Architecture Early attempt at reflections during sundown.

**NomNamNom** · 08-10-2014, 11:26 PM

Hey guys, I just went to attempt one of my first after sundown pictures. In my opinion, I think I messed up on the exposure time, as I tried to compensate for not owning a tripod, and also I think it looks uninteresting.

If I were to reattempt this photo, how would I be able to make the reflection "pop" out more? Was I wrong in focusing on the reflection, rather than the bridge itself? With that being said, hit me like a wrecking ball (/Miley) on what you would do differently for this photo.

Sagitta · 08-10-2014, 11:36 PM - **1 Like**

It actually came out really well.

When I shoot night shots (be they bridges or whatever) I've learned the two trickiest things to 'get' are exposure (you need to stop down and shoot longish exposures) Expose for the lights, not the vast expanse of darkness - you can tweak in post to pull shadows somewhat, but blown out highlights are blown out highlights and can't really be fixed) with the second being white balance. At night white balance is all over the map depending on the situation. I'll usually default to tungsten, as it seems to (usually) give the closest results.

That said... I think you nailed both with this shot.

If I'd taken it (and again, this is all subjective) I would probably have opted for a lower ISO and a longer exposure - it would have smoothed the reflections out, and probably would have pulled more color from the sky in the background.

As far as where to expose, I usually aim for the lights - they tend to be nice, solid (and small) points that lead to easy focusing. It could be the compression from the forums (or my eyes), but the bridge seems ever so slightly out of focus.

All in all its a great photo though.

Congrats. My only two (very minor) quibbles are the lack of punch (so to speak) and the focus, the latter of which may not even be an issue.

EDIT: I have two similar shot on my flickr stream if you want to compare notes. One was a 15 second, f/6.3 shot @ ISO400, the other was 30 seconds, f/ 3.5 @ISO1600. The latter was taken under very dark conditions, the former on a cloudy night with a lot of background light going on.

EDIT II: I also try to always shoot a night shot in RAW then beat it up a lot in post - usually cranking vibrancy and to a lesser degree clarity. You'd be amazed what colors cuold be lurking in the background waiting to be pulled out if you do that.

**NomNamNom** · 08-11-2014, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by Sagitta

It actually came out really well.

When I shoot night shots (be they bridges or whatever) I've learned the two trickiest things to 'get' are exposure (you need to stop down and shoot longish exposures) Expose for the lights, not the vast expanse of darkness - you can tweak in post to pull shadows somewhat, but blown out highlights are blown out highlights and can't really be fixed) with the second being white balance. At night white balance is all over the map depending on the situation. I'll usually default to tungsten, as it seems to (usually) give the closest results.

That said... I think you nailed both with this shot.

If I'd taken it (and again, this is all subjective) I would probably have opted for a lower ISO and a longer exposure - it would have smoothed the reflections out, and probably would have pulled more color from the sky in the background.

As far as where to expose, I usually aim for the lights - they tend to be nice, solid (and small) points that lead to easy focusing. It could be the compression from the forums (or my eyes), but the bridge seems ever so slightly out of focus.

All in all its a great photo though.

Congrats. My only two (very minor) quibbles are the lack of punch (so to speak) and the focus, the latter of which may not even be an issue.

EDIT: I have two similar shot on my flickr stream if you want to compare notes. One was a 15 second, f/6.3 shot @ ISO400, the other was 30 seconds, f/ 3.5 @ISO1600. The latter was taken under very dark conditions, the former on a cloudy night with a lot of background light going on.

EDIT II: I also try to always shoot a night shot in RAW then beat it up a lot in post - usually cranking vibrancy and to a lesser degree clarity. You'd be amazed what colors cuold be lurking in the background waiting to be pulled out if you do that.

Thank you for the tips! Those will be very helpful in my next outing. The bridge is slightly OOF, my hands were a bit shaky.

I will work on that exposure once I acquire a nice tripod, but for now, shaky hands will have to do!

It was also very helpful to browse through your flickr stream. Gave me some helpful hints and ideas on what to do next.

