DSLRUsers.com

Took a drive out with my mate tonight, parked ourselves somewhere near pyrmont, looking back at the bridge. Had a play with some long exposures, which is always fun. Me with my new D70s, him with his D100. These were taken with a combination of the kit 18-70, and the 50/.18

#1 - 50/1.8, 15s
#2 - 18-70@40, 8s
#3 - 18-70@18, 7s - My long-suffering fiancée, caught in the flash several times.
#4 - 50/1.8, 6s - It was a REALLY windy night. I thought the blurry effect on the tree branches was interesting.

Any thoughts? I didn't really have much of a strategy except setting the aperture at about f/8, then overexposing the shot by about a step and a half at 200 ISO. Tripod mounted of course.

<img src="http://www.thesystemisdown.com/gallery/albums/userpics/new_camera/night-1.jpg">
<img src="http://www.thesystemisdown.com/gallery/albums/userpics/new_camera/night-2.jpg">
<img src="http://www.thesystemisdown.com/gallery/albums/userpics/new_camera/night-3.jpg">
<img src="http://www.thesystemisdown.com/gallery/albums/userpics/new_camera/night-4.jpg">

The first image has a fair bit of posterisation (due to PP or is it just JPEG compression artifacts?). Anway, when squinting to make this go away, it is clearly the best exposed shot.

Also, the kit lens shows some heavy ghosting. You better keep that in mind when planning future shots with strong highlights in the frame. Mind you, it can happen with primes too, but the 50/1.8 seems to be immune to that. I wonder why the camera decided to expose the zoom shots about a stop lower than the prime?

The strobed portrait effect isn't bad and would work a lot better in front of a less imposing background.

Cheers
Steffen.

#2 - that has GOT to be the result of a cheap UV filter right?! All those reflections.... ugh.

You gotta either use less JPG compression or switch photo hosts IMO, these files are too heavily compressed and don't show off your work as much as you'd probably like.

losfp
- Take only RAW (NEF) uncompressed in these situation, so PP is more easier and creatively later.
- Remove UV filter if you're shooting at night (Reflection, flare etc...).

Go back and do it again tonight this Lesson 1.

Des,

Listen to the advice of the others - it is on the money.

Frankly, my favourite is the palm tree. It has real potential and is well worthy of further investigation. It is easy to get rid of the extraneous 'other' tree encroaching top right but it is easier to identiufy it and get roid of it at the time of capture.

By the way — I absolutely LOVE Darth Tater!!

Cheers,

Birddog114 wrote:losfp
- Take only RAW (NEF) uncompressed in these situation, so PP is more easier and creatively later.
- Remove UV filter if you're shooting at night (Reflection, flare etc...).

Go back and do it again tonight this Lesson 1.

I agree with Birdy, this is your first night with your new toy, attend each night until Feb '06 and you should know your camera's and your ability inside out

Good to see you post and ask for advice, it is the best way to learn and become proficient

Thanks for the feedback guys, really appreciate it.

Steffen wrote:The first image has a fair bit of posterisation (due to PP or is it just JPEG compression artifacts?). Anway, when squinting to make this go away, it is clearly the best exposed shot.

Yeah, that's really my fault. I'm used to heavily compressing JPEGs to keep them small and easier to download, but I think I will lighten up on the compression for JPEGs I'm going to post for critique. My "normal" amount of compression that I use doesn't really do them justice.

Steffen wrote: I wonder why the camera decided to expose the zoom shots about a stop lower than the prime?

Well, that was me again All shots were in manual mode, and it took a bit of playing around to get the right sort of exposure, and by then, I'd already taken a lot of shots which I didn't think to re-do.

Onyx wrote:#2 - that has GOT to be the result of a cheap UV filter right?! All those reflections.... ugh.

You're right - the UV filters were on both lenses - next time I will try without. The wind was blowing an absolute gale and it will very lightly spitting rain, so I was trying to rush through all my shots and didn't think of some of these things! But now that it's been brought to my attention, I'll definitely keep it in mind.

Birddog114 wrote:- Remove UV filter if you're shooting at night

Or even:
- Remove UV filter. Period.

Cheers
Steffen.

Steffen wrote:

Birddog114 wrote:- Remove UV filter if you're shooting at night

Or even:
- Remove UV filter. Period.

Cheers
Steffen.

Steffen, I know you said this with a , but just in case you were serious:
UV filters are cheap, front elements of lenses are expensive.
Cheers, John

johnd wrote:UV filters are cheap, front elements of lenses are expensive.

Although I agree that filters are certainly less expensive than front element replacements, I wouldn't say *good* filters are cheap.

However, not using a UV filter at all times will not make the front element fall out. I haven't used SLR's for a lifetime yet (just about 15 years or so), but I have yet to destroy or even scratch a front element. On the other hand I've seen plenty of images destroyed by filters.

I only use filters when I want their filter effect. I do use sturdy lens hoods on all of my lenses all the time, though. I reckon they provide better protection against accidents than filters. They also fight glare on two fronts, first, no extra glass surfaces, second, less stray light. If a lens hood is not an option or not sturdy (like on the 300/f4 with its retractable hood) I use a filter.

I've come to realise that this is a hottly debated issue, with firmly entrenched supporters on either side. I will gladly agree to disagree.

Cheers
Steffen.