Techsurvivors

Archives => 2006 => Topic started by: beacher on July 02, 2006, 02:13:50 PM

Title: Hey Photographers. . .
Post by: beacher on July 02, 2006, 02:13:50 PM
Hey guys, They've decorated the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in red, white and blue lights, but when I use the Fuji S602 on the night setting, I get a great image, in which the bridge itself is clear and the water is beautiful, but the lights are all "fuzzed" (over-exposure?).  I'm stumped on how to get a great pic.  The camera itself ranges in capability from fully manual, to "programmed" to fully automatic.  

And now that I've prowled thru the manual (again!) I may have gotten the answer with "exposure compensation", but I'd still appreciate any advice you have to offer, and sites that you might use to pick up "tricks"!
Title: Hey Photographers. . .
Post by: D76 on July 02, 2006, 02:33:59 PM
This would be a tough picture to take because the shutter has to be open long enough to show the bridge at night. But with it open that long, the lights, as you say, would over-expose.

If you had a basement full of cash, you could bribe an official to turn the lights off, then a fraction of a second before the shutter closes, turn them on. This would give the bridge the correct exposure, along with the lights.

If you don't have a basement full of cash, the trick could be done with Photoshop or some application like it. You'd have to use a tripod, or place the camera on some other solid foundation, so it wouldn't move over the space of two exposures.

One exposure would be long to capture the bridge. The second would be short to capture the lights properly. The hard part would be to use Photoshop to erase everything in the short exposure but the lights, and erase only the lights in the long exposure, then paste the picture containing the lights from the short exposure onto the long-exposure picture.

I've done that sort of thing way back in the stone age, in a darkroom using film, paper and developer, but it took forever and was only black and white. Compared to that, Photoshop would be a walk in the park.

All the same, better you than me. biggrin.gif
Title: Hey Photographers. . .
Post by: D76 on July 02, 2006, 02:58:48 PM
Beacher, I should have added that it depends on the type of lights, as well. If they are flood lights, the description above wouldn't work. If the lights are points, like rows of tiny LEDs or Christmas-tree lights, it could.
Title: Hey Photographers. . .
Post by: Xairbusdriver on July 02, 2006, 04:35:01 PM
The distance to the bridge may also be causing part of the problem. Atmospheric disturbances ( temperature inversions, even dust ) may be causing the lights to 'bloom' more during a long exposure. Plus, digital sensors are more easily 'fooled' by bright spots next to dark areas. And they simply aren't as small as the chemical grains! There are usually several sensors grouped together for each 'pixel'. Therefore, with 3 - 4 sensors each getting a lot of light, the resulting pixel is much brighter than one would expect. ( each sensor group has 1 for each of the primary colors and maybe another just for white value [ heavily generalized ] ).

Another solution may be to take a daylight ( or dusk ) picture ( before the lights come on. And a second picture from exactly the same spot after the lights come on, but at a much shorter exposure time, mainly just to get the lights as small but as saturated as possible. Then combine the two images.

Since I'm not doing the work, I think it would work! smile.gif
Title: Hey Photographers. . .
Post by: gunug on July 02, 2006, 06:03:26 PM
I was going to try shooting fireworks last night and had thought it was all worked out but when it came time to actually shoot I found myself with dead batteries in the digital camera.  Someone else had unplugged the charger but I should have followed up!   oops.gif
Title: Hey Photographers. . .
Post by: Xairbusdriver on July 02, 2006, 07:23:48 PM
gunug, are you sure you aren't a pilot?! You have demonstrated a primary skill all good pilots must have: always have an answer for problems, especially if you can blame someone else! eusa_dance.gif
Title: Hey Photographers. . .
Post by: beacher on July 02, 2006, 07:58:01 PM
ABD, I think that you've put your finger on the problem: "Plus, digital sensors are more easily 'fooled' by bright spots next to dark areas. " I thought the exposure compensation might take care of it, but (Quigley-luck strikes again!), upon further reading in the manual, that little option is deactivated in the "shooting in the dark" setting. . . I did try taking them at dusk, although I haven't tried everything, so, more experimentation tonight!

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=180267658&size=o
should show what the problem is!

Thanks, all; I really appreciate the input!
Title: Hey Photographers. . .
Post by: gunug on July 02, 2006, 10:26:50 PM
QUOTE
You have demonstrated a primary skill all good pilots must have: always have an answer for problems, especially if you can blame someone else!


I think technician's learn to speak blarney even if it's technical blarney!
Title: Hey Photographers. . .
Post by: D76 on July 03, 2006, 08:14:10 AM
Beacher, here's your pic with everything but the lights across the top of the bridge removed (quick and dirty).

If you had an identical pic of the bridge with the proper exposure for it alone, this could be glued on top. (Your picture isn't bad as it is.)

To take two pictures, though, the camera couldn't be moved between exposures.

Oh, man, when I think of the hours I spent in a darkroom over a hot enlarger. . . .
Title: Hey Photographers. . .
Post by: beacher on July 03, 2006, 01:19:07 PM
Yep; I understand about the hot enlarger. . . A friend of mine in Anacortes, Wa., works in a photo shop, and his boss is giving him more and more time off, due to the "digital revolution". . . I figured that this was really on the way when Kodak announced that they would not be making film anymore!  Thanks for the quick and dirty.
Title: Hey Photographers. . .
Post by: kelly on July 03, 2006, 01:34:29 PM
I can see why you wanted it Beach. smile.gif

Your picture looks good as is. smile.gif
Title: Hey Photographers. . .
Post by: D76 on July 03, 2006, 01:37:57 PM
QUOTE(beacher @ Jul 3 2006, 02:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I figured that this was really on the way when Kodak announced that they would not be making film anymore!
Not quite yet. It's stopped selling film cameras, except in China, I think, and black-and-white-print papers. But it will stop making film soon enough, I'd bet.
Title: Hey Photographers. . .
Post by: sandbox on July 03, 2006, 03:10:31 PM
I agree kelly it's a good picture for a night shot over an evaporating body of water. I take many here in WaterWorld and would like them to come out as well as that. Lack of light or spotty light is usually the problem. Because this light is strung across the horizon he has even light with the advantage of reflection from the water.

If you take the picture in .tiff or raw it would suit your local newspaper or USAToday.

Good Shot Beach! wink.gif
Title: Hey Photographers. . .
Post by: beacher on July 04, 2006, 12:39:06 AM
Wow!  Thanks, guys, but to paraphrase one of my favorite bands, "It's not the singer; it's the song."  Glad you liked it.

BTW, I took the pic into Photoshop, used the burn tool, adjusted the brush size, and selected the highlights setting, and it got rid of the fuzz!