Old brother, younger sister

Wondering if this picture could have used a smaller aparature or if

it's okay the way it is. The whole thing has a blurry look and I'm

sure it's because I set it too wide, I hope that detail does not kill

the picture.

 

Your comments would be appreciated.

I think you captured the image just fine. I might crop some space off the bottom if it were me.

 

What was lighting the grass in the foreground? Just curious.

Wow! I have an interest night photography and this one is very impressive. Not being an expert, but judging from what I've read and the little I've experienced, you are correct. A tighter aperature would reduce the halos somewhat, but probably affect the foreground and sky to a greater extent (making them darker). You'd probably have to stop it down significantly to reduce the "blur", which would necessitate a much longer exposure time, etc. etc.

 

I'm not troubled by the lights, though I wish the foreground grass/shore were much darker. Also, a nice side effect of the normally troublesome overcast sky is that you can see the power lines. Finally, great detail on the underside of the Pierre-Laporte.

 

I wasn't aware that digital cameras could do extended exposures this well. Cool!

I like the lights but I would have liked more without the foreground grass.

The lighting in the foreground probably came from the headlights of cars passing by, or the more probably from street lights that where in the area. I'm not too sure, sorry.

This is the first of many shots I tried, and I was just about to delete it on the spot but decided to wait and see what it looked like on my monitor, and boy am I glad I did. I wanted to use a tightest aparature (F8) on the shots I took and those turned out too dark even at max exposure time (15 seconds). This shot was in my mind much better, but you can see the obvious problems with it. It's only later that I figured I should go in between and took this much better picture at the same exposure time but with F5 instead. Note I was in a hurry and could not come back on my way to take them, which is a shame because I'm sure I could have done better.

Night photography is possible with digital cameras, but of course it's much harder since the higher ISO's don't give you good quality shots, at least not with most of them on the market that are affordable. I never go over 100 because others will produce considerable noize. Thus, you have to be creative. Still shots are possible thought, I had some great results with a Speedlight 420ex but I don't have any examples to show, sorry.

ADDED:
Forgot to mention that most good digital cameras will have prolongued exposure, but in my price range I don't know of any who have something else than limited time (ie. no bulb). The best one I know personnaly is the Nikon Coolpix 995 which can do 60 second long exposures. I don't know what the big boys (D30, D1, 1D) can do on that level, I try not to acknowledge there existence since they are too costly and I desperatly want one. The less I know, the better.

Good photo. Regarding sharpness, I don't notice the blur you talk about in your request for critique. This looks good and sharp from my montor. Perhaps you need to try a Windex filter for your screen...

Note to self: No more touching the monitor after eating Kentuky Fried Chicken.

 

No really, I found this picture to be slightly out of focus compared to others I took at smaller aparatures (in the same portfolio) and it's same problem I got with my Unnartural Woods picture. But hey, if I'm the only guy who see's this problem, then Yeay!!!

This is really nice. Lose the foreground grass either by cropping or photoshop or dynamite and you've got yourself a real winner. Maybe try to stop down a little and push the ISO a hair to get it in focus. It's tough to tell on myscreen either way, JPG stuff and what have you...

 

BTW, my D30 has a bulb setting, but I don't use it because it gets really bad really quick over 30 seconds.

Nice shot, good geometry. It makes sense to me, one who's never been to Quebec. One suggestion: the light colored ground in front is a bit of a distraction. My guess is that comes from your headlights; if you get another opportunity, try turning them off or get away from that light source.

Everyone seems to agree that the grass is too much. Here is a quick preview of what it would look like. Unfortunatly that means I have to get rid of the water reflection and I think that added alot to the image.

http://pages.infinit.net/frugus/ponts_quebec_laporte_01_cropped_photonet.jpg

I guess Steve was right - I'll go and check for some cheap dynamite.

I don't think the grass is that distracting; actually I thought it helped anchor the photo and give perspective.

I always had a special interest for the bridge Pierre-Laporte as my father built it (well, he was one of the many engineers on the project...) while I was five. As far as the photo is concerned, the blur is very tolerable and could be caused by camera shake as much as by the f2 setting. A way out of your exposure dilemma would perhaps be to set speed at ISO 100 and then close a bit at f4. The grass is the foreground is a bit overblown, but that's easily corrected in Photoshop. The cropping doesn't need to be changed.

 

Nice photo. The foreground is a bit too much, as others told you already. Your crop was 'over the top', so I made 'my optimum'.

Nice shot! I really like the angle. I wouldn't crop it at all, but maybe change the tint of the grass by removing a bit of yellow.

Wonderful. I like the halos. It doesn't seem out of focus to me....

I wouldn't crop and I like the DOF. This is a dazzling image.

I wouldn't crop it. I think that the grass add to this shot. one bright light will give fits in night shots.