**Schraubstock** · 08-11-2014, 03:00 PM - **1 Like**

Hi

It is almost mandatory these days to photograph water scenes with long exposures, I personally do not subscribe to this fashion trend so readily. It is not always the best way to depict water, it makes it look unnaturally smooth in many cases. (Not to start discussions for or against, this is my opinion) Certainly in this case it would have robbed you of the nice zick zacky reflections.

To give it a bit more punch as suggested above I would simply brighten up the image a wee bit.
Nice image.

Greetings

Last edited by Schraubstock; 11-01-2014 at 04:25 PM.

**NomNamNom** · 08-11-2014, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by Schraubstock

Hi

It is almost mandatory these days to photograph water scenes with long exposures, I personally do not subscribe to this fashion trend so readily. It is not always the best way to depict water, it makes it look unnaturally smooth in many cases. (Not to start discussions for or against, this is my opinion) Certainly in this case it would have robbed you of the nice zick zacky reflections.

To give it a bit more punch as suggested above I would simply brighten up the image a wee bit.
Nice image.

Greetings

Thanks for the advice with the image! I've completely forgotten how a lot of the images I've liked had lacked the ripples of water until you've mentioned it! Next time I head out, I'll try to get one with a long exposure, and one where I have a minimum exposure time to still see the ripples. Just to see how well I could manage that.

Sagitta · 08-11-2014, 08:45 PM

One more bit of advice... which again your mileage may vary and don't take it as canon or anything...

I peeked at your histogram for that shot. Everything is all squished off to the left. If you can (it won't always be possible) you should see if you can center that as much as possible (or even get it to stretch to the right if conditions allow). With night shooting its kind of tricky, but the rules don't really change all that much from day shooting - the only thing that changes up are the exposure times and ISO's, really.

I did a quick level adjust (stretched the histogram out), cranked the vibrancy and saturation a little, then hit the image through Topaz to eliminate the noise due to what I'd just done (and with a JPG to boot)

Here's that same shot, with a quick and dirty bit of post work done to it to pull your colors out into the light. I was going for speed, so some of the highlights got abit too crazy, but it at least should give an idea whats in there to work with on a typical night shot.

**NomNamNom** · 08-11-2014, 10:13 PM

I did a little tinkering to reflect some of your advices and raised the exposure slightly to not overdo it. This is the first time I've used highlight correction and manual white balance in PP. For the first image, I thought I brought out the lighting a bit better, but not enough of the red in the sky. The second, I added in the manual white balance, but think I overdid it with the red. Please let me know how it seems on your end.

TaoMaas · 08-12-2014, 04:30 AM

It looks to me like you shot just a little bit too late in the day. Sure, you can pull the sky up more in the existing exposure, but then the highlights in the stanchions of the bridge start to get blown out near where their lights hit them. Photographers talk about the "decisive moment" as it pertains to more active photography, but know that it also exists in photos like this. Granted, we may be talking about a 5 minute window here versus a split second in street photography, but the concept is the same. There is a moment when everything converges and that's when you need to trip the shutter. I love the colors and the overall composition. This is a location I would visit more than once to try and capture just the right shot, if possible. Oh...and get a tripod! LOL Digital photography and the ability to raise the ISO has made them less relevant than they used to be, but sometimes they can make a big difference.

Sagitta · 08-12-2014, 04:35 AM

Originally posted by TaoMaas

It looks to me like you shot just a little bit too late in the day. Sure, you can pull the sky up more in the existing exposure, but then the highlights in the stanchions of the bridge start to get blown out near where their lights hit them. Photographers talk about the "decisive moment" as it pertains to more active photography, but know that it also exists in photos like this. Granted, we may be talking about a 5 minute window here versus a split second in street photography, but the concept is the same. There is a moment when everything converges and that's when you need to trip the shutter. I love the colors and the overall composition. This is a location I would visit more than once to try and capture just the right shot, if possible. Oh...and get a tripod! LOL Digital photography and the ability to raise the ISO has made them less relevant than they used to be, but sometimes they can make a big difference.

And if you DO use a tripod, disable your shake reduction while using it.

