# Night Shot- Brooklyn Bridge



## ray5 (Sep 5, 2014)

Hi,
Here is a shot I took the other day. Beautiful NY evening, perfect for this sort of a thing. One of my all time favorite subjects to shoot as well!

ISO 200, F14, 38mm and 20 sec shot on tripod with cable release straight out of camera, no post at all. Please critique how you would compose it differently.

My questions:
- I would crop more of the water and sky out to get tighter in. Also bring the edges in tighter on the right side of the frame. Would you?
- I don't really like the carousel in the glass room. Would like to remove it. Would you do the same or do you think it actually adds to the picture?
- I am just beginning to learn PS CS5 and know nothing about layers etc, so if you were to remove the glass house how would you do it?
- I am not sure but think that the entire bridge is not in focus despite shooting at F14. Do you think so too?

Thanks,
Ray


----------



## wtlloyd (Sep 5, 2014)

I believe you used a 5D3 and a 24-70 lens. That high f/stop is not necessary, and would have allowed a shorter shutter speed, minimizing accumulated vibration movement. Your subject, the bridge, is already at infinity focus, depth of field is only really going to affect the foreground which is water already blurred by the slow shutter speed.
The 5D3 becomes affected by diffraction after f/10:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Cameras/Diffraction-Limited-Aperture.aspx
Stopping down a couple times from wide open gets you into the sweet spot of most lenses for sharpness, as does framing to allow for future cropping of the typical "soft" perimeter. You probably would have had a better result shooting at f/8. Those tiny apertures are more appropriate in landscape for large format cameras, not 35mm.


----------



## ray5 (Sep 5, 2014)

wtlloyd said:


> I believe you used a 5D3 and a 24-70 lens. That high f/stop is not necessary, and would have allowed a shorter shutter speed, minimizing accumulated vibration movement. Your subject, the bridge, is already at infinity focus, depth of field is only really going to affect the foreground which is water already blurred by the slow shutter speed.
> The 5D3 becomes affected by diffraction after f/10:
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Cameras/Diffraction-Limited-Aperture.aspx
> Stopping down a couple times from wide open gets you into the sweet spot of most lenses for sharpness, as does framing to allow for future cropping of the typical "soft" perimeter. You probably would have had a better result shooting at f/8. Those tiny apertures are more appropriate in landscape for large format cameras, not 35mm.


That's helpful. Thanks. Do you feel there is some blur as well or is it just my eyes getting old?


----------



## mwh1964 (Sep 6, 2014)

The long exposure obviously gives motion blur in the sky and water. The static elements should be sharp. The subject will change so color, time of day, time of year, traffic on the river and so forth are what basically will make your picture - not removing the carousel or other parts of reality and not you CS5 capabilities. My 2C of course. I think you did well.


----------



## ray5 (Sep 6, 2014)

mwh1964 said:


> The long exposure obviously gives motion blur in the sky and water. The static elements should be sharp. The subject will change so color, time of day, time of year, traffic on the river and so forth are what basically will make your picture - not removing the carousel or other parts of reality and not you CS5 capabilities. My 2C of course. I think you did well.


Thanks. What I meant to say with the blur was the main subject, the bridge itself. I am overall happy with the color and rendition of the rest but am a bit bothered by the possibility that the bridge itself is not entirely in focus?


----------



## tomscott (Sep 6, 2014)

Nice shot, I don't think you have really done anything wrong here. I wouldn't worry about diffraction, yes the image looses sharpness the higher you go but if you want ultimate DOF you need to shoot higher than F8, and you have achieved that everything is sharp all the way to the buildings in the BG, I think you have nailed the focus. I think the aperture and exposure aren't bad, you can go either way but seen as tho you were shooting a tripod why not go with the long exposure, creates more movement making a more dynamic image but I would have probably tried to shoot the image at 1 min or longer for a more exaggerated effect. Would have gained more reflection from the city light in the sky and the water would be more silky smooth.

If you are worried about large areas of the image you don't like, like the glass box, why didn't you shoot the other side of the bridge? Its ok relying on software but at the same time you should compose carefully so not to have to worry about doing so much work in post. Also the glass box is there its apart of the scene so whether it matters or not is personal choice but from a documentation point of view people may wonder why it isn't there. It is hard when its dark to compose perfectly tho. One way around it is setting the ISO to its highest setting and going into live view and see whats actually there the camera can see more than you can in the dark. Once your happy drop it back down and shoot.

