Early shots i'v taken

[nickcowen]

Edited by nickcowen on Sunday 16th January 19:53

[RobDickinson]

Didyou want C&C? Please stick some space between the pics anyhow, hard to tell were one ends and another starts.

[y2blade]

RobDickinson said:

Please stick some space between the pics anyhow, hard to tell were one ends and another starts.

no it isn't


good pictures btw

[RobDickinson]

y2blade said:

RobDickinson said:

Please stick some space between the pics anyhow, hard to tell were one ends and another starts.

no it isn't

Not in a literal sense no but you cant realy see each pic properly in its own space.

[Original Poster]

I like the first one!

[nickcowen]

dose that help?

[RobDickinson]

Original Poster said:

I like the first one!

It does!

First one is great, probably a little over saturated in the red channel but just about holds it together (tho could eb this monitor).

2nd and 3rd are the same?? Decent pic may have been better as a longer exposure?

[robsco]

I'm certainly no expert with photography but for some reason, the 3rd picture seems to look better than the 2nd. I can't put my finger on why.

[nickcowen]

RobDickinson said:

Original Poster said:

I like the first one!

It does!

First one is great, probably a little over saturated in the red channel but just about holds it together (tho could eb this monitor).

2nd and 3rd are the same?? Decent pic may have been better as a longer exposure?

they where long exposure about 8 seconds I think, one more there the other

[AndWhyNot]

robsco said:

I'm certainly no expert with photography but for some reason, the 3rd picture seems to look better than the 2nd. I can't put my finger on why.

White balance. Pic#2 is fractionally colder ergo #3 looks slightly more familiar.

[robsco]

AndWhyNot said:

robsco said:

I'm certainly no expert with photography but for some reason, the 3rd picture seems to look better than the 2nd. I can't put my finger on why.

White balance. Pic#2 is fractionally colder ergo #3 looks slightly more familiar.

Thanks. White balance is the photographer's way of saying brightness, I presume?

Edited by robsco on Sunday 16th January 22:27

[RobDickinson]

robsco said:

Thanks. White balance is the photographer's way of saying brightness, I presume?

Nope, its a way of compensating for imperfect coloured light. Your camera doesnt know what colour light is falling on objects so usualy makes a best guess as to what is white.

Think about a white card under orange lightbulbs vs blueish sun, its still white but looks quite different. You can either correct for this using white balance (usefull for most kinds of photography) or ignore it and shoot at a default wb (say for sunsets).

[Simpo Two]

I thought the difference between 2 and 3 was exposure not WB - 3 seems brighter.

[AndWhyNot]

Simpo Two said:

I thought the difference between 2 and 3 was exposure not WB - 3 seems brighter.

To an extent I'd agree with you Simpo but AWB on long exposures does funny things and the extended duration of #3 has gone some way to addressing the colour cast of #2-best seen on the whiteish building on the left.

[Simpo Two]

Is it warmer or just brighter? Don't know.