The SR will do more harm than good with a stabilized camera, as it will still try to do its job and actually induce blur on a tripod-mounted camera.

TaoMaas · 08-12-2014, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by Sagitta

And if you DO use a tripod, disable your shake reduction while using it.

Very good point! Definitely do that!

Quote:

The SR will do more harm than good with a stabilized camera, as it will still try to do its job and actually induce blur on a tripod-mounted camera.

I have a pic where I forgot to turn off my stabilization and it did some interesting things. The overall picture was of rush hour traffic and my intention was to use a long exposure to blur the lights of the cars in the evening light. I wasn't using a tripod, but I was setting my camera on a concrete barrier for the long exposure, so...same thing. Should have turned off the stabilization. But there was something about the long exposure, coupled with whatever the camera did to try and stabilize the camera when it didn't need to be, that added a strange quality that I've found very hard to duplicate. It didn't just blur the lights. It's more like it smeared them or something.

**NomNamNom** · 08-12-2014, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by TaoMaas

Very good point! Definitely do that!

I have a pic where I forgot to turn off my stabilization and it did some interesting things. The overall picture was of rush hour traffic and my intention was to use a long exposure to blur the lights of the cars in the evening light. I wasn't using a tripod, but I was setting my camera on a concrete barrier for the long exposure, so...same thing. Should have turned off the stabilization. But there was something about the long exposure, coupled with whatever the camera did to try and stabilize the camera when it didn't need to be, that added a strange quality that I've found very hard to duplicate. It didn't just blur the lights. It's more like it smeared them or something.

Thank you both for the input. Currently doing some tripod shopping. So I will burn in the memo of the SR once I attain one. As for the location, I do plan to go there some other time to practice. On this particular occasion, I started shooting once the blue lighting on the bridge had come on. Which seemed to be around 8:30ish pm. Hopefully I'll go during a time for when dawn is approaching.

**Schraubstock** · 08-13-2014, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by NomNamNom

Which seemed to be around 8:30ish pm. Hopefully I'll go during a time for when dawn is approaching.

CrankyElbow · 08-13-2014, 09:07 AM

Pic looks pretty cool to me, these things are always subjective.

I'd like to see the blue a bit more centered, possibly zoomed in a bit and panned to the left - so the illuminated pillars almost touch the left and right side. and the blue reflection/bridge almost touch the top/bottom.

Has an interesting overall effect to it as is - tripod/longer exposure would only help things

I'd get a tripod - go out and shoot the same subject around the same time... and compare

TaoMaas · 08-14-2014, 04:53 AM

Originally posted by NomNamNom

Currently doing some tripod shopping.

If you're not a big tripod user, you might think hard about your needs and shop accordingly. Some very good, heavy tripods can be had for amazingly cheap prices these days. I'm not sure how far you were from your car on this shot, but if most of your shots like this are in places that are an easy walk from your car, you might think about buying one of those "old school" tripods. However, if you do a lot of walking and want a tripod that is easily carried long distances for those occasions when you need it, your criteria will be quite different. Still, it's good to have a tripod, regardless of size, simply so that you have that option, ya know?

Sagitta · 08-14-2014, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by TaoMaas

If you're not a big tripod user, you might think hard about your needs and shop accordingly. Some very good, heavy tripods can be had for amazingly cheap prices these days. I'm not sure how far you were from your car on this shot, but if most of your shots like this are in places that are an easy walk from your car, you might think about buying one of those "old school" tripods. However, if you do a lot of walking and want a tripod that is easily carried long distances for those occasions when you need it, your criteria will be quite different. Still, it's good to have a tripod, regardless of size, simply so that you have that option, ya know?

Heck, in a pinch, your car can *be* the tripod. I used a bag of dried peas slung over the window frame for this shot....