PP would make a difference, Bring the sky and water to life with contrast and a little extra brightness. I think the colour balance is quite cool and by warming it up would transform the image and bring it to life. Bringing out the shadows and more detail the bridge is quite dark especially on the left there isn't much detail, contrast, vibrance, little clarity all would aid the image experimentation is good there are numerous ways you could edit the image even B+W would be a nice. Little tidy up of the distracting elements wouldn't be bad either, I would crop the half of the building on the right it doesn't really add anything to the picture apart from being a distraction the eye is drawn to at the edge of the frame.

Another way you could improve the image is by adding something in the foreground to add interest and scale, the eye needs something to be drawn to, otherwise its an image of a bridge and less compelling.

When I shot the brooklyn bridge back in 2008 I had no tripod, it was january and -9 conditions weren't ideal and it had been a long day we only had 10 mins so needed to be quick! But I wanted a different angle, not the overview because although its a nice shot its a little boring and a typical angle. Unless you were conveying more about the bridge by giving an overview then trying to capture more details as a series.

Heres a couple I shot, I'm not saying they are good I shot these 6 years ago while I was at Uni studying photography so I was just getting started but looking for a different angle that draws the viewer into the image creates a more compelling image.



New York, Brooklyn Bridge by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr



New York, Brooklyn Bridge by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Here are a few other examples of the Millennium Bridge in Newcastle UK, I shot back in 2006 maybe to give you an idea of a different perspective?



&quot;Gateshead Millennium Bridge&quot; Newcastle, Night, landscape, Sage, Baltic Mill by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr



Gateshead Millennium Bridge, Newcastle Nightscape by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr



Gateshead Millennium Bridge, Newcastle Nightscape by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr


----------



## ray5 (Sep 6, 2014)

tomscott said:


> Nice shot, I don't think you have really done anything wrong here. I wouldn't worry about diffraction, yes the image looses sharpness the higher you go but if you want ultimate DOF you need to shoot higher than F8, and you have achieved that everything is sharp all the way to the buildings in the BG, I think you have nailed the focus. I think the aperture and exposure aren't bad, you can go either way but seen as tho you were shooting a tripod why not go with the long exposure, creates more movement making a more dynamic image but I would have probably tried to shoot the image at 1 min or longer for a more exaggerated effect. Would have gained more reflection from the city light in the sky and the water would be more silky smooth.
> 
> If you are worried about large areas of the image you don't like, like the glass box, why didn't you shoot the other side of the bridge? Its ok relying on software but at the same time you should compose carefully so not to have to worry about doing so much work in post. Also the glass box is there its apart of the scene so whether it matters or not is personal choice but from a documentation point of view people may wonder why it isn't there. It is hard when its dark to compose perfectly tho. One way around it is setting the ISO to its highest setting and going into live view and see whats actually there the camera can see more than you can in the dark. Once your happy drop it back down and shoot.
> 
> ...



Hi,
Beautiful images! I was there briefly a few years ago and got daytime shots only. Hope to go back there sometime again.
The intent of shooting at F14 was exactly that, big DOF. IN the same series I have shot F11-F20. Shooting from the other side does not give the view this does as the Manhattan skyline is much better on this side. Since I was on a tripod I kept the ISO low but certainly could experiment with higher ISO's. I wonder if I had dropped the ISO down would the detail on the Bridge be better? The darkness precludes the detail but I wonder. I realize I may not be able to capture the detail that I can in better light.
Thanks for the editing tips.
The way I conceptualized this shot was the bridge is the foreground and the Manhattan skyline is the backdrop...

Very nice angle of your Brooklyn bridge. My next trip I am going down that low. Am looking for a low tripod which will also have a smaller footprint so folks don't trip over my setup.

I really appreciate your kind words on my picture and the time you took to address my questions. Thanks,
Ray


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 8, 2014)

Ray, I think it's a nice photo and given the water, it's not an easy shot to pull off, but the exposure looks great. It's nice and sharp, too, and the blur looks like motion blur in the cables, at least to my eye. If it were me, I'd crop out most of the bottom to make it a panoramic as the shore and water don't add much. I'd also crop out the building on the far right as it looks crooked and again, doesn't add to the shot.

In terms of the carousel, I think it adds some character to an otherwise familiar shot. If I were there, I might even try to make it the focus of the shot. I read somewhere that if you can't exclude something from a shot, you should work with it instead of trying to work against it.

