London at night - how to shoot better cityscape

[Tiggsy]

Took a few pictures from the place I was staying last night which has a city view.

Canon 7D with an 85mm f1.8 lense. The bit of the view I wanted fits perfectly at 85mm so that was ok.....only cropping was top and bottom to remove some foreground and sky to leave it a long narrow image.

Anyway, not to fussed with the colour in the final shot (as I played about with the RAW file) - more interested in if I should expect it sharper?

In order to get any image I was using very long exposures - 20 sec...sometimes up to 30. And a low ISO around 100-200

Would I be better opening up the lens...where would it be sharpest? I was probably around f10 upwards....or raising the ISO (didnt want noise)

I'm no camera expert so only simple advice pleases!!!!


(pic is clearly reduced loads from the original)

[Tiggsy]

Oh...and an artistic Q - I did a bit of editing, took out some cranes, added 15% more lit windows to the office blocks!....but left the branches on the right as I quite liked them! But do they ruin it...should I shop them out too?

[Simpo Two]

Looks OK to me, as far as I can tell. The main issue for me, but it may be intentional, is that there's no light in the sky so it looks abstract rather than a photo.

[Tiggsy]

there wasnt really much light there. if i up the brightness it just goes a uniform grey/brown (which was the actual colour from the light bouncing into the sky)

If there were some cool clouds or something it would have been ok!

[Tiggsy]

Original with bit of a crop and sharpen and nothing else

[Mr Will]

Please don't take this the wrong way but I think the main issues are compositional rather than technical - it's a very flat, 2D shot with no sense of depth or scale. Trying to work in a foreground, midground and background to your shots should result in a more satisfying image (IMHO).

[Tiggsy]

happy to take any advice!

the person who lives there just wanted a pic of their view that was better than with their iphone!!!

trouble is the foreground is just the flats in camden they live in so not a lot to see!!

[Simpo Two]

Tiggsy said:

there wasnt really much light there. if i up the brightness it just goes a uniform grey/brown (which was the actual colour from the light bouncing into the sky)

If there were some cool clouds or something it would have been ok!

Try it again but earlier, so you have a touch of dusk light - it will help to show up the buildings, and hopefully get some cloud action too.

[Tiggsy]

Simpo Two said:

Tiggsy said:

there wasnt really much light there. if i up the brightness it just goes a uniform grey/brown (which was the actual colour from the light bouncing into the sky)

If there were some cool clouds or something it would have been ok!

Try it again but earlier, so you have a touch of dusk light - it will help to show up the buildings, and hopefully get some cloud action too.

Good thinking

[DIW35]

I would use a slightly wider aperture too, to reduce your exposure time.

[Tiggsy]

I will play around...but given I was at F15, 30sec, ISO 100

What should I look towards? Higher ISO as well? If its on a tripod what diff does the exposure time make? Serious Q - I have no idea?

[Mr Will]

No need to worry about the length of exposure since it's static and on a tripod, better to keep the ISO down. Keep your aperture to f/8 or f/11 for optimum sharpness, or stop it all the way down to turn the lights into starbursts. My only other tip is use the self-timer (or a remote) to avoid any vibrations from pressing the shutter.

The biggest difference will be the timing. You want a crisp, clear night with just the right amount of dusk - might take a few goes before you get lucky.

[Tiggsy]

cool.....sounds like what i was doing but maybe a bit wider, down a bit on exposure and wait for a good night.

[Elderly]

Mr Will said:

- it's a very flat, 2D shot with no sense of depth or scale. Trying to work in a foreground, midground and background to your shots should result in a more satisfying image (IMHO).

As you say it's IMHO.
These are very 2D and certainly not shot using anything wide:
http://photomichaelwolf.com/#night/2
I think they are wonderful images.

[Simpo Two]

Tiggsy said:

I will play around...but given I was at F15, 30sec, ISO 100

What should I look towards? Higher ISO as well? If its on a tripod what diff does the exposure time make? Serious Q - I have no idea?

You have three parameters to juggle, so start with the most important:

Most lenses are at their best around f8. Stopping them down more won't make them any sharper, and you don't need any more DOF because it's all the same distance away.

Sooo - I'd start with f8 or maybe 5.6, then pick a low ISO (as you did) to minimise any noise (thinking ahead to possible shadow recovery in processing), and finally the shutter speed is whatever it works out at. With a tripod and nothing moving it's the least important parameter in this case.

[DIW35]

I have found that when doing long exposures for shots of stars and the night sky, unless your tripod is absolutely rock steady and preferably weighted down, even the slightest wind can introduce enough movement to render a slightly soft image.

[Zad]

Try taking a dusk shot and a night shot from the same location, and use Photoshop to composite the two. You can get some interesting results, generally it makes it look a lot more alive. Just an idea