.

There's nothing worse than seeing 1000x Colin Prior or Joe Cornish clones.  Colin & Joe are masters.  I'm not at their level, and neither are the dullards in scottish camera clubs who would be as well as working a photocopier than working a camera.  I'll never attempt Black Rock for this reason.  Folk have done it before, folk have done it better, folk more creative than me, or more willing to get the ropes out will get better angles than me.

Please don't be disheartened.  They are nice images, striking colours, decent composition, capbale depth of field control, they display the ingredients you'll need to create striking brilliant images that folk will want to come back to again and again, just I don't think you've done that here. 

You could submit these to a library and they would probably sell pretty well, if thats any consolation.

I sincerely look forward to seeing what else you come up with in the future, I and hope you take my comments in the spirit intended. 

To those dilbert bashing, the place for sychophancy is flickr

MARKOE PHOTOE

  • EOS M3
  • ****
  • Posts: 230
  • Photography is a love affair with life.
    • http://www.markoe.smugmug.com
Re: San Francisco Long Exposure Cityscapes!
« Reply #19 on: May 08, 2013, 11:38:14 AM »
I personally like your style of portraits as seen on your Flickr pages.  As we both live in the SF Bay Area I know these places well and sometimes its just not that easy to get there and be there at the right moment. But still, well done. 

Like all else mentioned, ignore the penguin.

Keep posting your work.  Maybe you should go to SF Zoo and share your image of what a real penguin through your lens might look like. HA!
A few cameras (Canon, Fuji & Sony) and lenses and a lot of creative energy and imagination.
"You never learn anything until you mess it up."

rpt

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2626
Re: San Francisco Long Exposure Cityscapes!
« Reply #20 on: May 08, 2013, 12:00:56 PM »

The second shot is awesome in terms of the reflections but I feel there's something ever so slightly awkward about the crop. I cant quite put my finger on it.
I like the second one because it makes the bridge look very dainty and elegant. I think it is the contrast of light and darkness that attracts me to the picture. Do you feel about the crop because it breaks the rule of thirds? I like it because it breaks that rule. I think the other thing is that a catenary is indeed a thing of beauty and this picture highlights that.


Looking again I think it might be that there's too much sky above the bridge for my taste and that has the effect of reducing the impact of the bridge and reflection... Perhaps its the small size of the picture. It might look awesome as a 40 inch print....
Yes I think it would. Like I said it broke the rule of the thirds. May be it needed to be taken with a shallower angle to the water to get some more reflection and then cut off some of the sky... Another thought came to me - the lighting is how we would have seen it so that may add to our liking it...

sleepnever

  • Rebel T6i
  • ****
  • Posts: 139
    • Rob Watts Photography
Re: San Francisco Long Exposure Cityscapes!
« Reply #21 on: May 08, 2013, 12:07:59 PM »
Beautiful shots OP. Very nicely done.
Canon 5D3 | SIGMA 50mm f/1.4 ART  | Canon 24-70 f2.8L | Canon 100-400 II f/4.5-5.6L

canon rumors FORUM

Re: San Francisco Long Exposure Cityscapes!
« Reply #21 on: May 08, 2013, 12:07:59 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 19980
Re: San Francisco Long Exposure Cityscapes!
« Reply #22 on: May 08, 2013, 01:39:25 PM »
I wondered how this thread ran up a high post count so fast - I was hoping for lots of images, instead it's just dilbert being a rude ass and the fallout from that.  How disappointing.  Dilbert, are you sure you know a good picture from a bad one?  It's a bit more subjective than knowing the difference between a camera and a lens, and since you have trouble comprehending the latter, I question your ability to judge the former.

But back to the topic at hand (sort of, not a full cityscape but at least a long exposure in SF)...


EOS 1D X, TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II, 13 s, f/8, ISO 100
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

distant.star

  • 1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1818
    • Tracy's Shooting Gallery
Re: San Francisco Long Exposure Cityscapes!
« Reply #23 on: May 08, 2013, 02:17:04 PM »
I wondered how this thread ran up a high post count so fast - I was hoping for lots of images, instead it's just dilbert being a rude ass and the fallout from that.  How disappointing.  Dilbert, are you sure you know a good picture from a bad one?  It's a bit more subjective than knowing the difference between a camera and a lens, and since you have trouble comprehending the latter, I question your ability to judge the former.

But back to the topic at hand (sort of, not a full cityscape but at least a long exposure in SF)...

Well, you've succeeded in demonstrating what a good picture looks like. That's a great shot!!
You're offended? Oh, really! Life IS offense -- get used to it.

