eric_arnold

very nice work!

so, looking at your tech specs, you have a 20-second exposure at f/10 and base ISO (200). 20 seconds will turn light trails to mushy blurs on a heavily trafficked bridge. this also likely affects the quality of light reflected back onto the bridge. when i do light trail shots, i find that 2-4 second exposures is usually enough to capture streaks and get the light trail effect. so, mathematically speaking, your exposure is 5-10 times that, which may be overkill. if you look at the sunstars on the bridge lights, they are completely blown out, which is usually an indication of overexposure.

 

however, if you reduce the exposure time, you will have less overall light in the background. i wouldnt go past f/13 in any event b/c of diffraction, but you could stop down to f/11-13, and also raise the ISO (i would try 400 first) to try to recapture some of the light you will be losing. again, taking pics at sunset is very difficult because you have a limited window of available light to work with, and the light will never be exactly the same on two different days.

 

 

hi sunil.

 

i like this image, the light is magical and the colors are nice as well. i have the same concerns as larry, that there seems to be a bit of overexposure and not enough detail in the bridge itself. wondering if you shot this at base ISO and with ADL off. the light trails from the cars just kind of blend together and dont add a whole lot to what you already have. additionally, i think you could have emphasized the strongest part of the composition, which is the middle and right-hand side of the pic, more.

dont get me wrong,i think it's a strong image, but it could be even stronger from a compositional standpoint. these kind of photos are very difficult, however, because they require a combination of both technique and guesswork, as well as perfect lighting--which is asking a lot, as this can be unpredictable and dependent on conditions outside one's control. also, there's a short window when this type of light happens.

i wonder if a shorter exposure would have worked better at this time of day-- which could have resulted in less blowing out of the highlights-- or, perhaps a long exposure at a later point in the evening -- which would have made the light trails stand out more against a darker, contrastier background.

it's a trade-off, though; you have to decide what elements of composition you want to emphasize and de-emphasize. i would also think about maybe combining exposures in post-, if you can't get the background light and the bridge on the same page. keep practicing and experimenting with different exposure times until you nail it absolutely.

 

-eric

 

ps, hope you don't mind, but i cropped your pic a bit to give a more dramatic view of the bridge and remove the distracting stuff on the left-hand side.

 

that's pretty good.i would maybe crop the left-hand corner a bit, so it's just the bridge.

that's a pretty cool shot. i'm not sure you needed a 61-second exposure, though--did you bracket exposure times? i'd like to see the same shot at 30 sec. but this is just what i was talking about earlier: a different,unique take on an iconic landmark. i dont completely love the colors of the background, but i do love the composition of the shot. having the pyramid in a bridge 'window' is tight. was this at 10mm? i would maybe zoom a little tighter and emphasize the strongest compositional elements of the pic; i'm not sure you even need the bottom third at all. the juxtaposition of the bridge and the skyline is the most powerful thing in the shot. tighter framing of the bridge/pyramid could reveal an even more interesting dichotomy. remember, there's no penalty for trying the same shot from a couple of different perspectives.

hi sunil,

i took the liberty of cropping the image a little bit to illustrate my suggestion. i think it makes a big difference in overall impact without losing the strengths of the composition. what do you think?

overall nice composition.  could be further refined. two things: i would either get a little closer or crop about 10 or 20%. the foreground is more interesting than the upper half and sides of the picture, which distracts from the contrast of the two rock formations. i would also think about ways to further emphasize the foreground, which is where the eye is drawn to. also, the reflective light is unbalanced on one side of the rocks in the foreground which is a problem. OTOH, you have some nice color transitions and subtleties, mainly arising from the fact you took a long exposure, which 'calms' the waters and results in smoothed waves. i would maybe take an even longer exposure to further enhance this effect--up to 10 sec.--which might also burn in some of the light reflections on the R hand side. to not overexpose the background, you would need either to take this slightly later in the day or use an ND grad, since stopping down below f/10 will result in diffraction and rob sharpness. perhaps, i would also like to see more of the mid-ground rocks, which are more interesting than the ones on the R side.