08-10-2014, 11:26 PM	#1
NomNamNom Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Minneapolis, MN Photos: Gallery Posts: 235	Early attempt at reflections during sundown. Lens: DA 18-135 WR Camera: K-30 Photo Location: Lowry Avenue Bridge ISO: 1600 Shutter Speed: 1/6s Aperture: F5.6 Hey guys, I just went to attempt one of my first after sundown pictures. In my opinion, I think I messed up on the exposure time, as I tried to compensate for not owning a tripod, and also I think it looks uninteresting. If I were to reattempt this photo, how would I be able to make the reflection "pop" out more? Was I wrong in focusing on the reflection, rather than the bridge itself? With that being said, hit me like a wrecking ball (/Miley) on what you would do differently for this photo.

08-10-2014, 11:36 PM - 1 Like	#2
Sagitta Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Maine Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,081	It actually came out really well. When I shoot night shots (be they bridges or whatever) I've learned the two trickiest things to 'get' are exposure (you need to stop down and shoot longish exposures) Expose for the lights, not the vast expanse of darkness - you can tweak in post to pull shadows somewhat, but blown out highlights are blown out highlights and can't really be fixed) with the second being white balance. At night white balance is all over the map depending on the situation. I'll usually default to tungsten, as it seems to (usually) give the closest results. That said... I think you nailed both with this shot. If I'd taken it (and again, this is all subjective) I would probably have opted for a lower ISO and a longer exposure - it would have smoothed the reflections out, and probably would have pulled more color from the sky in the background. As far as where to expose, I usually aim for the lights - they tend to be nice, solid (and small) points that lead to easy focusing. It could be the compression from the forums (or my eyes), but the bridge seems ever so slightly out of focus. All in all its a great photo though. Congrats. My only two (very minor) quibbles are the lack of punch (so to speak) and the focus, the latter of which may not even be an issue. EDIT: I have two similar shot on my flickr stream if you want to compare notes. One was a 15 second, f/6.3 shot @ ISO400, the other was 30 seconds, f/ 3.5 @ISO1600. The latter was taken under very dark conditions, the former on a cloudy night with a lot of background light going on. EDIT II: I also try to always shoot a night shot in RAW then beat it up a lot in post - usually cranking vibrancy and to a lesser degree clarity. You'd be amazed what colors cuold be lurking in the background waiting to be pulled out if you do that. Last edited by Sagitta; 08-10-2014 at 11:43 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Reflections from a sundown on cold water waves	recando	Monthly Photo Contests	2	07-04-2014 06:20 AM
Landscape Angel Fire skies at sundown	Lynn	Post Your Photos!	2	05-26-2013 09:20 AM
Landscape Early Reflections	Jimbo	Post Your Photos!	9	04-02-2013 03:30 PM
Early Attempt at a Landscape	MrEspie	Photo Critique	7	04-25-2009 09:46 AM
HELP - Reflections (maybe?) appearing in pics during night shots (examples within)	Morbo	Photographic Technique	20	07-16-2008 05:31 PM

08-11-2014, 01:27 PM	#3
NomNamNom Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Minneapolis, MN Photos: Gallery Posts: 235 Original Poster	Originally posted by Sagitta It actually came out really well. When I shoot night shots (be they bridges or whatever) I've learned the two trickiest things to 'get' are exposure (you need to stop down and shoot longish exposures) Expose for the lights, not the vast expanse of darkness - you can tweak in post to pull shadows somewhat, but blown out highlights are blown out highlights and can't really be fixed) with the second being white balance. At night white balance is all over the map depending on the situation. I'll usually default to tungsten, as it seems to (usually) give the closest results. That said... I think you nailed both with this shot. If I'd taken it (and again, this is all subjective) I would probably have opted for a lower ISO and a longer exposure - it would have smoothed the reflections out, and probably would have pulled more color from the sky in the background. As far as where to expose, I usually aim for the lights - they tend to be nice, solid (and small) points that lead to easy focusing. It could be the compression from the forums (or my eyes), but the bridge seems ever so slightly out of focus. All in all its a great photo though. Congrats. My only two (very minor) quibbles are the lack of punch (so to speak) and the focus, the latter of which may not even be an issue. EDIT: I have two similar shot on my flickr stream if you want to compare notes. One was a 15 second, f/6.3 shot @ ISO400, the other was 30 seconds, f/ 3.5 @ISO1600. The latter was taken under very dark conditions, the former on a cloudy night with a lot of background light going on. EDIT II: I also try to always shoot a night shot in RAW then beat it up a lot in post - usually cranking vibrancy and to a lesser degree clarity. You'd be amazed what colors cuold be lurking in the background waiting to be pulled out if you do that. Thank you for the tips! Those will be very helpful in my next outing. The bridge is slightly OOF, my hands were a bit shaky. I will work on that exposure once I acquire a nice tripod, but for now, shaky hands will have to do! It was also very helpful to browse through your flickr stream. Gave me some helpful hints and ideas on what to do next.

