• Hi Guest!
    If you appreciate British Car Forum and our 25 years of supporting British car enthusiasts with technical and anicdotal information, collected from our thousands of great members, please support us with a low-cost subscription. You can become a supporting member for less than the dues of most car clubs.
    There are some perks with a member upgrade!
    **Upgrade Now**
    (PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Tips
Tips

Photo I took, opinions sought.

Share this page

W

William

Darth Vader
Offline
[image][/image]

Opinions sought on the above photo, if'n you don't mind. It's a rail bridge over the Fox River in Geneva, IL.
I've crossed over this bridge hundreds of times-it's the main Metra line into Chicago from my area. The station is just across the water from where I'm at, and I finally got around to figuring out how to get down to river level. If you look closely, you can see a whitish rectangular sign on the bridge. That's actually the old Chicago & Northwestern logo-they used to own the road, until the merger with Union Pacific a decade ago. And now you know my little secret-I'm kinda into trains. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/square.gif

-Wm.
 
Nice, I really like what you did there. I had to click on it to really get it to the size where I could appreciate it. Very good idea, you obviously had a very slow shutter speed.
 
Heh, trains are fun. I remember the steam locos from my childhood. Wheeeee.
 
All I remember is the soot Jack. But those locos seemed to be alive!!
Excellent photograph,by the way. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/savewave.gif

Stuart. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cheers.gif
 
But the way they breathed, seemed alive to me. I was so small and they were so huge and loud.
 
I like those kinds of pictures. Play around with doing some HDR work with multiple-exposures sometime. You can get more detail from the bridge and better saturation in the skies with the right methods.

As for trains...if you get the RFD channel, watch "Trains & Locomotives". It's on several times a week, I usually try to catch it Saturday mornings at 9-eastern.
 
Great picture, but you really need to open up the tones under the bridge. There is just too much great detail under there that is lost in the shadows. One or two more f-stops exposure under there would help. The problem with digital cameras, is that they have the tonal range of slide film, which is only about 4 1/2 stops, so it's difficult to get enough detail in a picture that has a high tonal range. Negative (print) film has a tonal range of about ten stops, so it records more detail in the shadows and highlights.

You might try taking the same picture when the day is overcast, as that will shorten the tonal range in the picture, and it should open up the area under the bridge.

You have a good eye for pictures, and that's something that hard to teach. The mechanics of exposure is much easier to learn. Just keep playing around with various exposures with the camera in manual mode. You can instantly see how things change.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cheers.gif
 
I'll concur with the folks... Nice line of movement, but the actual capture of the bridge wasn't done as effectively as it could have... How long was your exposure for?
 
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with digital cameras, is that they have the tonal range of slide film, which is only about 4 1/2 stops, so it's difficult to get enough detail in a picture that has a high tonal range. Negative (print) film has a tonal range of about ten stops, so it records more detail in the shadows and highlights.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's actually quite a bit more dynamic range than 4.5 stops on decent sensors, you just have to set them up properly. My old Olympus system tested out to about 6 stops shooting .jpgs, I never tested raw files. I've seen closer to 7-8 stops useable from my Nikon sensors.

In any event, there's more detail in William's image than meets the eye (sorry for the pun) at first glance:

bridgeredo640.jpg
 
I like how you can see stars through the stretched train image. Very cool IMHO. I also like the green glow from the train windows reflecting on the water below, lighting the bird standing in the water.
 
Yeah the detail is there, actually quite a bit of detail, but the overall feeling is still dark. With photos like these the difference could be as little as taking the photo ten minutes earlier when the sky would also have a bit more life to it. Now if only you could control the train schedule. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jester.gif

Also a good example of how getting the 'right' photo the first time doesn't always work out. Sometimes it can take several exposures and several trips. Keep at it though. Your off to a great start. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif
 
I suppose I should answer some queries, then. The photo was shot around 8:30 pm. on my Canon Rebel XT digital. Several exposures taken earlier (around 7:45) ended up being almost too bright, looking pretty much like daylight. I used a 30 second exposure (the maximum preset) and a 3.5 aperture. Anything less than than that, at that time of the night, gave me a lot of color noise in the RAW file, which effectively ruins the photo (I have a bunch of pictures that are ruined because of color noise). The jpeg I shot at the same time (the camera allows you to take a RAW and a jpeg at once) is much darker, with virtually no detail on the bridge, and a much dimmer reflection of the train lights. It actually looks kind cool in its own right, as you see the silhouette of the bridge against that purple sky and the streaking light.

The image itself was a quickie conversion to jpeg of the raw file. I tried mucking around a bit with the exposure in Photoshop and kept making it look too much like daylight.

Part of the reason I'm limiting myself to 30 second exposures is because to go longer, you have to use the bulb function and then hold the shutter button down, and I ruined at least two shots because I twitched, moving the camera.

-Wm.
 
The bulb function on my cameras only work with a remote cord, but are excellent for night photography. I used to be into astrophotography, and those remote cords are worth their weight in gold... especially if it has a locking mechanism so you don't have to hold the shutter button yourself.
 
It all depends on what the goal is with the image. For me any detail under the bridge takes away from the shot. Th eye immediately goes to the green lines cutting across but with more detail it detracts. If anything I would go opposite and less light under. It still says " bridge".
 
If you have a laptop, you can control the camera from it. That way you never have to touch anything. I'm assuming the Rebel has remote control capability like the models above it.
 
The Rebel has remote capability, just like my Elan 7. I just need to get around to getting the remote. I dont know if I could control it from my laptop, but I'm the sort of guy who travels light, so I'm not likely to bring my computer out with me when I can take a little keyfob sized widget will do the same thing.

Regarding under-bridge detail, I'm of two minds. I find it amazing that with some exposure juggling you can clearly see the detail of the concrete pilings. On the other paw, I rather like seeing mostly silhouette of the bridge and pilings, and just the lights and reflection in the water. But going to a shorter exposure, especially in extremely dark conditions such as the ones in the bridge pic, lead to lots of color noise.

More than anything, I kinda like the way those commuter train lights look. The Metra cars have a peculiarly greenish tint.

[image][/image]
 
[ QUOTE ]
More than anything, I kinda like the way those commuter train lights look. The Metra cars have a peculiarly greenish tint.

[/ QUOTE ]

That particular greenish hue would be from their flourescent lights in the passenger compartments.

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cheers.gif
 
Back
Top