Photographer's Union Part Deux

[ntalwar]

Great (as always!) ntalwar, but I really like the 2nd one.

Thanks. It seemed like they started the show a bit early - I think they usually wait until it's pitch dark.

 

[Sicy]

I LOVE those fireworks pictures. I thought a faster shutter speed was better but it doesnt create all the lines like yours and I guess I lose a lot of the light of them? Did you use a longer shutter speed? I should really get a tripod I guess.

 

[Jive Turkey]

a tripod and long exposure are key to some fancy fireworks pics. If its dark enough, you can even hit the shutter before they light them off and anticipate the fireworks (you'll see a long, thin stream of light coming from the ground on those ones). You might want to even put the shutter on bulb if you have a cable release. Think of the fireworks 'painting' the light across your film (or sensor). the longer you have the shutter open for, the longer the streaks of light will be

 

[Sicy]

But doesnt that let more light in say from your surroundings, thus ruining the pic? I only have a canon sx120 so I dont think I have bulb or cable release.

 

[Jive Turkey]

It all depends. Of the shots you posted, only one of them really had a background and even then, increasing the exposure on the background wouldn't hurt at all (though you'd get motion blur on the boat). So its a bit of a balance between exposing for your background and exposing for the fireworks. An easy way to compensate for the long shutter speed is to stop down your aperture. ntalwar did a good job in finding the balance as far as the exposure on the monument goes. I assume from the motion blur of the smoke that it was maybe a one second exposure or so. (not sure how windy it was though) But nighttime shots are always long exposures anyway, so you could take a couple test shots and see what your background exposure would be, then reframe for where the fireworks are and shoot away. A cable release isnt absolutely necessary, but a tripod really is

 

[ntalwar]

I LOVE those fireworks pictures. I thought a faster shutter speed was better but it doesnt create all the lines like yours and I guess I lose a lot of the light of them? Did you use a longer shutter speed? I should really get a tripod I guess.

Those aren't bad. If the camera has a self-timer (e.g short like 2 seconds), try that too.

It was my first time shooting fireworks. I used a tripod with a cable release. The second one is ISO 50 at 5 seconds, f/11. You're right about not choosing too long a shutter speed - the highlights can get blown out in the fireworks, and the colors will turn out white (or too light). I used ISO 50 as opposed to 100 on that one for that very reason.

ntalwar did a good job in finding the balance as far as the exposure on the monument goes. I assume from the motion blur of the smoke that it was maybe a one second exposure or so.

Thanks - I think the first was 3 seconds or so, f/8, ISO 100. I tweaked the settings as the show went on.

 

[Liesje]

I didn't take a camera last night, it was 90-something degrees and humid and I couldn't stand the thought of hauling equipment on my back.

These are from last year. I had the camera, tripod, and shutter release. I set the camera pointed at the sky and used the first few fireworks to set the focus manually. Then I used the remote shutter release to take the pics. I would watch where they are launched and just take a guess on when to open the shutter.

My exposures are about 2 seconds and I use ISO 200 and F/18 to avoid "noise" and not let in extra light.

Here's one with the tail going up like ntalwar described

 

[Sicy]

Those are awesome. My camera seems to only go up to f8.

 

[Liesje]

Not my pic, but a cool one from last night. We go downtown - have to park and then hike down b/c it's so busy. They close one bridge for people and another for shooting off the fireworks. We have several skyscrapers that are all glass windows and it looks really cool when the fireworks reflect off the buildings.

 

[ntalwar]

^nice fireworks pics.

I like the colors on these:

 

[Jive Turkey]

Those are awesome. My camera seems to only go up to f8.

Really? I you suuuuuuuure? That doesnt seem right. Most cameras are limited to how open the aperture can be, not the other way around. I would assume on the other end, you can open up as far as 5.6? maybe 4? I really cant see them making a camera with only a 2 stop range

 

[ntalwar]

I think the f/8 might be right for the SX 120 - bestbuy.com specs have that as the upper end of the range. That seems to be the case on my Kodak compact too.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Well thats a bit of a bummer. Didnt realize it was a point and shoot though.

 

[Jive Turkey]

I havent posted any work from other photographers in quite a while and I'm bored, so here it goes again

I dont know much about this first photographer, but I came across her work recently and think its really wonderful; street photography with almost a hint of vernacular photography. A bit of fun, quirkiness too (I cant find my favourite one though. Its called Members of the Monster Fan Club, if anyone is so inclined)

Helen Levitt

 

[Jive Turkey]

