DSLRUsers.com

After a lot of helpful feedback on my earlier attempts to shoot the wollongong harbour, I took the opportunity yesterday to shoot it closer to that magical blue hour. I'm looking through the shots now, but thought I'd share this one in the mean time. Unfortunately having to resize it to fit under 1000 pixels doesn't do it justice but here it is.

My first mistake was leaving the UV filter on the lens, but apart from them I am pretty happy with the overal image. Please comment, criticise or make a suggestion

Alpha, eventhough its a decent effort, I reckon u missed the "magic hour". The image looks a tad dark and dull on my monitor. Maybe its the UV filter... Composition wise I reckon its spot on.

G'day Craig,
Yep smidge dark for me too, but the exposure itself seems spot-on, nary a hot highlight etc. Any more depth to teh bottom available in the orig, just wondering how it'd look with a smidge more depth (as in vertical size) below the harbour and maybe show some more rocks etc? Just a thought...

Really nicely done though mate

Hi Craig!

This is a great shot! There's no need to worry about the UV filter. If you have CS2, reduce the shadows with the shadow/highlight tool, add some contrast, and then use the smart sharpen tool. You'll be amazed with how your photo looks after doing that.

Doug

Craig. Yes it's dark, but good nevertheless. I'm a bit puzzled though. A UV filter will NOT make the image darker since all it does is block ultra violet radiation. Their purpose historically was to keep UV away from film which it could affect, but it does nothing with standard digital sensors. These days their purpose is as a transparent cover to protect the lens. Did you perhaps mean you left a circular polariser on? This would cause light fallof.

tis a bit dark but meh...you can always fix it in PS

ozczecho : You are very close to right, I tried to shoot two different locations at fit both into the magic hour, the second one included a 10 minute brisk walk to get to the harbour. But I did have more light then last time which was shot maybe 2-3hrs later then this series of shots.

mudder : G'day, This shot is actually (I think) 6 shot stitched together and the current crop is the biggest I could get to remove any jagged edges after pano-factory had finished it's work. I had intented to shot this with the camera in portrait position but with the failing light and the camera a foot of the ground I had trouble enough shooting it.

Potatis : Sadly I am still very unfamilar with CS2, but I do have it, I just haven't sat down and taken the time to work things out. However thanks for the suggestions Doug, I'll note them down and if I get a moment tomorrow will give it a go and repost the final product. I should do this post stiching right ?

stubbsy : I was not refering to the UV filter making the image darker, however I wasn't clear when I mentioned it either. What I was referring to (and thankfully at this image size they are hard to pick up) but the little green artifacts, kind of like baby flares or spots are apparently cause by using the UV filter. On the full size shot they stick out like sore thumbs, really not pretty. So far I only have the UV filters, so no it wasn't a polariser etc..

Blackwater : Thanks Blackwater as I said to Doug, tomorrow I'll give it a shot see if I can shed a little more light on the subject.

Thanks all.

It's dark but not THAT dark. Not sure whether you missed the magic hour as it just looks like the shutter wasn't open for long enough. Maybe try again and open the shutter a bit longer. Also if you want the lights to look like multi-pointed stars, set a higher f stop (which means you can open the shutter for longer)

Haven't had a chance to play in photoshop so I just adjusted the exposure a little in Rawshooter and restitched the finished product, this time I added another shot to the right.. not sure I like the extra length, but thought I'd put it in to get others opinion.

So does this treatment work better ?

Much better, Craig. Now use Smart Sharpen in Photoshop (with radius on .1 and make sure it is set to reduce "lens blur") and sharpen to taste. This kind of sharpening tends to give more clarity to the lights too.

I'd really like to learn about this photo stitching. It's looks great!

Glad you like it Doug, the software is pretty easy I used PanoFactory in this case (if you use the wizard it does all the hard work for you). I'd gladly help you out with any questions though, and thanks for the PS advice.

I used CS2 this time for the sharpen, resize and tried the Save for Web stuff.

Which order did you do it, Craig? Resize AFTER sharpen? It still looks a bit soft. With this image you've posted, use smart sharpen set to about 180 or 200, with a radius of .1 . It'll look even better. Then go to "brightness/contrast" and slide the contrast to +10. Finished!

Oh! Never use "Save for web"! Assign sRGB profile yes, but just save it normally.

Craig - I prefer your first shot as it would appear to be more realistic than the 2nd pano IMO

Hmmm, crap.
Ok I'll give it another go, seems like I'm struggling to make improvements.

Hi Craig,

I hate to say this, but I think that despite the lighthouse, boats and rocks, I just don't feel that it's a very exciting subject...
IMHO I think you might be flogging the proverbial deceased equine...

Technically it's a good photo and you have improved it with each version, but IMHO you'd be better spending your time after dark nearby your place of work in Pyrmont... I think you would get far, far, far more interesting shots...

Sorry, but I'm feeling rather frank at this time of night...
You can slap my wrists on Saturday...

Craig's learning a lot from the photo though, so it's a great photo. Post processing is something the digital photographer must learn about in order to bring out the best in their photos. For now, I don't think the subject of the photo is too important, Craig needs to bring the best out in this photo. I feel the photo is a bit soft, and believe the photoshop settings I suggested give a good result. He's already been able to adjust the exposure. If Craig likes the result too, then he's learnt something for future photos.

Potatis wrote:Craig's learning a lot from the photo though, so it's a great photo. Post processing is something the digital photographer must learn about in order to bring out the best in their photos. For now, I don't think the subject of the photo is too important, Craig needs to bring the best out in this photo. I feel the photo is a bit soft, and believe the photoshop settings I suggested give a good result. He's already been able to adjust the exposure. If Craig likes the result too, then he's learnt something for future photos.

Fair enough... You're right - it's good practice...
I'm feeling less frank now... Ignore me Craig

You both bring up very good points. While it isn't a great photo, I do need to learn out to PP photo's to get the best out of them.

I also need to learn a lot more about night photography (I'm still in negotiations about the weekends Night shoot, I'd love to come along and learn).