QE2 Leaving Liverpool

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wirral Tog
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wirral Tog

Guest
Hi peeps :thumbs:

I was watching the QE2 leaving Liverpool last night and tried some night time togging (not very succesfully). Any tips on this subject would be a great help. I found myself taking around 4-10 second exposures at 200 iso f11 ish.

Am i right in thinking i would need higher iso to enable faster shutter speed to stop the QE2 from looking blurred and how do i then let in more light as the flash was just useless in them conditions.

I was using a tripod but still the shots didnt seem that sharp:thinking:

your help and comments please

QE2_2.jpg
 
yes, i would suggest to set the ISO at about 800, to enable the shutter speed to increase which would not have let the Ship blur and also would have give shape to the fireworks.

I may be completely wrong about this suggestion though!
 
I said extra as in why are there more than there should be. I was there and they didn't have the two fireworks on the left. Even if they did I'm fairly impressed at their ability to have no reflections.
 
petemc said:
Erm... why are there extra fireworks?
Click to expand...


I thought i would add some of the firework shots from another pic if thats ok with you of course Pete :eek:

Thanks Gazedd for your help


Jerry "It might have been better to find a location where there were no background lights. The ship is almost invisible" as Liverpool was kinda the only backdrop i had to play with i had to make do with that:D

Thanks

PS. Petemc thanks for your constructive comments on the reflections and the extra lot of fireworks that "SHOULDNT BE THERE" its nice to be welcomed so well by another Wirralian :thumbsdown:
 
They "SHOULDN'T BE THERE" because they weren't there to start with. That wasn't what happened and its cheating imho. I'm fairly sure I'm not alone here. Edit the light you capture, don't start putting things in that weren't there. Of course the skyline would have looked better lit up by fireworks but that didn't happen. You've got to make the best of what happens not make up what you wished happened.

Welcome to TP :)
 
But its cheating :p I have loads of photos that would look better with cheerleaders ;)
 
I have added fireworks to fireworks photos before, cheating? maybe - but I wanted to either fill dark spaces or just make the shot more interesting.

It would have been nice to see more of the boat, but unless you had one monster flash you were always going to struggle to make it stand out from the skyline anymore than you have.
 
petemc said:
They "SHOULDN'T BE THERE" because they weren't there to start with. That wasn't what happened and its cheating imho. I'm fairly sure I'm not alone here. Edit the light you capture, don't start putting things in that weren't there. Of course the skyline would have looked better lit up by fireworks but that didn't happen. You've got to make the best of what happens not make up what you wished happened.

Welcome to TP :)
Click to expand...

Sorry Pete but thats utter rubbish IMO .....................if the guy wants to add something to the images he's taken whats the problem with that.

Your line of "Edit the light you capture" I'm sure is cleverly worded as it is at the very limit of what you do with all your HDR/Tonemapped images? Many of which people would say "Liverpool never looked like that when I was there!"

Is there really any difference between this image and what you do to yours?

Not having a dig here but just think everyone or anyone has licence to add their own 'Artistic merit' to images they produce in whatever way or means they want don't they :thinking::shrug:
 
olv said:
rofl since when has adding in extra objects that weren't ever there been 'artistic licence'.

this forum worries be sometimes.
Click to expand...

Since forever? and tell 'be' not to worry, the forum is fine ;)
 
Mr THX said:
Sorry Pete but thats utter rubbish IMO .....................if the guy wants to add something to the images he's taken whats the problem with that.
Click to expand...

O rly? So if I put a flying Delorean into my photos everyone would be ok with that? If I put another QE2 in there that'd be ok? Can't have enough QE2's. Maybe some dolphins, a whale, the leaning tower of Pizza (not a typo) and so on. At what point does it end?

Your line of "Edit the light you capture" I'm sure is cleverly worded as it is at the very limit of what you do with all your HDR/Tonemapped images? Many of which people would say "Liverpool never looked like that when I was there!"
Click to expand...

I'm not going to get into that for one simple reason. Contrast ratios. Your eyes see differently to your camera, to your phone camera, to what was really there. The world was never in black and white yet thats fine. So I'm not getting into yet another HDR argument.

Is there really any difference between this image and what you do to yours?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Not having a dig here but just think everyone or anyone has licence to add their own 'Artistic merit' to images they produce in whatever way or means they want don't they :thinking::shrug:
Click to expand...

That quote needs more cowboys dancing to hiphop to make it better.
 
Well it's a matter of opinion isn't it.

Some people think it's a valid thing to do, some people don't.
You can't tell someone it's completely wrong. If the OP want's to, then that's fine, there's nothing wrong with it.
If someone else doesn't think it's acceptable, then they won't add anything to their OWN photos, that's fair enough. Just like some people won't even rotate photos in Photoshop, because that's not as was captured.

It's differing levels of photographer input. Some people think only camera time is acceptable, some people think it's acceptable to take it to the other end and change things in photoshop.

You can't dictate what other people should do though. We're all here to get along nicely.
If you don't want to add things to your own photos? That's fine, don't.
Similarly, if you want to add things to your photos, then that's fine, just don't tell other people theyre wrong for not doing so :)
 
Wirral Tog said:
Liverpool was kinda the only backdrop i had to play with i had to make do with that:D
Click to expand...

I don't know the area, but is there another location nearby where you could take the picture next time, where the background lights are less prominent?

That is the sort of learning process I would go through if I'd taken the pic.:)

And, I have to say, I do agree with petemc about the fireworks. It's a question of where do you draw the line with digital.
 
I can just see it now, Ansel Adams sat in his darkroom with an incredible shot from Yosemite and just thinking to himself 'well, this is pretty awesome but you know what it needs? more mountains, BIGGER, and why don't i just add in the moon, oh and what about the sun too, oh yeah looking good now! hmmm, still something missing... oh yes! A GIRAFFE! KILLER!'.

