The clouds around the moon were very freaky looking.
But those are really hard to photograph.
So instead, this.

Tags: , ,

12 Responses:

  1. greyface says:

    What is this... did you forget that you hate your city? I demand a big red "X"

  2. benediktus says:

    beautiful. i like the lighting and the geometry. do you know the work "neon tigers" of peter bialobrzeski? he uses a certain dusk/sunset-hour for longtime exposure (several minutes).

    you have a good eos, but did you think about getting a hdr camera, just for those occasions?

    • jmtd says:

      Are there any good examples of HDR photos that don't look ridiculous now? I remember the WOW factor when they first started cropping up, but it quickly wore off for me, and now look fairly cheap.

      • gryazi says:

        What the BoingBoing crowd passes off as "HDR" is more like "compressed dynamic range photomontage."

        What a 'HDR' camera will give you is extra exposure information beyond the default white and black points, allowing for much subtler dodging and burning, essentially exposure adjustment after the fact. See the Photogenics HDR examples. [You can do the same with the multiple exposure, montage technique, if you try, but most people just shoot for the wacky 'could've just applied a solarize effect' look.]

        A large number of DSLRs will give you a few extra bpp when shooting 'raw' files, but whether those are extra precision within the white/black levels or extra exposure latitude depends on the camera, sensor, firmware, and all the usual suspects.

      • benediktus says:

        at a exhibition-project about a local nazi submarine pen, we used these panos. keep in mind that it's totally dark inside the bunker. sane use of hdr, i suppose.

      • gryazi says:

        While searching to find out if dedicated 'HDR' cameras actually exist sub-$50,000-technical-grade now (apparently they might), I found , which has some examples of 'proper' (non-overdone) results. The 'idea' is to put/preserve detail in the shadows and fill in/preserve detail in the highlights.

        So the result 'should' be a lower-contrast image that preserves more information about the scene (since otherwise, anything beyond the white and black points -- the dynamic range of the image -- was 'lost'). What confuses matters is when people enamored with the montage technique start *adding* contrast: has the look of a blogosphere "HDR" image, where those dark, contrasty clouds have both highlights and shadows that JPEG helpfully further smudged out, and the rest of the scene is lit completely differently because it was a second photo (or four) taken under different light.

        The old (and generally ill-advised, especially since the advent of color film) advice to take photos on cloudy days stems from the same idea; the light is more diffuse, so there are fewer highlights and fewer shadows. This is useful for technical or documentary photography, and you can see it in black and white illustrations from the '40s and '50s. Usually, though, people prefer the 'impact' of brightly lit colors and higher contrast, which is why it's a selling point for LCDs. [An exception is portraiture, where diffuse light is used to avoid emphasizing our natural nooks and crannies.]

  3. schmoomom says:

    Damn, I miss the city.

  4. Gorgeous. I love a city at night.

  5. eviltwinii says:

    That was like seeing a picture of an old girlfriend you wish you never broke up with and she looks gooood.

  6. I *do* love freaky clouds around the moon, though. Better than just about anything.

  7. silveryblu says:

    What a, uh... *uninterrupted* view you have of the Sharper Image ionizer building.