TR October Day 23

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
| Today I finally got the lights fixed on my car, which meant that I no longer had to get back home
| before dark. In spite of missing a wonderfully clear day, I was able to at least take advantage
| of the best part of it, the sunset. I first drove down to the Mumbles and stopped to grab a few
| telephoto shots of Swansea in the setting sun. This delayed me a little and so I missed the
| actual sunset.
|
| I arrived at Caswell just after the sun had set and walked around the bay to Whiteshell point,
| where I wandered down onto the rocks to look for a good viewpoint. Coincidentally there was a high
| tide at that time and there were some fisherman nearby settling down to do some night fishing.
|
| The view across the bay to Pwlldu Head was good and the light was extremely clear, giving me the
| opportunity to take longer and longer exposures as the light got darker and darker, and the
| colours got deeper and deeper. I ended up taking 15 second exposures with my digital camera and
| one minute exposures with my film camera.
|
| When the colours on the horizon finally faded the stars had appeared, so I took a few wide angle
| shots that included Bootes and Ursa Major, and also a few night shots of the Caswell Bay flats,
| their lights casting long reflections over the wet sand and incoming waves. As I walked back the
| Milky Way was clearly visible and I spent some time identifying familiar constellations - Aquila,
| Sagitta, Delphinius, Cygnus, Lyra, Capricornus, Pegasus, Andromeda and so on. I even got the best
| view of Sagittarius that I've ever seen. It was great to be out in the dark again.
|
| Distance: 1.4km - Ascent: 50m - Effort Rating: 1.9 - Duration: 1 hour 45 minutes
|
| wildwales.fsnet.co.ukoctober23.htmlOpen ↗
|
| Paul

Hi Paul, that's another excellent shot there. I love the way the sky close to the horizon is deep
orange, then it graduates to yellow/white, then to blue. Do you do anything special with your camera
or in photoshop to achieve this effect? Or is it just the way it was after the 15 second exposure?
It's a very similar type of shot to your Worms Head Sunset shot on photosig.

Well done!

Ste

IMO that photo is a stunner!

Doug

ste © said:

Hi Paul, that's another excellent shot there. I love the way the sky close to the horizon is deep
orange, then it graduates to yellow/white, then to blue. Do you do anything special with your
camera or in photoshop to achieve this effect?

Nope, that's perfectly natural. All I did to the picture was lighten the foreground, which was too
dark. I think I overdid it a bit though, you can see a bit of posterisation in the rocks (not enough
detail in the dark areas).

Quoted message said:

Or is it just the way it was after the 15 second exposure?

Yep, just the exposure. As the sky gets darker the colours get deeper and more saturated, and you
just increase the exposure to compensate. Photos taken earlier in the sunset weren't so colourful.
That one was taken exactly 57 minutes after sunset. 15 secs at f 5.0.

Quoted message said:

It's a very similar type of shot to your Worms Head Sunset shot on photosig.

Yeah, and that was taken about an hour after sunset too.

It's actually quite easy to take a photograph like that, in theory at least, all you need is the
right conditions. The right conditions are obviously a clear sunny day, but additionally you need
clear skies to the west, beyond the horizon. This is crucial for the sun's rays to keep deepening
the red colours after the sun has set. If there were clouds to the west below the horizon they'd cut
off the rays and kill the colours.

Oh, and you also need some decent subject matter to help make the photo interesting, so it helps to
work out the angle of the setting sun and plot it on the map with a compass (yes, it's still useful
for some things!) to figure out a good location and viewpoint.

Quoted message said:

Well done!

Thanks. It's actually a lot easier to do with a digital camera, because you can see the results
instantly and there's no reciprocity failure like you get with film (light falloff below 1 sec).

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukoctober.htmlOpen ↗
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Doug Scobie said:

IMO that photo is a stunner!

Glad you appreciate it. I think that's probably one of my best photos this month, if not *the* best.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukoctober.htmlOpen ↗
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
| ste © wrote:
|
| > Hi Paul, that's another excellent shot there. I love the way the sky close to the horizon is
| > deep orange, then it graduates to yellow/white, then to blue. Do you do anything special with
| > your camera or in photoshop to achieve this effect?
|
| Nope, that's perfectly natural. All I did to the picture was lighten the foreground, which was too
| dark. I think I overdid it a bit though, you can see a bit of posterisation in the rocks (not
| enough detail in the dark areas).

Very good, it must have been a nice evening. I can even see a star near the top (and to the right a
little) of the photo, unless that's a hot pixel? :o) I noticed that quite a few of your photos have
dark areas of rock or mountain ranges, e.g. day 9, 15, 19, 21, 23, 25, & 26. I think it's a nice
style and it certainly adds a certain mood to the photo.

| > Or is it just the way it was after the 15 second exposure?
|
| Yep, just the exposure. As the sky gets darker the colours get deeper and more saturated, and you
| just increase the exposure to compensate. Photos taken earlier in the sunset weren't so colourful.
| That one was taken exactly 57 minutes after sunset. 15 secs at f 5.0.