Diane Arbus really doesn't need any introduction. Its a shame I cant find a bigger image of the Jewish Giant because the expression on his mothers face really makes the photo. Its sort of a crass way to put it, but I think in a way, this quote gives a sense as to the way Arbus thought of her subjects: "You know how every mother has nightmares when she's pregnant that her baby will be born a monster?... I think I got that in the mother's face....". Its sort of a heartbreaking thing to say and not something you'd want the Son or the Mother to hear (I'm sure they both inevitably did). It's where a lot of the controversy came from for Arbus. There was a sense from some that she was exploiting these people. In a way, thats what photography is all about though. She just had a decidedly untactful way of putting it. It reminds me a bit of a photo I saw at the World Press Photo exhibit a few years back. The image was that of an American soldier who had been horrifically disfigured in an attack in, if I remember correctly, Iraq. I mean, his face was completely burned and was very difficult to look at. The photo was taken at his wedding to his long term girlfriend. The wedding obviously took place after the incident. In the photo, there is a look of complete disbelief from his new wife in what is supposed to be a standard wedding portrait; horror, sadness, and a sense that she doesnt even want to be doing it, all wrapped up into one expression. While it may not be the case, its definitely what was conveyed at that very moment. I found it dishonest for the photographer to claim the photo showed strength, love, and compassion when thats clearly not what was going on at that very second. There was a conscious effort by the photographer to choose that frame; and theres so much emotion caught that I wouldn't have wanted her to choose a different one, but at least own up to your intentions or at the very least, say nothing at all

Diane Arbus

Mary Ellen Mark also has a similar series on twins, but I dont think its anywhere near as good as Arbus' work (to be honest, I dont like much of Mary Ellen Mark's work aside from her Ward 81 project)

 

[Jive Turkey]

Heres the photo of the soldier I mentioned in the last post. Please read that post first so you know what you're looking at. It's very disturbing. I feel bad saying that about another human being, but I'd be lying to say otherwise. Its really quite a telling photo though. I remember standing there, staring at it for a number of minutes. I wasn't gawking at the soldier, but was taken by the sadness in his wife's eyes.

Spoiler

 

[Sicy]

Well thats a bit of a bummer. Didnt realize it was a point and shoot though.

Yeah. It has some manual settings though so I'm slowly trying to learn.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Yeah. It has some manual settings though so I'm slowly trying to learn.

Absolutely nothing wrong with that As long as you're able to do what you want with your photos at the moment, then its all you need.

 

[BluRmGrl]

Here are some shots I took in Antiqua in March '09 while on a working vacation.

This is English Harbor at sunset.

A portion of Nelson's Dockyard in English Harbor.

Some island flora. A year & a half later & I still don't know what it's name was.

Finally, my husband & two friends silhouetted on a rocky outcrop.

 

[jets]

Nice work everyone


I'm a little obsessed by startrails at the moment.

A single 12.5 minute exposure, f8 ISO 100.

I wanted to do a longer exposure.....but it was freezing !

 

[mad1]

thats quite beautiful Jets,

 

[Sicy]

A single 12.5 minute exposure, f8 ISO 100.

I wanted to do a longer exposure.....but it was freezing !

What does that mean exactly, that it took the camera 12.5 minutes to take the pic? That is crazy.

 

[ntalwar]

This is English Harbor at sunset.

Nice sunset.

A single 12.5 minute exposure, f8 ISO 100.

I wanted to do a longer exposure.....but it was freezing !

Nice - looks like there's not much light pollution there. Did you use a lens hood or UV filter? Looks like there's some lens flare. I've gotten that with a UV filter at night.

 

[Justin24]

great work everyone. Here are some pics from my recent trip up to Idaho.

well two of them anyways.

 

[jets]

What does that mean exactly, that it took the camera 12.5 minutes to take the pic? That is crazy.

Yes 12.5 minutes to take the picture & then about the same time to write the image to the memory card. Its pretty boring just standing around waiting for it all to happen.


This one was 22 minutes,but from my backyard. I set them camera up, went inside kept toasty warm

Nice - looks like there's not much light pollution there. Did you use a lens hood or UV filter? Looks like there's some lens flare. I've gotten that with a UV filter at night.

There isn't much land between this lake & the ocean & its not heavily populated either. But it is next to a main road and I forgot to take my UV filter off

 

[Sicy]

Wow! That must take a lot of patience lol. Looks awesome though.

 

[Liesje]

That's really cool. I can't do that or even take a decent moon pic in my yard b/c of light pollution, especially in the winter when the trees are bare. There's a huge mall behind our house and it has lights like stadium lights in the parking lot.

I'm going to try later this summer at the cottage, absolutely NO light pollution out there in the middle of nowhere and we always watch shooting stars from the dock.

 

[kramwest1]

That's really cool. I can't do that or even take a decent moon pic in my yard b/c of light pollution, especially in the winter when the trees are bare. There's a huge mall behind our house and it has lights like stadium lights in the parking lot.

I'm going to try later this summer at the cottage, absolutely NO light pollution out there in the middle of nowhere and we always watch shooting stars from the dock.

Wait, people can see things in the sky at night?
/lives in the heart of Minneapolis

Light pollution. Ugh.
My best chance for blackness was in Mongolia, but most nights were cloudy or I was passed out. Maybe next time.

Beautiful shots everyone.

I am desperate to set aside some time and actually get out and shoot.

 

[mad1]

guys, Im stupid, can anyone tell me how the following shot is done? (or do you need a picture to know what I mean)

say someone was taking a photo of a street that was perhaps, 3 miles long, right?

but when you look at the photo, its all sort of squashed up like it looks about a mile long. Like they have brought the farthest point up as close as possible. okay - zoomed. is that all it is? or is it a special camera.

any of you guys done that?

 

[Jive Turkey]

zoomed. is that all it is?

Yes or more specifically, a long focal length