Old 03-22-2014, 02:22 AM   #1
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default 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... )
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2014, 02:37 AM   #2
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

It's nice, but not RR-ey enough, I suppose. A boating scenic, really. Nicely done, though, shimmery water surface.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2014, 03:13 AM   #3
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,040
Default

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.
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2014, 03:45 AM   #4
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,740
Default

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

Loyd L.
__________________
Social Media elevates the absurd and mediocre to a point where they aren't anymore, and that is a tragedy.

My personal photography site
bigbassloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2014, 04:21 AM   #5
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

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

/Mitch
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2014, 05:59 AM   #6
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb

Oh, and it's "yours."
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2014, 01:05 PM   #7
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
It might have it is faults...
Kind of like your grammar?

Oh, and the image is soft. There's nothing sharp in that scene.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2014, 03:24 PM   #8
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
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
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2014, 04:06 PM   #9
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,040
Default

Full frame camera?
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2014, 04:37 PM   #10
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freericks View Post
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
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2014, 04:53 PM   #11
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
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.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2014, 05:17 PM   #12
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
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.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2014, 05:49 PM   #13
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
I think you are off-base.


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
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2014, 06:48 PM   #14
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

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.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2014, 08:16 PM   #15
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

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.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2014, 01:15 PM   #16
MagnumForce
Senior Member
 
MagnumForce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 602
Default

Total PEQ... and it's badly cropped and I hate the blown out moon oh and the angle sucks.
__________________
-Brent Kneebush
Defiance, Ohio
MagnumForce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2014, 01:16 PM   #17
MagnumForce
Senior Member
 
MagnumForce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 602
Default

Amazing how the Troy can be so supercritical of everyone else's stuff, but finds excuses when the shoe is on the other foot.
__________________
-Brent Kneebush
Defiance, Ohio
MagnumForce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2014, 02:47 PM   #18
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnumForce View Post
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 View Post
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.

Last edited by troy12n; 03-23-2014 at 02:50 PM.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2014, 02:57 PM   #19
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
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.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2014, 03:17 PM   #20
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
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.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2014, 03:47 PM   #21
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
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
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2014, 04:48 PM   #22
MagnumForce
Senior Member
 
MagnumForce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 602
Default

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.
__________________
-Brent Kneebush
Defiance, Ohio
MagnumForce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2014, 09:48 PM   #23
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnumForce View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2014, 09:50 PM   #24
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgoldman View Post
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?
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2014, 09:58 PM   #25
MassArt Images
Senior Member
 
MassArt Images's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pittsburgh, PA area
Posts: 718
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
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.
__________________
Carl


My RP pics are HERE

My website is HERE
MassArt Images is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:41 PM.


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