[clevermax]

Originally Posted by BipB

No lens hood in use? I could see some flare here and there. Otherwise a nice shot.

No lens hood, but I have no worries about that flare! In fact, I just love it!

In this case, a hood wouldn't have avoided the flare as the camera is pointed to the light source straight.

[bluevolt]

'Five Rupees can't buy happiness...'
But it can definitely buy a pack of chotu maggi masala noodles which is kinda the same thing

[Torqueguru]

@clevermax
Awesome shots!

A long exposure of the City of Seattle.


Regards,
TG.

[clevermax]

Originally Posted by Torqueguru

@clevermax
Awesome shots!

A long exposure of the City of Seattle.
Attachment 995250

Regards,
TG.

Thanks TG! Love that sky's blue in this Seattle shot.

Long exposure from my side having similar sky tones! I wish I could get rid of those disturbing poles in the foreground, but didn't have a chance

[discobiscuit]

Originally Posted by clevermax

Thanks TG! Love that sky's blue in this Seattle shot.

Long exposure from my side having similar sky tones! I wish I could get rid of those disturbing poles in the foreground, but didn't have a chance

Attachment 995258

stunning picture! love the colors.

[groom]

Originally Posted by Torqueguru

@clevermax
Awesome shots!

A long exposure of the City of Seattle.
.

Nice shot. Any reason for sky tones ?

Originally Posted by clevermax

Thanks TG! Love that sky's blue in this Seattle shot.

Attachment 995258

I think the sky in black would have looked stunning ?
Any reason why it comes blue, i have had a similar issue too.

Hot pixel ? White balance ?

[v&v]

Posting after a long time. Tajmahal @ Night

[groom]

Originally Posted by clevermax

Long exposure from my side having similar sky tones!

Attachment 995258

Here i found the some interesting article on this.
Source:http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...te-balance.htm

IN MIXED LIGHTING

Multiple illuminants with different color temperatures can further complicate performing a white balance. Some lighting situations may not even have a truly "correct" white balance, and will depend upon where color accuracy is most important.



Under mixed lighting, auto white balance usually calculates an average color temperature for the entire scene, and then uses this as the white balance. This approach is usually acceptable, however auto white balance tends to exaggerate the difference in color temperature for each light source, as compared with what we perceive with our eyes.
Exaggerated differences in color temperature are often most apparent with mixed indoor and natural lighting. Critical images may even require a different white balance for each lighting region. On the other hand, some may prefer to leave the color temperatures as is.
Note how the building to the left is quite warm, whereas the sky is somewhat cool. This is because the white balance was set based on the moonlight — bringing out the warm color temperature of the artificial lighting below. White balancing based on the natural light often yields a more realistic photograph. Choose "stone" as the white balance reference and see how the sky becomes unrealistically blue.

[clevermax]

Originally Posted by discobiscuit

stunning picture! love the colors.

Originally Posted by groom

Nice shot. Any reason for sky tones ?
I think the sky in black would have looked stunning ?
Any reason why it comes blue, i have had a similar issue too.
Hot pixel ? White balance ?

Thank you!! My answers below

Originally Posted by groom

Here i found the some interesting article on this.
Source:http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...te-balance.htm

IN MIXED LIGHTING
Multiple illuminants with different color temperatures can further complicate performing a white balance. Some lighting situations may not even have a truly "correct" white balance, and will depend upon where color accuracy is most important.

No hot pixels at all, what you see is all stars. I had Long Exposure NR on. I should have taken multiple shots at 30 seconds or so, for a longer star trail. :(

The sky was indeed blue. I have accentuated the tones a bit, while processing the RAW file though. Since it was shot in RAW, no question of a wrong white balance, but yes, mixed lighting.

Regarding lighting, the scene was almost dark for naked eyes. The tower and surroundings were slightly lit by some lights from far. The light house almost 1Km away may also have thrown some extra light two or three times during this 75s exposure.

[nayaksudhir]

Traffic jam on my bed this morning...





This is my 3.5 yr old son who keeps doing something new every now and then. Camera: iPhone 4.

[groom]

Originally Posted by clevermax

Thank you!! My answers below

The sky was indeed blue.
Regarding lighting, the scene was almost dark for naked eyes.

Wow!!, Blue sky on a dark night is a great combination.
thanks for your comments!! i am preparing for some night HDR shots, this will help.

[clevermax]

Originally Posted by groom

Wow!!, Blue sky on a dark night is a great combination.
thanks for your comments!! i am preparing for some night HDR shots, this will help.

You're welcome! Instead of HDR (multiple shots), I'd suggest you click a single shot in RAW and bring out the dynamic range in post production - it is possible to exposure blend different parts of the image from the same RAW itself! I do it more often than creating an HDR.

For example, you shoot a landscape and you got the bottom portion too dark or sky too bright. You can open the RAW in PS after correcting the exposure for the bottom portion once, and open it again as another document by correcting the exposure for the skies. You can now copy paste one of these onto another as a new layer and use a proper layer mask (most cases, a gradient mask will do) to blend them together for better dynamic range in all parts of the frame. I'll post an example later.

These kind of PP is not for making the image surreal but to bring the image closer to what our eyes saw - we can see more dynamic range than what a single click can render on a monitor.

[vibbs]

Some beautiful night shots there. Awesome

I tried some weeks back. Unfortunately the cops didn't allow me to use a tripod so couldn't try long exposures. Had to bump up the ISO and 1100D has some bad noise at higher ISO speeds.

Originally Posted by clevermax

For example, you shoot a landscape and you got the bottom portion too dark or sky too bright. You can open the RAW in PS after correcting the exposure for the bottom portion once, and open it again as another document by correcting the exposure for the skies. You can now copy paste one of these onto another as a new layer and use a proper layer mask (most cases, a gradient mask will do) to blend them together for better dynamic range in all parts of the frame. I'll post an example later.

Wow!! Thanks for that tip. Got to try it some time soon

[clevermax]

Originally Posted by vibbs

Some beautiful night shots there. Awesome
I tried some weeks back. Unfortunately the cops didn't allow me to use a tripod so couldn't try long exposures. Had to bump up the ISO and 1100D has some bad noise at higher ISO speeds.

What? They didn't allow a tripod but allowed a camera?! Did you ask why?

[vibbs]

Originally Posted by clevermax

What? They didn't allow a tripod but allowed a camera?! Did you ask why?

Yes!! I too was actually surprised and had the same expression. I did try to ask them as to what difference would it make if I used a tripod. He said no tripods that is the rule!! Else be prepared to pay Rs 2K fine. Take as many shots as you want but no tripods. Interestingly we then went to Goa from Mumbai and there too at the monuments same stupid rules. No tripods.

Once I returned back home, I searched on a few sites and many travel forums had people mentioning the same issues. Apparently it seems they dont allow tripod use due to security reasons. What security, I m not sure.

If one needs to use a tripod at ASI protected or maintained site, one has to seek permission before hand in writing (which may take months to materialise).

Strange rules and reasoning.