Seth Tower wrote:
Now I like that. That's a very unique shot of a waaay over photographed subject. Good job!
Thanks Seth
Indeed, the Eiffel Tower does draw you in to photograph it, but it is not easy to get something different as has been done ever so many millions of times.
chris78cpr wrote:
Thats a great shot there! I really like the processing applied on it too, care to share how it was processed?
The D700 looks like it's pretty capable in the low light/long exposure arena!
Chris
Thank you.
There is no special processing here, what you see is more or less straight out of the camera.
I shot in RAW, then developed in NX2.
I increased exposure by about +0,30 as was slightly underexposed
I had shot in the 'Standard' setting and kept it this way, with no additional changes to color, saturation except white balance which I drew from a grey point at the bottom of the tower (a white building).
Then I brought a tad bit out of the shadows in the trees and then tamed some of the highlights a bit.
Well the image is surely spectacular ! yes indeed the comments prove it... ..
but I do not like it one bit.. !! Why you started this by saying you were going to take a photograph in DARKNESS.. so why does it look like day light ?
OVEREXPOSURE
I was expecting to see a dark black sky !!
all in all.. it is truely a remarkable image !! Especially of a subject that has been photographed 'billions' of times over the decades !!
Quickeye wrote:
I like it, very interesting long exposure. Wonder how it would look with the one light cloned out at the base. A very powerful looking photo.
Thanks, Terry
Cheers Terry. I ask myself the same question about the light at the base, but most people say it doesn't bother them, in fact they like it. I guess we can say at least that leaves something to debate about in the photograph !!!
Majik_Imaje wrote:
Well the image is surely spectacular ! yes indeed the comments prove it... ..
but I do not like it one bit.. !! Why you started this by saying you were going to take a photograph in DARKNESS.. so why does it look like day light ?
OVEREXPOSURE
I was expecting to see a dark black sky !!
all in all.. it is truely a remarkable image !! Especially of a subject that has been photographed 'billions' of times over the decades !!
That is some very special feedback you are giving me here...
As far as the exposure time, I would love to do some very long ones, but to do so this has to be in the countryside, as I don't think it's be possible to get beyond say 10 minutes in any city (unless photographing inside a garbage can for instance !!! )
Michael Kenna is one well-known photographer who does long exposures quite well, and he takes it to a new level, we're not talking about minutes but hours!
But of course Kenna's using a Hasselblad and film - I wonder how far I could push a digital sensor such as the D700s without spoiling it all due to noise.
Digital cannot approach what film is capable of !!
I am very new to digital,
I am a user of 4x 5 film 8x 10 film and home darkrooms that any pro would kill to have to work in and with.
When you get down to using F64, 'miracles' happen using film !!
The depth of field is so extra-ordinary you can literally spend hours gazing at a large print (30 x 40 or ( 40 x 60) and see every speck of detail that is so amazing to behold. With a landscape image, you can just be a part of that scene and wander and gaze and behold the beauty.
A gossen luna pro light meter will I believe (40 years ago) had a range of 22 different exposure values.
from 1/10,000 of a sec up to 8 hours
ISO / ASA 6 OR 12 - 64,000
f 1 - f 128
Yeah Baby !!! with film you can create ! Digital leaves the artist in zone of magaziney type images.
Film has "soul" that digital cannot impart only because. FILM can see and record / reveal colors that the human eye can't see.
Digital sensors in today's camera's do not have that capability !!
Trees @ night are one of the most spectacular ways to create truely amazing images, especially if they are covered in snow @ night.. It imparts a sureal type of posterization, that is incredible to view.
Wow, I did not expect such a passionate exposé !!!
I think you are right in what you say, at least for medium and large formats which produce stunning results that I haven't seen yet with digital (although I haven't seen prints coming out of the latest digital backs).
Trees at night are exactly what I had in mind, re: the Kenna citation.
I am extremly 'passionate' about photography and as such I have achieved levels that very few people ever reach. - know about - or experience.
Let me explain briefly.. I have owned and built 17 darkrooms (color) since 1969.
The last time I was in a; darkroom was in 85 and the last time I created images with a passion ( i.e. 100 rolls per week) was 1991.
To achieve the results using film and doing the whole color process from camera to finished print required knowledge and skill.
1975 - Camera 35 Photography magazine published an in depth article with 'drawings' showing today's technology.. the 'wire' coming form the camera into the computer into the printer for final finished result so quick . I was furious when I saw that .. it took me a lot of years, to learn all of that, and now .. click click click and everyone is a photographer now.
Seeing something creative done by another artist, always thrills me to no end !!
you started this by saying you were going to take a photograph in DARKNESS.. so why does it look like day light 