How come you used f5.0 instead of f8.0? I thought that for maximum detail you used the smaller
aperture, or was it so dark that you needed to let more light in? I ask because it doesn't look
*that* dark in the photo, but maybe it's just because it was a 15 second exposure...

| > It's a very similar type of shot to your Worms Head Sunset shot on photosig.
|
| Yeah, and that was taken about an hour after sunset too.

Okay, we're getting a pattern here, an hour after sunset seems to do the trick! ;o)

| It's actually quite easy to take a photograph like that, in theory at least, all you need is the
| right conditions. The right conditions are obviously a clear sunny day, but additionally you need
| clear skies to the west, beyond the horizon. This is crucial for the sun's rays to keep deepening
| the red colours after the sun has set. If there were clouds to the west below the horizon they'd
| cut off the rays and kill the colours.
|
| Oh, and you also need some decent subject matter to help make the photo interesting, so it helps
| to work out the angle of the setting sun and plot it on the map with a compass (yes, it's still
| useful for some things!) to figure out a good location and viewpoint.

Of course, the weather is a lottery. But even if there conditions were right, I'm not sure if I know
an obvious place by mine which has anything of interest in it, certainly not by my local coastline.
But a car journey and some experimentation should soon sort that out.

| > Well done!
|
| Thanks. It's actually a lot easier to do with a digital camera, because you can see the results
| instantly and there's no reciprocity failure like you get with film (light falloff below 1 sec).

Good old digital eh! ;o)

| Paul

Ste

ste © said:

Very good, it must have been a nice evening.

Beautiful evening. First time I'd been out in the dark for a while (since I had problems with the
lights on my car).

Quoted message said:

I can even see a star near the top (and to the right a little) of the photo, unless that's a hot
pixel? :o)

Nope, it's a star, or maybe a planet, can't remember offhand.

Quoted message said:

I noticed that quite a few of your photos have dark areas of rock or mountain ranges, e.g. day 9,
15, 19, 21, 23, 25, &
26. I think it's a nice style and it certainly adds a certain mood to the photo.

I hadn't noticed that, but you're right, I do like to have contrasting areas of light and dark in a
photo, rather than the whole picture being lit by bright sunshine. It's an inevitable consequence of
shooting toward the light (as opposed to the "amateur" rule of keeping the sun behind you). You do
have to be very careful to avoid flare in the lens when you do this though, so a lens hood is a very
good idea, but I usually have to use my hand instead when using the wide angle adapter.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That one was taken exactly 57 minutes after sunset. 15 secs at f
5..

How come you used f5.0 instead of f8.0?

That may be a typo, I can't remember offhand.

Quoted message said:

I thought that for maximum detail you used the smaller aperture,

Yes, usually.

Quoted message said:

or was it so dark that you needed to let more light in?

That may have been the case. I would have had three choices, to open the aperture wider, to increase
the film speed or to underexpose and brighten later. Underexposing would create posterisation,
increasing the film speed would increase noise, so opening the aperture was the lesser evil - a
slight reduction in quality but not as much as with the other two methods.

Quoted message said:

I ask because it doesn't look *that* dark in the photo, but maybe it's just because it was a 15
second exposure...

Exactly. And I'd lightened the foreground too.

Quoted message said:

Okay, we're getting a pattern here, an hour after sunset seems to do the trick! ;o)

Yep.

Quoted message said:

Of course, the weather is a lottery. But even if there conditions were right, I'm not sure if I
know an obvious place by mine which has anything of interest in it, certainly not by my local
coastline.

If all you've got is a beach, then look around for some pools of water on the sand. Pools are great
for sky reflections. wilderness-wales.co.ukwbss.jpgOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Thanks. It's actually a lot easier to do with a digital camera, because you can see the results
instantly and there's no reciprocity failure like you get with film (light falloff below 1 sec).

Good old digital eh! ;o)

Yep, indeed, most definitely. Digital is way better for low light and night photography than film
IMO, certainly far easier anyway. Just wait until I get a 300D.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukoctober.htmlOpen ↗
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Paul Saunders said:

Quoted message said:

Good old digital eh! ;o)

Yep, indeed, most definitely. Digital is way better for low light and night photography than film
IMO, certainly far easier anyway. Just wait until I get a 300D.

