Exploring the Convention Centre complex last night, I found a lower walkway than I've not previously accessed, that leads to the new (and rather fancy) seaplane terminal check-in, with the seaplane dock beyond.
By this time it was properly dark, and the thick, low cloud was reflecting the lights of the ski areas on the North Shore. Fortunately it was a relatively calm night, so I was able to set up for a long exposure without getting too much motion in the seaplanes.
This was a 3 minute 40 second (or actually, 3:36 -- it seems my intervalometer was in a hurry) exposure at f/11 to bring out the starbursts. I started off with my 24-105mm lens, but noticing that the best framing worked at around 35mm, switched to the super-wide lens for the 14-pointed starbursts it gives.
In the distance on the left are the lights of Grouse Mountain, and the lights of Mount Seymour on the right. On the shoreline at the left are the lights of the Vancouver Shipyards, with the lights of North Vancouver to the right. I'm still not a big fan of the extremely yellow lights on the pontoons -- they are definitely a photographic challenge!
I'm a British software developer and photographer living in Vancouver, BC. I mainly photograph landscapes, cityscapes, night scenes, and water.
If you're interested in any...
216 second exposure? Really? Per the Exif. The windsock held exactly that position for that long? Or did you call on Photoshop? I must say I would have tried for a 5 or 7 HDR effort that if I didn't know from your description is what I assumed this would be. Understanding "ghosting" and the Photoshop resolution for the windsock. Your Vancouver Club and the Canadian flag, for instance.
@frankhymus Yup, really a 3:40 second exposure (or that's what I set on the intervalometer, apparently it runs a bit fast). It was a fairly calm night with a light but steady breeze, so there is some blur in the windsock, but not much. Out of the 10+ shots I took here, this one has the least blur, although that's not the reason I chose it -- it was the best combination of framing, exposure and starbursts.
I prefer not to do HDR if I don't have to, and for me this shot didn't really need it -- there is some overexposure of the lights in the distance, but not enough to be problematic (in my opinion), and there is shadow detail lost in the edges of the pontoons, but there is detail there in the original -- I wanted more contrast and was happy to lose detail there in exchange.
HDR is also extremely tricky when objects are moving -- in the case of the flag on the earlier shot, I did simply paint the flag back in from one of the 7 exposures, which was the work of about 20 seconds, but in this kind of photo there's just too much movement -- the planes are rocking and shifting with every little wave, and this is tidal water -- there is a small but noticeable difference in the level of the planes and pontoons compared to the background in the half hour or so I was photographing here -- for best effect I would have had to align and HDR the upper and lower halves of the image separately and recombine them, which would have been a serious processing job and one that probably was not justified by the composition. Of course, I could also have increased the light coming in, either by boosting the ISO or widening the aperture, which would have allowed me to take the shots in a shorter period, but wouldn't have got me the effect I was looking for.
As always, your photos are mesmerizing - making me see the ordinary things I see them different, here in Vancouver - as if they belong to other places :-). WOW.
Another super shot Alexis (I love hearing about your photographic/creative processes too!). Amazing detail for such a long exposure, on open water no less! Good saturated colour too. Well done! :)
Gorgeous. Having spent most of the 1990s in Seattle, with frequent trips to BC, I'm waxing nostalgic through your photos. Thanks too for documenting your process—I'm just now beginning to delve into the technical nitty-gritty of creative photography, and you have a style (both photographic and writing) that I like.
I like the yellow lights...they make for some nice reflections
216 second exposure? Really? Per the Exif. The windsock held exactly that position for that long? Or did you call on Photoshop? I must say I would have tried for a 5 or 7 HDR effort that if I didn't know from your description is what I assumed this would be. Understanding "ghosting" and the Photoshop resolution for the windsock. Your Vancouver Club and the Canadian flag, for instance.
Curious minds just want to know.
I prefer not to do HDR if I don't have to, and for me this shot didn't really need it -- there is some overexposure of the lights in the distance, but not enough to be problematic (in my opinion), and there is shadow detail lost in the edges of the pontoons, but there is detail there in the original -- I wanted more contrast and was happy to lose detail there in exchange.
HDR is also extremely tricky when objects are moving -- in the case of the flag on the earlier shot, I did simply paint the flag back in from one of the 7 exposures, which was the work of about 20 seconds, but in this kind of photo there's just too much movement -- the planes are rocking and shifting with every little wave, and this is tidal water -- there is a small but noticeable difference in the level of the planes and pontoons compared to the background in the half hour or so I was photographing here -- for best effect I would have had to align and HDR the upper and lower halves of the image separately and recombine them, which would have been a serious processing job and one that probably was not justified by the composition. Of course, I could also have increased the light coming in, either by boosting the ISO or widening the aperture, which would have allowed me to take the shots in a shorter period, but wouldn't have got me the effect I was looking for.
And thank you for the explanations. I learn so much from them.