Is this really a PEQ?

troy12n · 03-22-2014, 02:22 AM

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

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

(real moon, btw...

)

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."

JimThias · 03-22-2014, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or... is it?

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

/Mitch

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

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.