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: San Francisco Long Exposure Cityscapes!
« Reply #24 on: May 08, 2013, 03:35:39 PM »
I would have taken it in the magic hour as the sky is just dead, and the light still looks a bit sodium to me - it's the predominant source, I know it's tricky to balance, but thats where PS adjustment layers and composite modes can help out.  Even the 'replace colour' tool would have helped to cool down the other lights for a correctly balanced main structure. I also think the impact of the structure, the vertical repitition of the corinthian pillars is compromised by the bushes at the edge of shot.  The reflections bother me too, that they are off at an angle, maybe a lower camera position with more shift, to me the amount of foreground suggest the camera was pretty much level with no shift dialled in, it's almost a wasted opportunity as half the frame is doing nothing, there's no interesting detail, no lead in.  Compositionally the 'horizon' is pretty much dead centre.  This is exactly the kind of shot where time of day and correct application of the kit can make an exceptional image, and that simply hasn't been achieved.

serendipidy

  • 1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1607
Re: San Francisco Long Exposure Cityscapes!
« Reply #25 on: May 08, 2013, 04:44:31 PM »
Hey Paul....some good points, but the OP stated long exposure.

Neuro, I like your photo. I have taken some photos of it when I vacationed in SF. It's not always easy to get it right but I think you did a nice job.

from Wikipedia:Palace of Fine Arts

The Palace of Fine Arts in the Marina District of San Francisco, California, is a monumental structure originally constructed for the 1915 Panama-Pacific Exposition in order to exhibit works of art presented there. One of only a few surviving structures from the Exposition, it is the only one still situated on its original site. It was rebuilt in 1965, and renovation of the lagoon, walkways, and a seismic retrofit were completed in early 2009.

It remains a popular attraction for tourists and locals, and is a favorite location for weddings and wedding party photographs for couples throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, and such an icon that a miniature replica of it was built in Disney's California Adventure in Anaheim.[
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 03:27:27 PM by serendipidy »
EOS 5D miii, EOS 7D, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS ii, 100-400mmL IS

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 19980
Re: San Francisco Long Exposure Cityscapes!
« Reply #26 on: May 08, 2013, 05:58:26 PM »
I would have taken it in the magic hour as the sky is just dead, and the light still looks a bit sodium to me - it's the predominant source, I know it's tricky to balance, but thats where PS adjustment layers and composite modes can help out.  Even the 'replace colour' tool would have helped to cool down the other lights for a correctly balanced main structure. I also think the impact of the structure, the vertical repitition of the corinthian pillars is compromised by the bushes at the edge of shot.  The reflections bother me too, that they are off at an angle, maybe a lower camera position with more shift, to me the amount of foreground suggest the camera was pretty much level with no shift dialled in, it's almost a wasted opportunity as half the frame is doing nothing, there's no interesting detail, no lead in.  Compositionally the 'horizon' is pretty much dead centre.  This is exactly the kind of shot where time of day and correct application of the kit can make an exceptional image, and that simply hasn't been achieved.

Thanks for the comments, Paul.  The camera was actually pretty low (tripod without legs extended, so less than 1 m off the ground.  IIRC, it was at about +8 shift.  The 'bushes' at the edge of the shot are trees across the lagoon growing directly in front of the columns (except for the branches of the bare tree that are above the columns) and in the case of one tree, the branches extend into the structure.  Airport security wouldn't let me bring my chainsaw on the plane.  ;)  As for 'magic hour', I agree, but unfortunately the constraints of a day job precluded that (I was at meetings several miles south of SF until after sunset).
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

RGF

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2280
  • How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Re: San Francisco Long Exposure Cityscapes!
« Reply #27 on: May 08, 2013, 06:21:04 PM »
Great stuff

canon rumors FORUM

Re: San Francisco Long Exposure Cityscapes!
« Reply #27 on: May 08, 2013, 06:21:04 PM »

PhotographAdventure

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 64
  • Snapshot Quality
    • Harrisburg Wedding Photographer
Re: San Francisco Long Exposure Cityscapes!
« Reply #28 on: May 08, 2013, 08:22:00 PM »
Anyone could have taken those photographs as there is nothing special about them.

I like them a lot.  I need higher resolution to absorb the awesomeness.

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5276
Re: San Francisco Long Exposure Cityscapes!
« Reply #29 on: May 08, 2013, 09:59:27 PM »
Nice photos Mr. Nguyen  ;)
ML: A7R II & A7s -- FE35f1.4 -- FE35f2.8 -- FE55 -- FE85GM -- FE2470GM -- FE70200GM
DSLR: 1Dx + 200L f2 IS  -- sadly replaced this combo with a7s + 70200GM

canon rumors FORUM

Re: San Francisco Long Exposure Cityscapes!
« Reply #29 on: May 08, 2013, 09:59:27 PM »