08-11-2014, 03:00 PM - 1 Like	#4
Schraubstock Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,386	Hi It is almost mandatory these days to photograph water scenes with long exposures, I personally do not subscribe to this fashion trend so readily. It is not always the best way to depict water, it makes it look unnaturally smooth in many cases. (Not to start discussions for or against, this is my opinion) Certainly in this case it would have robbed you of the nice zick zacky reflections. To give it a bit more punch as suggested above I would simply brighten up the image a wee bit. Nice image. Greetings Last edited by Schraubstock; 11-01-2014 at 04:25 PM.

08-11-2014, 08:31 PM	#5
NomNamNom Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Minneapolis, MN Photos: Gallery Posts: 235 Original Poster	Originally posted by Schraubstock Hi It is almost mandatory these days to photograph water scenes with long exposures, I personally do not subscribe to this fashion trend so readily. It is not always the best way to depict water, it makes it look unnaturally smooth in many cases. (Not to start discussions for or against, this is my opinion) Certainly in this case it would have robbed you of the nice zick zacky reflections. To give it a bit more punch as suggested above I would simply brighten up the image a wee bit. Nice image. Greetings Thanks for the advice with the image! I've completely forgotten how a lot of the images I've liked had lacked the ripples of water until you've mentioned it! Next time I head out, I'll try to get one with a long exposure, and one where I have a minimum exposure time to still see the ripples. Just to see how well I could manage that.

08-11-2014, 10:13 PM	#7
NomNamNom Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Minneapolis, MN Photos: Gallery Posts: 235 Original Poster	I did a little tinkering to reflect some of your advices and raised the exposure slightly to not overdo it. This is the first time I've used highlight correction and manual white balance in PP. For the first image, I thought I brought out the lighting a bit better, but not enough of the red in the sky. The second, I added in the manual white balance, but think I overdid it with the red. Please let me know how it seems on your end.

08-12-2014, 04:30 AM	#8
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574	It looks to me like you shot just a little bit too late in the day. Sure, you can pull the sky up more in the existing exposure, but then the highlights in the stanchions of the bridge start to get blown out near where their lights hit them. Photographers talk about the "decisive moment" as it pertains to more active photography, but know that it also exists in photos like this. Granted, we may be talking about a 5 minute window here versus a split second in street photography, but the concept is the same. There is a moment when everything converges and that's when you need to trip the shutter. I love the colors and the overall composition. This is a location I would visit more than once to try and capture just the right shot, if possible. Oh...and get a tripod! LOL Digital photography and the ability to raise the ISO has made them less relevant than they used to be, but sometimes they can make a big difference.

08-12-2014, 04:35 AM	#9
Sagitta Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Maine Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,081	Originally posted by TaoMaas It looks to me like you shot just a little bit too late in the day. Sure, you can pull the sky up more in the existing exposure, but then the highlights in the stanchions of the bridge start to get blown out near where their lights hit them. Photographers talk about the "decisive moment" as it pertains to more active photography, but know that it also exists in photos like this. Granted, we may be talking about a 5 minute window here versus a split second in street photography, but the concept is the same. There is a moment when everything converges and that's when you need to trip the shutter. I love the colors and the overall composition. This is a location I would visit more than once to try and capture just the right shot, if possible. Oh...and get a tripod! LOL Digital photography and the ability to raise the ISO has made them less relevant than they used to be, but sometimes they can make a big difference. And if you DO use a tripod, disable your shake reduction while using it. The SR will do more harm than good with a stabilized camera, as it will still try to do its job and actually induce blur on a tripod-mounted camera.

