[rabblefrabble]

Photo taken when i first got K-x

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[Schraubstock]

Hi Mike

You have not had a reply and I guess the reason for this is that nobody wants to be impolite saying what the reply should be and that is, in the best way I can say it, the picture is less than good. Why you ask ?

There are a number of things wrong with it.

The city skyline is too distant
The foreground with the rocks is not in harmony with the city skyline, it is too removed by distance.
Colouring is flat.
Horizon is not level
There is too much picture on the left and right
The city skyline dissects the picture right in the middle
The picture is not sharp.

I can see from where you were standing you wanted the foreground with the rocks but you were too far away from the city and it does not work.

I have done a quick and dirty cut and past simulation of what I think images like these should look like.
I am traveling at the moment and use my small notebook so the result is not optimal.

Hope this helps

Greetings

[mikeSF]

Hi Mike,
it's a good first attempt and I am assuming you shot this hand held because the EXIF says 1/4th sec shutter and ISO 3200. For any night shooting, you really will benefit with a good sturdy tripod. With a steady camera, you can bring the ISO back down to 100-200 and use a 30 sec shutter with a reasonable aperture and get a very nice shot.
I have shot from this exact location many times and find those foreground rocks to be too far with a wide-ish lens to contribute anything meaningful to the image. Schraubstock suggested shifting the foreground up and that is good, but i would recommend keeping those rocks dark because they really draw the eye and are totally out of focus.

I do like the white balance you selected as it shows a bit more variation on the city lights (blues, yellows, greens), which is nice.

watch out for the fearless raccoons that infest these rocks!

---------- Post added 11-30-2014 at 12:21 AM ----------

I agree with cropping it tighter to make the skyline more prominent. Here's an example, shot from the other end of the island, but close enough:

San Francisco Treat

[rabblefrabble]

Thanks for the feedback and making the critique a little less painful than it could have been. Mike after seeing your photo of the same skyline I see why mine is so terrible. Think I will take this one down.

[mikeSF]

Thanks for the feedback and making the critique a little less painful than it could have been. Mike after seeing your photo of the same skyline I see why mine is so terrible. Think I will take this one down.

no, on the contrary, you should keep practicing your night city shots and continue to post them. Repetition and practice will get you where you want to be.
And if you make it back out to SF, give me a heads up - i teach a night photo workshop that is Pentax-friendly.

[DeadJohn]

Tripods are essential for night landscapes. Without a tripod you are forced to make too many compromises regarding shutter speed, ISO, and aperture.

The EXIF says it was taken with the 18-55 lens at f3.5. That lens is capable but gets sharper when you stop down. f8 is a good sweet spot for the 18-55 and also gives increased depth of field to get the foreground and background in focus.

ISO 3200 makes the image grainy and mutes color due to noise. Experiment to see how different ISO settings affect the final image. ISO 100 or 200 is good.

A side effect of a very long exposure is smoother reflections off the water. It's one of the many nice aspects in Mike's sample photo.

Finally, I'm not sure whether you used DNG or JPG format. Use DNG so you can process later. Processing won't rescue a poor photo, but when you get a good photo a bit of processing can turn it into an excellent one.