 

suggestion: in addition to framing the composition a little tighter, why not get closer to the shoreline and place the camera at a low angle, filling the background with the silhouetted rock formation and at the same time getting more of the natural light interplay between the water, the rocks and the twlight sky? you may find it illuminating to experiment with both horizontal and vertical perspectives. basically, with an UWA, you can get a more dramatic perspective from standard or normal-angle shots, but to do that, you need a closer foreground and not so much wasted space at the top. hope that helps.

 

 

 

sunil, this is a terrific shot. i think it's your best so far. as a bay area resident myself, there are quite a few things i like about this. first of all, the golden gate bridge is not usually seen as golden; more often it's red. you have just the right amount of nighttime glow to bring out its true character. so that's really appealing. the second thing which really works in this pic is the fog. your exposure time allowed you to capture the advancing fog--i particularly like how it partially obscures the far tower on the bridge. the third thing i like is the deep purplish colors. the smaller details, like the red and yellow sunstars, and the reflected glow of the bridge in the water, also work. also it looks like you focused on the near tower, which was a good call, as some detail is evident there.

If I was being nit-picky, i'd say the only things which could improve this image might be more of a transition between light and dark colors in the sky from left to right--which sort of depends on the degree to which the environment is cooperating with the photographer--and/or a boat passing directly under the bridge at the time of capture. also, the rock near the bottom left-hand corner doesn't really add anything to the pic; it would be stronger without it, especially if you had the bridge going all the way from left to right.

but overall, this looks more like a 'resident' photo than a tourist photo. it's hard to shoot with fog--which tends to soften images--so give yourself a pat on the back. you're definitely on the right track here--i would just keep experimenting with variations of this shot at different angles, different exposure times, and different times of the day. i'm not sure how much further you can get to the bridge itself from this location without being in the actual water, but if you could move a little closer and also a little to the right, you might be able to lose the rock on the left.

nice job!

 

i like the austerity of the image, but it would be stronger from a compositional standpoint if there wasn't so much wasted space at either side. is there a lake in front of the tree? if not, i would get closer and fill the frame with the tree.

i like this shot a lot. much different from your landscapes. this guy has a lot of character...

nice idea. i see what you were going for, but you need a wider lens. see the parallel converging lines at each side? these should run from the top of the frame down to the middle. and the middle beam should be centered; as it is now, it's a little leftward-leaning, which detracts from the succession of geometric rectangles which are the strongest compositional element. i like how they look like windows or mirrors. what doesn't work here, though, is the icy bottom part. i would either leave this out of the frame or crop it out. if you got a bit closer, with a wider lens, it might be possible to achieve this. the icicle/barnacle is also distracting. it takes away from the simplicity of the composition. you might need waders and an ice axe, but if you really wanted an immaculate, impeccable shot, you would get rid of this. otherwise the capture is very good. nice detail in the shadow areas, and a well-balanced exposure overall (not too dark, not too light). A CPL might deepen the skies a bit and make the water even softer, but they're not bad as is. this shot has enough potential that, if possible, i would just try it again until it's perfect.

the compositional elements are all there, but a little fine tuning could make this even more powerful. first of all, the juxtaposition between the four rocks is great. the contrast between the two similarly-sized rocks and the larger rock lends perspective, as does the fact the largest rock is closer. the fourth rock gives our eyes something to take note of in the foreground, so it's not just wasted space. a lot of times, in a shot like this, people will forget the foreground and just focus on the main subject. in this case, the inclusion of a strong foreground element makes adds to the sense of totality of composition. adding to the sense of composition is the strong diagonal line running left to right to the upper RH corner, from the tip of the first rock to the tip of the second rock. the use of shadow and light is really good too. very simple, very natural, it just works.

