my first attempt at cityscapes

So I decided to go out tonight and capture a few shots of downtown miami. tell me what you think.


30sec, f 10, iso 100


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/14/6457.IMG_5F00_5061edit2.jpg[/img]





I liked the blurred look but thought the clouds might look better sharper so I tried a shorter exposure





3.2 sec, f2.8, iso 100


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/14/1200.IMG_5F00_5059edit.jpg[/img]





But I really dont like the water in that shot, so I tried combining the two images taking the sky from #2 and the water from #1





[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/14/7041.IMG_5F00_5059combineedit.jpg[/img]





not sure which one I like the best. Tell me what your opinion is or what I could change for next time.





thanks,


Nick

The unlevel horizon line is driving me nuts. Otherwise, I like the first one best (the motion blur looks nice).

yeah, I noticed that right away to, I just forgot to fix that before I put them on here, I will fix that asap.

Nice shots N. I agree with Sean regarding the unlevel horizon...it

Hi Nick,


Since you asked for opinions, here are a few thoughts:

• Overall, I like the pictures. You are working with some great light: the sunset behind Miami, the city lights, and the reflection in the clouds.
• I agree with others on the horizontal level.
• As the water isn't that interesting and the sky is, I would be tempted to move the buildings from mid-frame to the bottom decreasing the amount of water and increasing the amount of sky.
• I find the wider angle in #2 to bemore interestingthan the others.
• The building density is a little unbalanced. Fewer and smaller buildings to the left than too the right.
• If you were to keep the buildings mid-frame, I would work somehow to not cut the top of the clouds off or cut them in the middle of the cloud. The I find it distracting that the cut is so near the edge of the cloud. Does that make sense?

But, overall, nice photos.


Brant

ok, horizon fixed.


Brant,


I never noticed the clouds but I agree its a bit distracting. The building balance got off because I the better clouds where all on the left side, but I noticed that issue too.








I took some of what you said. used an image with a little wider angle, which helped the building balance, and lowered the buildings in the frame.





[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/850x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/14/1385.IMG_5F00_5053panorama.jpg[/img]

[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/659x361/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/14/8156.4606.IMG_5F00_5059edit.jpg_2D00_700x0.jpg[/img]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erno james

if possible, try to find a foreground element, be it a rock, a jetty, a boat, or the beach/ground you were standing on. that extra layer will help anchor then direct your viewers' eyes. and keep shooting...if you shot past this time into blue hour, please post some of the images.

---

I was looking for a good foreground subject but was unsuccessful at the location I was shooting. I think I will go again to try to find something like that. I also kept shooting until later but I started driving around looking for different views, but I wasn't really happy with any of the results.

I took the liberty of processing in Aperture 3. let me know if not okay with you....


here's how I processed this image:


-horizon level, cropped image to feature that awesome sky, applied a polarizer filter to sky, bumped up saturation and vibrancy, selectively increased blues (blue light reflection)

erno,


I like how you processed it. I haven

Hi Nick,


The buildings look a little soft to me and not that sharp. I see that in your first shot you have; f/10, 30sec, ISO 100, and in your 2nd shot you have f/2.8, 3.2sec, ISO 100. Try a compromise of all of these settings; to increase your ISO, stop down the aperture, and play around with the shutter speed.


If you leave the shutter speed at 3.2sec, then I would try to stop down to f/8 and increase your ISO to 800, or f/5.6 and ISO 400, or f/6.3 and ISO 640. Some people don't like partial ISO's but I don't seem to notice a difference.


If you lower the shutter speed to 2sec, then maybe f/8 ISO 400 would work. I'm hoping that the the higher ISO would allow you to use a smaller aperture to increase DOF and sharpness in the buildings. Make sure that your focal point, AF spot is closer to the buildings or on the buildings since it won't really matter if the dark water is OOF.


What kind of Body, Lens, focal length, and Tripod are you using?


Other things to consider for increased sharpness would be the 2 sec timer, shutter release cable, or mirror lock-up. Add weight to the tripod to increase stability. Get a hook and hang your camera bag on the hook.


Also be aware of the time of evening that you are shooting as well as reflections on the water.


I agree with the others regarding composition. When you are composing the shot, take into consideration the amount of water and clouds in the photo (rule of thirds), as well as the size and balance of the buildings. In this case since the clouds and sky are more interesting then I would include more sky and less water like Brant has suggested. The tallest building does not have to be in the center of the photo and if you see a nice balance between short, fat or strong looking buildings on the edges of the frame then that would be a good spot to cut off your composition. A zoom lens can work well for this when you can't move forward because of the water. Sometimes zooming in with less buildings can work too.


I also like Erno's suggestion of finding a foreground object to draw the viewers eye into the shot. Sometimes I find that wide angle focal lengths, can push the subject too far back int the frame and then the viewer can become detached from the subject.


Rich

Rich,


Yeah the images aren

<span style="font-size: small;"]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nvitalephotography

<span><span style="font-size: small;"]I thought I wanted to avoid high ISO due to higher noise, especially showing up since it was low light and long exposure.


<span><span style="font-size: small;"]

---

<span><span style="font-size: small;"]Hey Nick,


<span style="font-size: 8.33333px;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]That's a nice lens and it has IS too. I kind of figured you were going to say that it was windy with a lightweight tripod. <span style="font-size: small;"]It's usually windier down by the water. <span style="font-size: small;"]Try to lean on the tripod with your body weight or even better yet would be to hang weight off of it. Also, when you set up your tripod, try and notice which way the wind is blowing and see if there is a building or truck around, that will help you block some wind.


<span style="font-size: small;"]You definitely want to watch your ISO, but don't limit your options to ISO 100 only. ISO 200 and 400 are always pretty good too. Also, keep in mind that the higher ISO, will not only let you use a narrower aperture (for greater DOF and sharpness), but it will also let you use a faster shutter speed, which will decrease the impact that the wind is having. As far as the foreground object, it always looks nice, however if you can't find that then try to zoom in a little bit, to around 24mm, this will also help draw the viewer in more.


<span style="font-size: small;"]The best thing to do is try a few different settings while you're there.


<span style="font-size: small;"]All in all, it's a very good first attempt.





<span style="font-size: small;"]Rich

keep shooting and keep shooting Nick, you

I agree, less water makes for a better shot. Sometimes, you have to look at a shot and decide what doesn