RailPictures.Net Forums

RailPictures.Net Forums (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/index.php)
-   Railroad Photography Forum (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Is this really a PEQ? (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=16991)

troy12n 03-22-2014 02:22 AM

Is this really a PEQ?
 
It might have it's faults, but damn, really a PEQ?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...36&key=7359273

(real moon, btw... :grin:)

JRMDC 03-22-2014 02:37 AM

It's nice, but not RR-ey enough, I suppose. A boating scenic, really. Nicely done, though, shimmery water surface.

Freericks 03-22-2014 03:13 AM

Not a streak person (train or drawbridge) so I'm not a fan from a RR angle, but it is a nice image on its own.

bigbassloyd 03-22-2014 03:45 AM

Fine for anything other than RP, because it lacks RP type stuff.

Loyd L.

Mgoldman 03-22-2014 04:21 AM

I agree with everything everyone's said above but add "... this time".

/Mitch

Holloran Grade 03-22-2014 05:59 AM

Oh, and it's "yours.":lol:

JimThias 03-22-2014 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 176868)
It might have it is faults...

Kind of like your grammar? ;-)

Oh, and the image is soft. There's nothing sharp in that scene.

troy12n 03-22-2014 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 176881)
Oh, and the image is soft. There's nothing sharp in that scene.

It's as sharp as can be with a 2+ minute exposure taken at F22 from a bridge where semi-trucks are driving by and making the bridge bounce a little

Freericks 03-22-2014 04:06 PM

Full frame camera?

troy12n 03-22-2014 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freericks (Post 176886)
Full frame camera?

5D, 50/1.4

Taken at Bulb exposure for 2+ minutes, F22, ISO100

Why F22? Smallest aperture that lens will go, was trying to maximize exposure time to capture the bridge closing, and that was the only way to do it. Could have gone wider aperture if the moon wasnt there, but I went this day specifically because I knew the moon would be close to setting when the train came through, on a full moon.

With less light (no moon), I could have done a longer exposure at F11 or something

I got there early, did MANY test exposures prior to that one to test shots

JimThias 03-22-2014 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 176884)
It's as sharp as can be with a 2+ minute exposure taken at F22 from a bridge where semi-trucks are driving by and making the bridge bounce a little

So in other words, it's soft. ;-)

troy12n 03-22-2014 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 176888)
So in other words, it's soft. ;-)

I think you are off-base.

It's a very long exposure, light sources bleeding make things appear soft. The long exposure on the water makes it appear soft, where it's actually motion. Plus the other things I mention.

For the shot, what it is, it's sufficiently sharp.

Tell me exactly what objects you think are unsharp and I can give you a reason why:

The boats in the background, they appear soft because they are moving (rocking with the waves).

I have the benefit of looking at the original full-res raw and it's sufficiently sharp for what it is. You would be hard pressed to find any long exposure on here in these conditions that is super sharp.

JimThias 03-22-2014 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 176889)
I think you are off-base.

:lol:

Quote:

Tell me exactly what objects you think are unsharp and I can give you a reason why
You already stated the reason why it's soft:

Quote:

semi-trucks are driving by and making the bridge bounce a little

troy12n 03-22-2014 06:48 PM

The trucks isnt the only thing causing it which I elaborated on. I think it's sufficiently sharp for the type of shot it is. Find me some long exposure night shot in the DB in similar lighting conditions which are razor sharp.

Most 2+ minute exposure shots are taken in the middle of nowhere with few (or no) external light sources and dont have the full moon as backlight.

JimThias 03-22-2014 08:16 PM

There are dozens of long exposure night shots in the database that are sharp. Because you had to deal with adverse conditions that others haven't, it doesn't make your soft image any more acceptable to the database.

It's like people who complain about a rejection on a shot that took a lot of physical effort to get. It's irrelevant.

But you didn't get a rejection for it being soft, so that's irrelevant too. :lol:

MagnumForce 03-23-2014 01:15 PM

Total PEQ... and it's badly cropped and I hate the blown out moon oh and the angle sucks.

MagnumForce 03-23-2014 01:16 PM

Amazing how the Troy can be so supercritical of everyone else's stuff, but finds excuses when the shoe is on the other foot.

troy12n 03-23-2014 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnumForce (Post 176919)
Total PEQ... and it's badly cropped and I hate the blown out moon oh and the angle sucks.

You are entitled to your opinion. I agree cropping could be better. Blown out moon? Maybe you would have preferred I threw in a fake one? It's impossible to NOT have a blown out moon in a long exposure...

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnumForce (Post 176920)
Amazing how the Troy can be so supercritical of everyone else's stuff, but finds excuses when the shoe is on the other foot.

I was responding only to Jim's point about it being soft. It wasnt even rejected for that, so I think your point is moot.

JimThias 03-23-2014 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 176921)
Blown out moon? Maybe you would have preferred I threw in a fake one? It's impossible to NOT have a blown out moon in a long exposure...

Sure, but it's not impossible to take a second photo to expose for the moon, and then combine the two exposures. It takes a little extra work to get the brightness in the sky balanced out while combining, but the extra work is worth it in order to avoid the moon looking like blown out crap.

troy12n 03-23-2014 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 176922)
Sure, but it's not impossible to take a second photo to expose for the moon, and then combine the two exposures. It takes a little extra work to get the brightness in the sky balanced out while combining, but the extra work is worth it in order to avoid the moon looking like blown out crap.

And I have been yelled at for stuff like that before... I actually do have multiple other exposures with a better moon.

Mgoldman 03-23-2014 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 176921)
It's impossible to NOT have a blown out moon in a long exposure...

Or... is it?

http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&key...l_4o4utd1ma7_b

/Mitch

MagnumForce 03-23-2014 04:48 PM

I would not have included the moon, personally, it adds nothing but a blob and screws up the composition of what really matters which is the bridge and plays hell on your exposure. You are beyond the limits of your equipment. Change the composition and you move out of PEQ territory.

troy12n 03-23-2014 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnumForce (Post 176925)
I would not have included the moon, personally, it adds nothing but a blob and screws up the composition of what really matters which is the bridge and plays hell on your exposure. You are beyond the limits of your equipment. Change the composition and you move out of PEQ territory.

I picked this day and this location, this side of the trestle specifically to include the moon and its reflection on the water. It was a full moon setting at approximately the time the train came though. The photographers ephemeris was used to plan the date, moon phase and set time, which this month lined up perfectly.

I have another exposure with the train actually crossing.

troy12n 03-23-2014 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mgoldman (Post 176924)

Maybe I am just dumb, but how will a filter allow me to capture a 2+ minute exposure and preserve details in a bright, moving celestial object?

MassArt Images 03-23-2014 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 176934)
The photographers ephemeris was used to plan the date, moon phase and set time, which this month lined up perfectly.

Is that app free? I have also used suncalc.net.


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.