08-12-2014, 04:58 AM	#10
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574	Originally posted by Sagitta And if you DO use a tripod, disable your shake reduction while using it. Very good point! Definitely do that! Quote: The SR will do more harm than good with a stabilized camera, as it will still try to do its job and actually induce blur on a tripod-mounted camera. I have a pic where I forgot to turn off my stabilization and it did some interesting things. The overall picture was of rush hour traffic and my intention was to use a long exposure to blur the lights of the cars in the evening light. I wasn't using a tripod, but I was setting my camera on a concrete barrier for the long exposure, so...same thing. Should have turned off the stabilization. But there was something about the long exposure, coupled with whatever the camera did to try and stabilize the camera when it didn't need to be, that added a strange quality that I've found very hard to duplicate. It didn't just blur the lights. It's more like it smeared them or something.

08-12-2014, 04:13 PM	#11
NomNamNom Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Minneapolis, MN Photos: Gallery Posts: 235 Original Poster	Originally posted by TaoMaas Very good point! Definitely do that! I have a pic where I forgot to turn off my stabilization and it did some interesting things. The overall picture was of rush hour traffic and my intention was to use a long exposure to blur the lights of the cars in the evening light. I wasn't using a tripod, but I was setting my camera on a concrete barrier for the long exposure, so...same thing. Should have turned off the stabilization. But there was something about the long exposure, coupled with whatever the camera did to try and stabilize the camera when it didn't need to be, that added a strange quality that I've found very hard to duplicate. It didn't just blur the lights. It's more like it smeared them or something. Thank you both for the input. Currently doing some tripod shopping. So I will burn in the memo of the SR once I attain one. As for the location, I do plan to go there some other time to practice. On this particular occasion, I started shooting once the blue lighting on the bridge had come on. Which seemed to be around 8:30ish pm. Hopefully I'll go during a time for when dawn is approaching.

08-13-2014, 02:34 AM	#12
Schraubstock Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,386	Originally posted by NomNamNom Which seemed to be around 8:30ish pm. Hopefully I'll go during a time for when dawn is approaching. Blue hour calculator: Welcome to Blue Hour and Night Photography \| How to learn tutorials \| bluehoursite.com \| Blue Hour and Night Photography \| How to learn tutorials \| bluehoursite.com Greetings

08-13-2014, 09:07 AM	#13
CrankyElbow Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 44	Pic looks pretty cool to me, these things are always subjective. I'd like to see the blue a bit more centered, possibly zoomed in a bit and panned to the left - so the illuminated pillars almost touch the left and right side. and the blue reflection/bridge almost touch the top/bottom. Has an interesting overall effect to it as is - tripod/longer exposure would only help things I'd get a tripod - go out and shoot the same subject around the same time... and compare

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-14-2014, 04:53 AM	#14
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574	Originally posted by NomNamNom Currently doing some tripod shopping. If you're not a big tripod user, you might think hard about your needs and shop accordingly. Some very good, heavy tripods can be had for amazingly cheap prices these days. I'm not sure how far you were from your car on this shot, but if most of your shots like this are in places that are an easy walk from your car, you might think about buying one of those "old school" tripods. However, if you do a lot of walking and want a tripod that is easily carried long distances for those occasions when you need it, your criteria will be quite different. Still, it's good to have a tripod, regardless of size, simply so that you have that option, ya know?

08-14-2014, 11:40 AM	#15
Sagitta Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Maine Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,081	Originally posted by TaoMaas If you're not a big tripod user, you might think hard about your needs and shop accordingly. Some very good, heavy tripods can be had for amazingly cheap prices these days. I'm not sure how far you were from your car on this shot, but if most of your shots like this are in places that are an easy walk from your car, you might think about buying one of those "old school" tripods. However, if you do a lot of walking and want a tripod that is easily carried long distances for those occasions when you need it, your criteria will be quite different. Still, it's good to have a tripod, regardless of size, simply so that you have that option, ya know? Heck, in a pinch, your car can be the tripod. I used a bag of dried peas slung over the window frame for this shot....