Here are a couple of photos from tonight. I'm not really happy with either one, but looking for suggestions here.

Photo 1
Nikon D70
F/5.6 for 4 minutes @ 10:15 PM



Photo 2
Nikon D70
F/5.6 for 6 minutes @ 10:30 PM



Illumination of both photos: tonight was still a relatively full moon. There was a light cloud layer, so there were no stars out. In addition to the moonlight, I also used my SB-600 off camera by hitting the test button repeatedly from different points as I walked around the car to paint the car and the background.

Paging Hafid: suggestions welcome for driving cars into the frame without overexposing the headlights so much. Have driven a car through the frame and parked it away from the city lights before? Advice welcome.

Part of the problem for me with photo 2 as well is that I feel I needed a second person there tonight to help out. Since I had to drive the car into the frame and fire off the flash, that resulted in a couple of problems: 1) the car wasn't in the frame long enough and appears transparent in places. 2) the dome light shows up.

Photo 3 (from September)
F/3.5 for 5 minutes @ 10:30 PM



I show this as a bit of comparison. The lighting for photo 3 was provided by a lantern. The foreground and the car's wheels look a bit plasticy to me in this one. I think the flash method did a much better job of providing a cleaner image (photo 1), but ultimately having a night sky with stars out makes a huge difference.

Maybe one of these nights I'll pull it all together, but it wasn't tonight.

 

I think #1 looks quite good. #2 has the problems you mention but I think the idea is good. Turning off the dome light would help, as you say. I'm trying to understand why the car looks transparent. The longer it's parked there relative to the total exposure time the more solid it should appear, so it seems like having to spend more time getting out of the car and walking around wouldn't have hurt.

As for the headlights, hmmm. Smaller aperture and longer exposure would dim the "driving in" lights and keep the parked car exposure the same. ND filter during the drive-in and then removed for the rest of the exposure? Or, driving in faster?

Cool star trail shot! It would be fun to get complete arcs but that takes a much longer exposure--difficult with a digital--and a really dark sky.

Mark

 

Love photo 3 Dave, but I would have picked a spot without the pole and lines. At least a different angle that didn't show them. Gerat shot.

 

I like photo 3 the best but the power poll having the angle toward the Mini is, well something. Not sure yet. It's still a very good photo.

I also like 1. The back ground has the typical long exposure look to it but the car was very sharp. I didn't realize how you did it until I read about the flash.

You always have very nice photos. I would have never thought of trying flash at night. All the night photos I've done have been just with the shutter. Giving me some ideas here.

Brad

 

The dome light problem canbe fixed by masking them with black tape.
Is it my monitor, but I think I see a transparent leg or two Pic 2?

I tried firing my flash multiple times for some shots the other night but it wouldn't recycle fast enough. (probably need new batteries)

Using smaller apertures will cause light sources to appear as stars, no?
At least that's been my experience, regardless of time of day or night.

 

Hello Dave! The first pic is actually quite nice. The second one is tough b/c of the harshness of the of the lights. Honestly, all I can tell you is it's always better to just have the car drive throught the *entire* frame rather than stop in the middle*(or start for that matter). I lucked out with the Feb photo contest pic b/c only the parking lights were on and the ghost of the mini was b/c of a timed stop for 2 seconds at the end of the exposure to imprint the mini in the pic.

If you look at my pics with headlights on in the them, they are *very* bright. The second pic is the latest round of night shots shows this at the top of the pic.

 

Thanks for the feedback guys!

MarkS: The car looks transparent because I needed to drive down swing a u-turn and come back. That killed easily 90 seconds, so it just wasn't around long enough.

Regarding the ND filter idea: how do you get the ND off without disrupting the camera? One thought that occured to me was to do two exposures, one for the streaky lights and one for the car/background, then overlay the two. That would fix the transparent car problem too.

Pat: My options for where to shoot this were a little restricted once I got up there away from the city lights. This particular turnout was the largest I could find (so I could get the tripod back to the back of the turnout). If the powerlines were the only problem with the picture (#2), I could have just photoshopped them out, but there was so much else that was off, it just wasn't worth the effort to fix that. I do need to scout some new locations though.

Brad: The thing I like about the flash is that it's even lighting. When I was using the lantern, it has a distinct reflector pattern to it. A flash is also nice because of the color temperature (whitish, not yellow)

Juan: Black tape. Nice trick.

RE: pic 2 - those aren't transparent legs, I think those are the rock features that were visible while the car wasn't in the frame for the 90 seconds or so the shutter was initially open.

Smaller aperture - that's been my experience too, more starring.

Hafid: just the park lights, thanks. I could have driven like that last night (for the short distance). I'll have to remember that one.

 

Okay, I understand now about the transparency. Getting the ND filter off without shifting the camera would be tricky. Maybe a gel filter that you could somehow rig up so you could shoot through it without it actually being attached (you'd have to be careful of flare) and then easily moved out of the way?

The star effect at small apertures comes from diffraction around the aperture blades. You get twice as many points on the stars as you have blades, I think.

Mark

 

For the issue of the headlights being too strong, I, myself would apply filters directly to them. Rosco makes a linear polorizing gel that is 38% transmission and of neutral color.

 

Feel like trying it again?

 

Sure! :smile:

I'm betting I'll be busy editing with AMVIV photos until the weekend, but I'd like to go out and try this again.

 

Nice shots! I like the #3 the most but the lines and pole definately don't add anything. As for the filter, is there some sort of adapter that would allow you to use a drop in, and you could easily slide it in and out. Another idea, is a double exposure. You could end the exposure and if the camera wiggles around a little when the shutter is closed it's no big deal, re-expose the frame without the filter and assuming your tripod has good footing that might do the trick. I hope I could help a little.

 

DiD, I know this is late, and I'm sure my opinion doesn't matter, but those photos are great. Not looking at them from a photographers stand point may be the reason I like them so much. I'd never know if, technically, there were things wrong. To me, they just look very good. If I lived in SoCal I'd have you shoot my car the same way. If you ever end up in Charlotte, NC I'd love to have you shoot it here.

 

cooper44: First, I am glad you liked the photos.

I'm planning on coming out to Norfolk in May. That's not exactly NC, but it is a heck of a lot closer than L.A. :smile: I'll probably be out there for about 4 days near the end of the month. The dates aren't firm yet though.

 

All very inspirational photos! I also have a Nikon D70 and a SB-600. Problem is, I don't have a MINI (yet!). It's on order and will arrive in June. You mentioned you could have used a second person for help...where are you? I'm in San Jose, CA.

Jason