San Francisco Long Exposure Cityscapes!

[rpt]

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]

Beautiful shots OP. Very nicely done.

 

[Loswr]

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

 

[distant.star]

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!!

 

[paul13walnut5]

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]

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.[

 

[Loswr]

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).

 

[RGF]

Great stuff

 

[PhotographAdventure]

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]

Nice photos Mr. Nguyen

 

[eml58]

Here are some of my landscapes or cityscapes of San Francisco shot on a 5DIII and a 24-70mm f/2.8L. Hope you enjoy! Thanks!

EDIT: Thank you for the criticisms! Highly appreciated.


San Francisco Glow by BTNPhoto, on Flickr


San Francisco Bay Bridge by BTNPhoto, on Flickr


San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge by BTNPhoto, on Flickr

Hi BTN, I notice this is only your 4th or 5th Post, so not only were you brave to Post Images, but even braver to ask this Forum for Criticism, and as you have found out, the majority of people that involve themselves in the Forum, are dedicated Photographers of varying levels and only too willing to offer advise in any amount of ways to help other Photographers in a Positive way.

Some, like Neuro are not only accomplished Photographers, but exceptionally technical, Chaps like Gary Samples, rpt, Bdunbar79, serendipity etc etc, are a little of both, privatebydesign knows a huge amount about about Flash Photography, I've learnt heaps from these Guys on this forum, but.

You also have the Michele's and Dilberts, it's an open forum so you cant keep them out, if nothing else they do have humour value, albeit you need to develop a thick skin and learn to ignore the negativity of the down and outs of the world, they are generally born this way, so we need some compassion, and an occasional very large stick doesn't hurt, well I guess it does actually.

Onto the Photos, I love this City, one of my favourites after Florence, you've done an excellent job of exhibiting the City in your Photos, and like all Photographers, you have room to move your skill levels upward, I hope being involved with this Forum allows that to happen. I think well done & welcome to CR.

 

[Dylan777]

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

-1....I can see your talent through photo below :-\ ;D

 

[eml58]

Oh, I did mean to mention.

Dilbert, from memory this is what Penguins look like, for future reference.

 

[Dylan777]

Oh, I did mean to mention.

Dilbert, from memory this is what Penguins look like, for future reference.

Thanks eml58 ...YEAP "this is what Penguins look like, for future reference"

 

[yogi]

Remarkable photo Neuro! And love yours also btnphotography. Ignore the naysayers btn :

 

[eml58]

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.

How did you manage to use a TS lens with that and still come out with your parallels incorrect?

The left side of the image is ok (technically) but the rotunda is just all wrong. The right side is higher than the left? The dome on the top looks like it is mounted on a slope?

No, I'm not sure that I know a good picture from a bad one, but I do know an unremarkable one from a remarkable one. Most night time photos fall in the unremarkable category as far as I'm concerned.

Your a very Funny Guy Dilbert, you've managed to insult everyone in this thread that's posted an Image, with the exception of your own image, very credible.

And it would appear you know about as much on the subject of "Fairy Penguins" as you do on Photography.

I originally come from Australia, I also Scuba Dive & do Underwater Photography, in the Southern waters of Australia, Fairy Penguins can be seen all day every day in their hundreds, if your close to Rocks & small Islands they're a PIA as they tend to surround you, all during the Day, you may be right about where they live "Under rocks", I wouldn't know about that as I don't live in that sort of neighbourhood.

 

[serendipidy]

It's not a long exposure but here is one of the POFA taken Oct 2009 shortly after I got my first DSLR (Rebel XSi). I was such a noob that I only ever shot in program mode and jpeg. Kit lens EF-S 18-55mm @21mm, F4, 1/50sec, ISO 200, handheld and pp in image browser. I hope I have improved a bit since then and would like to try another shot with my 7D next time I'm in SF.

 

[paul13walnut5]

If you post stuff for a critique, then don't be dissapointed if you get one. Not everybody is going to absolutely love your stuff (unless you use flickr the home of facile sycophancy). Sometimes you are wrong. Sometimes they are wrong.

If you are doing it for a hobby (like me) then it doesn't really matter, keep doing it your way and keep enjoying it.
If you are doing it for a living, then unfortunately the client is always right, or you aren't getting paid.

 

[CanadianInvestor]

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)...

Phenomenal!

 

[Quasimodo]

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.

+ 100