Night Photos standards?

[Firefighter1019]

Hit with Bad color and Bad contrast. Kinda hard to get good color with Orange lighting.


http://www.railpictures.net/images/d...1399706382.jpg

[troy12n]

Originally Posted by Firefighter1019

Hit with Bad color and Bad contrast. Kinda hard to get good color with Orange lighting.

100000% legit rejection... You can expect them to accept something like that. "Orange lights" is not an excuse.

[Firefighter1019]

Originally Posted by troy12n

100000% legit rejection... You can expect them to accept something like that. "Orange lights" is not an excuse.

So in other words.. Find a new spot to photograph.

[MagnumForce]

You can always adjust the color but that ufo in your shot. Ugh, just not good.

[Mberry]

Originally Posted by Firefighter1019

So in other words.. Find a new spot to photograph.

Yes, definitely.

[Mgoldman]

Originally Posted by Firefighter1019

So in other words.. Find a new spot to photograph.

Some locations just do not work. This one, however, can. The color temperature is an easy fix. Either use a filter or adjust the color temperature later in your editing program. In this case - "Auto-color" did the trick.

Can't help you on the overexposure. You can reshoot it. If per chance you can not keep the lights from blowing out (though you likely can), you can do an HDR or layer using properly exposed selections between multiple images.



/Mitch

[troy12n]

Originally Posted by Mgoldman

Some locations just do not work. This one, however, can. The color temperature is an easy fix. Either use a filter or adjust the color temperature later in your editing program. In this case - "Auto-color" did the trick.

Can't help you on the overexposure. You can reshoot it. If per chance you can not keep the lights from blowing out (though you likely can), you can do an HDR or layer using properly exposed selections between multiple images.

Attachment 8590

/Mitch

Yea, he can fix the color temperature and white balance, but at the end of the day his inclusion of the light source is bound to screw up the exposure (and it did in this case). The photo has many issues above and beyond color.

[MagnumForce]

Again, the UFO light, just ugh.

[Joe the Photog]

You should appeal on the account of "Orange Lighting" and see how far that gets you!

[Firefighter1019]

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog

You should appeal on the account of "Orange Lighting" and see how far that gets you!

Im not to worried about it. I tried playing with the color but the photo really isnt all that exciting anyway lol

[Holloran Grade]

You could shoot this scene at this spot if you were to zoom down on the subject to remove the light post and the big ball of glare on the right.

Also, you would need to shoot in RAW format and setting the WB on the camera at tungsten and then readjusting the white balance further on the computer during post processing.

Night shots are actually trickier than day shots and many times you will go back and reshoot places after you see the initial results.

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by Holloran Grade

..you would need to shoot in RAW format and setting the WB on the camera at tungsten..

Or just leave the wb on the auto setting because it doesn't matter when you're going to be editing a raw file..

Loyd L.

[jac_murphy]

I admittedly have very little experience editing photos shot under sodium-vapour lighting, but the few times I've done it with my little point-and-shoot and the WB set to "tungsten," it seems that the colours come out as an awful puke-yellow tone that's even harder to correct. Anybody else have feel this to be the case as well?

-Jacques

[bigbassloyd]

I usually go under the standard tungsten 3200k color temp and do a slight hue adjustement for sodium vapor lighting.

Loyd L.

[Holloran Grade]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

Or just leave the wb on the auto setting because it doesn't matter when you're going to be editing a raw file.

I can think of only one reply to this statement - duh.

(Rivet counting at it's finest.)

Not to be too much of an ass, but don't you think if he knew that, he would have corrected the original image?

At least with Tungsten it will look somewhat on the preview of his camera as to where he needs to be with the WB.

That was my only intent.

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

I usually go under the standard tungsten 3200k color temp and do a slight hue adjustement for sodium vapor lighting.

And you stand out in the field and do that?

See above reply.

[Firefighter1019]

I wont be going back there anytime to reshoot. Saturday there were 2 railfans run over and killed and another girl hit about 10 miles away from that spot. NS Police are in the area now.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by Holloran Grade

I can think of only one reply to this statement - duh.

(Rivet counting at it's finest.)

Not to be too much of an ass, but don't you think if he knew that, he would have corrected the original image?

But you're assuming he knows how to correct the original raw file. If he did, he wouldn't have asked for help here in the first place.

Maybe that's the part he's struggling with. DUH!

[Ron Flanary]

Remember...I don't shoot in raw. The files are too, too large, and I don't place too much archival value in my digital shots.

As for the shot...I don't see a way to do anything with that blown out light tower. I messed around with the color just a little and did a recrop. That portion of the image looks pretty cool.

[Holloran Grade]

I said a few posts up:

Originally Posted by Holloran Grade

You could shoot this scene at this spot if you were to zoom down on the subject to remove the light post and the big ball of glare on the right.

Also, you would need to shoot in RAW format and setting the WB on the camera at tungsten and then readjusting the white balance further on the computer during post processing.

Night shots are actually trickier than day shots and many times you will go back and reshoot places after you see the initial results.

So how did I make this assumption?

Originally Posted by JimThias

But you're assuming he knows how to correct the original raw file.

I assume he knows nothing about adjusting WB, or else he would have done it originally.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by Holloran Grade

So how did I make this assumption?

You're reading into it way too much.

[Holloran Grade]

Originally Posted by JimThias

You're reading into it way too much.

No, I'm feeling argumentative.

[Firefighter1019]

I rarely shoot in raw format. Usually only when im doing astrophotography and star trail stuff to bring out the Nebula colors and such. I shoot way to many train pics for raw.

Ron, yeah I cropped and messed around with it and pretty much ended up with what you have done. I liked the look of the headlights but figured theyd still reject due to the orange lighting.

[Holloran Grade]

Originally Posted by Firefighter1019

I shoot way to many train pics for raw.

Well, then you are stuck with what you got.

[troy12n]

Originally Posted by Firefighter1019

I shoot way to many train pics for raw.

I dont understand this mindset... storage is cheap these days. You are purposely limiting your potential by not shooting raw

Originally Posted by Ron Flanary

Remember...I don't shoot in raw. The files are too, too large, and I don't place too much archival value in my digital shots.

That's surprising to me

[Holloran Grade]

Originally Posted by Ron Flanary

Remember...I don't shoot in raw. The files are too, too large, and I don't place too much archival value in my digital shots.

You can fit a lot more RAW files in a shoe box than snap shots or slides.

Just saying....