but... (you knew it was coming),,, the sun is distracting here. there's just no way around it. it adds little to nothing to the composition, and actually it takes away a little bit from the conversation the rocks are having with each other, because it's so bright, it demands attention. it also flares just slightly on the second rock. i also think the water in the bottom third forground could have been more emphasized. IMO, what would turn this from a good pic to a great one is repositioning the sun.

how do you do that, you ask? simple. just give it a quarter-turn. j/k. actually, wait a little longer, for the sun to dip almost onto the horizon line. the closer it gets, the more it will deepen the colors; you should get some reds/oranges and maybe purples from the reflections on the water when it reaches the horizon and a few moments after.

next, move about 3-4 steps to the right and maybe 1-2 steps forward. this will do two things: it will put the sun behind the second rock, which is where you want it. second, it will move the water a bit closer, giving you more of that sunset glow reflected on the water. in effect, you are using the sun as backlighting. if you do it right, it should outline the second rock, giving it a visible aura effect.

i would line up the sun in the shot, and then keep shooting as the sun dips past the horizon, lengthening exposure time the darker it gets. the optimal exposure should actually be reached just a little after sunset, but you can keep shooting until there's no more twilight. the light will change as you do this and you can get some real nice colors (thank you, California!) if it's light enough when you start shooting, you can use a CPL which will deepen both the skies and the water. take the CPL off if your image becomes too dark.

in general, you can't go too wrong with California sunsets, but you want to make your sunsets more unique and less generic than the 1000s of California sunsets everyone else has seen by now. this is where composition comes in. as i said earlier, all the elements are there, but shifting the angle of view and repositioning the sun could make for more intense colors, less distraction, and an overall more impactful photo.

 

nice colors and strong compositional elements. i like the contrast between the water, the sky and the bridge. a polarizer might have improved the shot a bit. the bridge's iconic stature works both for and against it--it's instantly recognizable but also overly-familiar. nothing wrong with having the GGB as your muse, but maybe try to find a location or angle which is atypical, something we haven't seen a million times. in other words, get more creative!

the light kind of makes the shot. it's hard to photograph national landmarks in an original way without seeming cliched. i like the movement of the surf, but a longer exposure might have had even better results. also, it looks like you focused on the rocks and not the GG bridge. i maybe would have done it the other way around, since the bridge is the most visually-arresting thing in the pic. i would just keep doing this same shot over and over again with different exposure times and at different times of the day, until you absolutely nail it. if you had shot this just after sunset, you would have gotten the lights on the bridge, which could have added an element of interest. also i dont know if you used a polarizer but it doesnt look like it. SF skies are not only foggy, they're hazy--a CPL can cut through the haze, so getting one might be a good idea if you plan on shooting landscape with any regularity.

 

this is a very powerful photo series. all the ugliness we might ascribe to this woman is actually our own which we project onto her. its sexual in a way which transcends erotica. there is no fantasy here, only gritty reality. this woman has stripped away all pretense or illusion, and her lack of modesty is balanced by her striking, piercing look. her soul is somehow intact, though we can see her pain and suffering. she accepts herself for who she is. i particularly like the two views seen together, or front and back. either by itself would not have been nearly as strong visually.

just an excellent, somewhat subtle, composition and very good use of working with available light and framing the shot in an aesthetically-pleasing way. basically, all the elements in the picture work together well: the trees, the dogwalker, the sun, and the sky. there's a sense of intimacy which belies the distance between the viewer and the dogwalker; in this case, the dogwalker has become part of nature and doesnt look out of place. the same shot without the dogwalker, or from a perspective which emphasized the dogwalker over the trees would be far less compelling.

this is a money shot for sure. incredible colors, excellent contrast between shadowy people in foreground and crisp mountain background -- almost looks like a classic safari shot. they dont get much better than this. good work!

wow, great action shot! love the ears, which look like wings, and the bit of orange which subtly balances the green (which looks natural to me). really nice job, great colors, you perfectly captured a fleeting moment.