Hmmm, i wonder, shall I enter?
I know a place that looks magical at night :)
I remember that last one, and a fine one it was too!! I don't mind if you do that again. Don't worry about Joey, I'll distract him 'til you have finished!
One is an 8 second exposure, the other is 30 seconds. Both are F5.6
I like the colors that develop from the longer exposure, but I don't like how the point lights start to bleed (in particular, the two radio towers just to the left and below the moon). The shorter exposure is much clearer, but the colors are less interesting.
I'm also aware of the focus issues in both picures, but particularly the longer one - I hope to re-shoot tonight.
Should I stop down the aperture and increase exposure time? That would probably help with the focus issue, too...
Feel free to critique in ways unrelated to my direct question, too; in fact, I'll start: "Ooh, the moon over water. How creative." ;)
I suspect an Icelandic Aurora Borealis skyscape and a desert southwest nightscape will compete near the top of the standings... along with cityscapes and bridges that always seem to make for great night subjects. :)
Here is an image I always thought would have made a 'good' night shot submission:
Not you got me jealous, the only thing lighting up Church Hill at night is a traffic signal. :)
Understood... But don't discount a strong pastoral scene at night with a very dark sky and showing stars. A 30-45 second exposure would do... take one a lot longer if you want star trails and in that case you might want to point toward Polaris for a good circular effect.
I can't decide myself between the night and bicycle challenge... Being in the Netherlands for some time is the best time for a bicycle challenge but I just have to get out to see tens of bicycles. On the other hand I really like to do night shot. Now I will have to choose the outakes in two challenge at the same time.