Don't be absurd. You can't call it a photograph if you just make it up. fair enough it might be a nice piece of digital art but certainly not a photograph.
 
mrgubby said:
:withstupid:

oops I meant :agree:

after all some people think that PS is the devils tool :)
Click to expand...

there's a massive difference between using photoshop to enhance the light that was there and just plonking in extra stuff just for kicks.
 
jerry12953 said:
Once you cross the line, it sort of stops being photography and becomes more like photoshop skills....:)
Click to expand...

No, once you edit a photograph in photoshop at all, it stops being photography and becomes more like photoshop skills ;)

Who says Ansel Adams wouldn't have taken to Photoshop like a fat man to a bag of chips ;)
 
Where is the "can-of-worms" smiley :D


and has anybody got a lid ;)
 
Marcel said:
No, once you edit a photograph in photoshop at all, it stops being photography and becomes more like photoshop skills ;)

Who says Ansel Adams wouldn't have taken to Photoshop like a fat man to a bag of chips ;)
Click to expand...

well he clearly would have, most of what you can do in photoshop was done in the darkroom anyway.
 
jerry12953 said:
Once you cross the line, it sort of stops being photography and becomes more like photoshop skills....:)
Click to expand...

I agree.

What about pics that people put up where the sky or cloud formation wasn't exactly how they liked it, so they import a wonderful sunset from Bali or the Grand Canyon and layer it on top of a picture of a cow in a field?
The cow in a field suddenly becomes a masterpiece.

:lol::lol::lol:
 
Marcel said:
Well it's a matter of opinion isn't it.

Some people think it's a valid thing to do, some people don't.
You can't tell someone it's completely wrong. If the OP want's to, then that's fine, there's nothing wrong with it.
Click to expand...

I don't recall anyone saying its wrong. I said cheating. I was stating my opinion and I even said the almight 'imho' just as a get out clause incase someone thought I was spouting scientific fact ;)

It's differing levels of photographer input.
Click to expand...

It doesn't take a photographer to add a giraffe to a fireworks photo. Anyone can do that so then you're not a photographer then. You just a guy putting things into a photo.

You can't dictate what other people should do though. We're all here to get along nicely.
Click to expand...

I can offer my opinion though as someone who was there. As someone who has a similar photo. As a member of this forum. As a photographer passing by noticing the lack of reflections. Just as someone able to voice his opinion. So by your words, you can't tell me not to or else you're dictating what I shouldn't do :p IMHO :)

jerry12953 said:
I don't know the area, but is there another location nearby where you could take the picture next time, where the background lights are less prominent?/QUOTE]

There isn't from that side of the Mersey. The only other good spot is from the other side by the QE2.
Click to expand...
 
petemc said:
They "SHOULDN'T BE THERE" because they weren't there to start with. That wasn't what happened and its cheating imho. I'm fairly sure I'm not alone here. Edit the light you capture, don't start putting things in that weren't there. Of course the skyline would have looked better lit up by fireworks but that didn't happen. You've got to make the best of what happens not make up what you wished happened.

Welcome to TP :)
Click to expand...

surely every photographer that clones a post out of a landscape shot or removes freckles from a models skin is cheating then, it isn't the picture the camera captured once you start messing about with it, most of the pictures posted on TP have been photoshopped to some degree, where do you draw the line.:shrug:
 
petemc said:
I don't recall anyone saying its wrong.
Click to expand...

You said they shouldnt be there.
If he was trying to portray that this was exactly how it happened, then yes, that would be cheating.
If he was just showing an image he made, then it's not cheating..its just showing an image he made. He shouldn't have to explicitly state that there were extra fireworks every time, just incase someone thinks it was real.

My point is, if he wants to add extra fireworks, so what? Some people would view ANY manipulation (including HDR, Levels adjustments, even cropping etc)as 'cheating' because thats not AS it was captured. There are differing levels of acceptance. What you might prefer, might not be right for another person. To tell them their photography is wrong (or at least to infer it with your words, without actually saying the word 'wrong') isn't fair. Everyone has their own styles.

Photograph means drawing with light, and he has done. He's mixed a few photographs into one.

And while I can't tell you (Pete) how you should produce your photographs (and rightly so), I can tell you what to say on here, and if you dont comply I can come down and whip yo ass :D :lol:
But then again I know you like that, so I wont ;)

You can, however, point out that as he's decided to add stuff that wasn't there in his photograph (Which you personally don't like doing yourself), he's made a boo boo by missing the reflections off ;)
 
wack61 said:
where do you draw the line.:shrug:
Click to expand...

There's a line. Don't start adding things that weren't there. People were removing freckles long before digital so theres nothing new there.
 
Marcel said:
You said they shouldnt be there.
Click to expand...

I did, which wasn't explicitly saying that he was wrong. Just saying that they shouldn't be there because they weren't there and imho he crossed the line as a photographer. I only know for a fact because I was there and of course it would have been nice to see more fireworks but you're a better photographer for knowing how to be a photographer. Better to get a stunning shot right at the scene rather than thinking "I'll just put some cheerleaders in later."

If he was just showing an image he made...
Click to expand...

As its a photography forum we assume we're looking at a photograph not an image someone has made. To that end it jumps out as a fake and I would question it every time.
 
petemc said:
There's a line. Don't start adding things that weren't there. People were removing freckles long before digital so theres nothing new there.
Click to expand...

People were doing double exposures before digital was that cheating too.
 
That they were, and exposure blending and lots of things. They were also adding to photographs before digital too like fairies and such.
 
True....I reckon some of the clever ones would have known how do add those really wacky unrealisitc skys in the darkroom too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top