Have alook at the Pentax *ist D, more expensive but it will take AA batteries and has mirror lock.

luminous-landscape.compentax istd.shtmlOpen ↗

dpreview.compentaxistdOpen ↗
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
| ste © wrote:

<snip>

| > I noticed that quite a few of your photos have dark areas of rock or mountain ranges, e.g. day
| > 9, 15, 19, 21, 23, 25, &
| > 26. I think it's a nice style and it certainly adds a certain mood to the photo.
|
| I hadn't noticed that, but you're right, I do like to have contrasting areas of light and dark in
| a photo, rather than the whole picture being lit by bright sunshine. It's an inevitable
| consequence of shooting toward the light (as opposed to the "amateur" rule of keeping the sun
| behind you). You do have to be very careful to avoid flare in the lens when you do this though, so
| a lens hood is a very good idea, but I usually have to use my hand instead when using the wide
| angle adapter.

Of course I'm right! ;o)

I haven't got a lens hood, but I'm going to get one soon. When I went to Malham a few weeks ago,
some of my shots were kind of ruined by glare and sun spots in a few of my shots. I did use my hand
to reduce it, but this is not perfect.

<snip>

| > Of course, the weather is a lottery. But even if there conditions were right, I'm not sure if I
| > know an obvious place by mine which has anything of interest in it, certainly not by my local
| > coastline.
|
| If all you've got is a beach, then look around for some pools of water on the sand. Pools are
| great for sky reflections. wilderness-wales.co.ukwbss.jpgOpen ↗

Good idea, that even looks like my beach! I've got some similar shots from a while back, but haven't
taken any like this with my G5. Thanks for the inspiration, and I'm also going to try some close-
up/detail shots, as you suggested in another post a while back.

| >> Thanks. It's actually a lot easier to do with a digital camera, because you can see the results
| >> instantly and there's no reciprocity failure like you get with film (light falloff below 1
| >> sec).
| >
| > Good old digital eh! ;o)
|
| Yep, indeed, most definitely. Digital is way better for low light and night photography than film
| IMO, certainly far easier anyway. Just wait until I get a 300D.

There's no need to get a 300D, just borrow Bill's! ;o)

| Paul

Ste

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Phil Cook said:

Have alook at the Pentax *ist D, more expensive but it will take AA batteries and has
mirror lock.

The reviews don't have much good to say about it. I'd prefer to go with Canon anyway, they seem to
be leading the market with their chip design.

As for AA batteries, I'd actually prefer not to use them now, the Li-ion battery is really very
good, it's never run down on me before, and carrying one spare would be no big deal. I gather that
AA's run out rather quickly in digital cameras.

Not NiMH, they last for ages.

e.g. The Powershot A80 specs powershot.comspecs.htmlOpen ↗

LCD on. Approx. 350 LCD off. Approx. 1000

Compared to approx. 400 with the G3 (LCD use not specified)

I would much rather stick to standard cells than battery packs.

--

dscs.demon.co.ukdscs.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

Phil Cook said:

Have alook at the Pentax *ist D, more expensive but it will take AA batteries and has mirror lock.

The reviews don't have much good to say about it. I'd prefer to go with Canon anyway, they seem to
be leading the market with their chip design.

As for AA batteries, I'd actually prefer not to use them now, the Li-ion battery is really very
good, it's never run down on me before, and carrying one spare would be no big deal. I gather that
AA's run out rather quickly in digital cameras.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukoctober.htmlOpen ↗
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Paul Saunders said:

Phil Cook said:

Have alook at the Pentax *ist D, more expensive but it will take AA batteries and has
mirror lock.

The reviews don't have much good to say about it. I'd prefer to go with Canon anyway, they seem to
be leading the market with their chip design.

Yeah that was the impression I got too. The Pentax has been damned with faint praise. If you are
going to go light though I think it might be preferable to the 300D because of the mirror lock if
you want to shoot much at low shutter speeds. If I had a grand or two floating about I think it
would get spent on a 10D plus lens plus cards.

Quoted message said:

As for AA batteries, I'd actually prefer not to use them now, the Li-ion battery is really very
good, it's never run down on me before, and carrying one spare would be no big deal. I gather that
AA's run out rather quickly in digital cameras.

Ordinary alkalines yes, but you'd use NiMh rechargables and since you have a load of them for
the GPS you could do what I did on expedition 14 and swap them between the camea and GPS when
one set died.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

Quoted message said:

Not NiMH, they last for ages.

Really?

Quoted message said:

e.g. The Powershot A80 specs powershot.comspecs.htmlOpen ↗

LCD on. Approx. 350 LCD off. Approx. 1000

Compared to approx. 400 with the G3 (LCD use not specified)

450 with LCD on.

Quoted message said:

I would much rather stick to standard cells than battery packs.

Well it's not up to me anyway, it all depends what camera I buy, and I'm not going to base my choice
on the batteries.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukoctober.htmlOpen ↗
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