Also, and I'm betting you did this as well, with this type of scene, I'll usually try to work a number of different shots in, if I have time. I did that in Jacksonville, FL, shooting a similar scene. It's something I learned to do when I started taking on paid work. You can never have too many options for a client :







The mist ruined a whole sequence I had near the fountain, but this is just an example:


----------



## ray5 (Sep 8, 2014)

Your pictures are very good. I especially like the 3rd and 4th one. I do have other shots when I moved right and left. Also, barcketted some exposures in RAW. Somehow I picked this one first to review and was discouraged to see that there might have been some blur. Coming weekend I intend to work on the images and take the suggestions made on this thread. This was such an amazing spot! I went to shoot the Brooklyn Bridge but turn around and the Manhattan Bridge was also equally amazing shot! Next time I would shoot this scene from the Brooklyn tower of the Manhattan bridge which will avoid most of the water and give an elevated perspective of the Brooklyn Bridge with Manhattan skyline behind it. Thanks for your insight.


----------



## ray5 (Dec 3, 2014)

Since I was somewhat dissatisfied with this shot I plan to go back in the next couple of weeks to do it again. Besides suggesting a better technique do you have other stuuf I could/should photograph after dark? Though I'll be there for sometime during the daytime also so feel free to suggest. Thanks,
Ray


----------



## ray5 (Dec 4, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Ray, I think it's a nice photo and given the water, it's not an easy shot to pull off, but the exposure looks great. It's nice and sharp, too, and the blur looks like motion blur in the cables, at least to my eye. If it were me, I'd crop out most of the bottom to make it a panoramic as the shore and water don't add much. I'd also crop out the building on the far right as it looks crooked and again, doesn't add to the shot.
> 
> In terms of the carousel, I think it adds some character to an otherwise familiar shot. If I were there, I might even try to make it the focus of the shot. I read somewhere that if you can't exclude something from a shot, you should work with it instead of trying to work against it.
> 
> ...



This might be a silly question. If I were to crop out the water to make it appear like a panoramic picture, how do I do it? Just take the crop tool and crop out or do I have to keep a particular aspect ratio in mind? Thanks


----------



## dppaskewitz (Dec 4, 2014)

ray5 said:


> Your pictures are very good. I especially like the 3rd and 4th one. I do have other shots when I moved right and left. Also, barcketted some exposures in RAW. Somehow I picked this one first to review and was discouraged to see that there might have been some blur. Coming weekend I intend to work on the images and take the suggestions made on this thread. This was such an amazing spot! I went to shoot the Brooklyn Bridge but turn around and the Manhattan Bridge was also equally amazing shot! Next time I would shoot this scene from the Brooklyn tower of the Manhattan bridge which will avoid most of the water and give an elevated perspective of the Brooklyn Bridge with Manhattan skyline behind it. Thanks for your insight.



When I was last in New York, I walked the Manhattan Bridge to Brooklyn and the Brooklyn Bridge to Manhattan (kind of backward, but whatever). Of course, with camera and tripod. I remember a lot of vibration on the Manhattan Bridge and ended up increasing ISO and hand holding shots of the Brooklyn Bridge because of the motion. Something to think about, especially for night shots.


----------



## ray5 (Dec 4, 2014)

dppaskewitz said:


> ray5 said:
> 
> 
> > Your pictures are very good. I especially like the 3rd and 4th one. I do have other shots when I moved right and left. Also, barcketted some exposures in RAW. Somehow I picked this one first to review and was discouraged to see that there might have been some blur. Coming weekend I intend to work on the images and take the suggestions made on this thread. This was such an amazing spot! I went to shoot the Brooklyn Bridge but turn around and the Manhattan Bridge was also equally amazing shot! Next time I would shoot this scene from the Brooklyn tower of the Manhattan bridge which will avoid most of the water and give an elevated perspective of the Brooklyn Bridge with Manhattan skyline behind it. Thanks for your insight.
> ...



Will do. Last time this shot was taken from DUMBO, beneath the Manhattan bridge. When I saw it back home I felt taking it from the Manhattan bridge would give it a different and perhaps better and certainly elevated perspective. It might also be possible to avoid a lot of the water as well. As you mention, I also plan to walk across both the bridges and get different perspectives. I also felt that despite the Brooklyn Bridge's obvious attraction the Manhattan bridge is awesome too! In fact I like my pictures of Manhattan Bridge much better. However, the romance of the Brooklyn Bridge is eternal. Thanks for your suggestions.


----------



## Tinky (Dec 11, 2014)

As the gatehead pics show, the best time for night photography isn't actually night. Between civil and nautical twilight. east at dawn, west at dusk. the lights are on but theres colour in the sky.


----------

