Quote from: bunhill on November 28, 2013, 19:23

Quote from: topol on November 28, 2013, 12:43
Scenery like that should be shot in the blue hour. That should ba basic knowledge if you are involved in photography for more than 15 minutes. If you do that, you just have to set WB so the sky is a rich purplish blue, and it's gonna be all ok.

I would like to dispute your perspective (which IMO sounds like the sort of thing people might say at a camera club TBH). How a picture looks is utterly subjective. And suppose I need a picture which is about the effect of light pollution - which typically does have that nasty orange caste.

FWIW I come from the pre digital world of film, and am completely used to the idea of using gels and filters to balance the effects of different sorts of artificial lights. I also used to be good at color printing in the darkroom back even before RA-4 came along.

If there is a problem with Ron's picture, perhaps it is that the sky could maybe be somewhat darker. But for what it is I don't see that it matters terribly. I think they should leave it for the customers to decide if it works for them or not.

Sure, I'm not saying this 100% the only way to do it. But facing the mechanical-technical judgement you get on microstock sites, this probably is the safest way to go. In my opinion it also really does get you the aesthetically most pleasing result with night cityscapes in the vast majority of cases.

Quote from: topol on November 28, 2013, 22:52

Quote from: ShadySue on November 28, 2013, 22:47
I've heard it a lot, I've even seen some allegedly 'blue hour' photos from Glasgow; but the only way I can get that sort of effect is by intensive manipulation. I have never seen it and I've never heard it mentioned around here. In fact, I specifically looked for it in both Memphis and San Diego, because I'd only heard about it from the US, but didn't see it there either (bad luck with sky conditions, probably).

A bit like 'sunny f16'. For years I wondered why no camera that I ever had or borrowed exposed properly with the sunny f16 and its equivalents, then I discovered that it was a rule made near New York, on a similar latitude to Madrid. We don't have the same intensity of light. In Baja I discovered that on a heavy overcast morning, the quantity of light was much more (totally different camera readings) than on a similar morning here, even if the quality / end result wasn't any different/better.

I just searched google and shutterstock for Glasgow night, and there were nice blue hour shots.

That's what I said above: I've seen the photos online, but I've never seen anything like that in real life. (I don't live in Glasgow, it's my nearest city, but I've been there, waiting at the 'right' time of day often.)
BTW, we had a talk a few weeks back at the CC from a multi-award-winning local photographer with many stunning landscape shots from our area, and everyone said, "when does he ever see that?" Even the people who actually live on the coast said they'd never seen light like that in his pics. Turned out later he mentioned he's dual colour-blind, so he must be cranking up the saturation like crazy, though the pics didn't actually look 'over-saturated', just 'unreal' in an undefined manner. Very lovely in their own way.

Quote from: topol on November 28, 2013, 23:00

Quote from: bunhill on November 28, 2013, 19:23

Quote from: topol on November 28, 2013, 12:43
Scenery like that should be shot in the blue hour. That should ba basic knowledge if you are involved in photography for more than 15 minutes. If you do that, you just have to set WB so the sky is a rich purplish blue, and it's gonna be all ok.

I would like to dispute your perspective (which IMO sounds like the sort of thing people might say at a camera club TBH). How a picture looks is utterly subjective. And suppose I need a picture which is about the effect of light pollution - which typically does have that nasty orange caste.

FWIW I come from the pre digital world of film, and am completely used to the idea of using gels and filters to balance the effects of different sorts of artificial lights. I also used to be good at color printing in the darkroom back even before RA-4 came along.

If there is a problem with Ron's picture, perhaps it is that the sky could maybe be somewhat darker. But for what it is I don't see that it matters terribly. I think they should leave it for the customers to decide if it works for them or not.

Sure, I'm not saying this 100% the only way to do it. But facing the mechanical-technical judgement you get on microstock sites, this probably is the safest way to go. In my opinion it also really does get you the aesthetically most pleasing result with night cityscapes in the vast majority of cases.

Quote from: ShadySue on November 28, 2013, 23:05

Quote from: topol on November 28, 2013, 22:52

Quote from: ShadySue on November 28, 2013, 22:47
I've heard it a lot, I've even seen some allegedly 'blue hour' photos from Glasgow; but the only way I can get that sort of effect is by intensive manipulation. I have never seen it and I've never heard it mentioned around here. In fact, I specifically looked for it in both Memphis and San Diego, because I'd only heard about it from the US, but didn't see it there either (bad luck with sky conditions, probably).

A bit like 'sunny f16'. For years I wondered why no camera that I ever had or borrowed exposed properly with the sunny f16 and its equivalents, then I discovered that it was a rule made near New York, on a similar latitude to Madrid. We don't have the same intensity of light. In Baja I discovered that on a heavy overcast morning, the quantity of light was much more (totally different camera readings) than on a similar morning here, even if the quality / end result wasn't any different/better.

I just searched google and shutterstock for Glasgow night, and there were nice blue hour shots.

That's what I said above: I've seen the photos online, but I've never seen anything like that in real life. (I don't live in Glasgow, it's my nearest city, but I've been there, waiting at the 'right' time of day often.)
BTW, we had a talk a few weeks back at the CC from a multi-award-winning local photographer with many stunning landscape shots from our area, and everyone said, "when does he ever see that?" Even the people who actually live on the coast said they'd never seen light like that in his pics. Turned out later he mentioned he's dual colour-blind, so he must be cranking up the saturation like crazy, though the pics didn't actually look 'over-saturated', just 'unreal' in an undefined manner. Very lovely in their own way.

The sensors picks up light in long exposure that you dont see with the naked eye

Quote from: Ron on November 28, 2013, 23:07

Quote from: ShadySue on November 28, 2013, 23:05

Quote from: topol on November 28, 2013, 22:52

Quote from: ShadySue on November 28, 2013, 22:47
I've heard it a lot, I've even seen some allegedly 'blue hour' photos from Glasgow; but the only way I can get that sort of effect is by intensive manipulation. I have never seen it and I've never heard it mentioned around here. In fact, I specifically looked for it in both Memphis and San Diego, because I'd only heard about it from the US, but didn't see it there either (bad luck with sky conditions, probably).

A bit like 'sunny f16'. For years I wondered why no camera that I ever had or borrowed exposed properly with the sunny f16 and its equivalents, then I discovered that it was a rule made near New York, on a similar latitude to Madrid. We don't have the same intensity of light. In Baja I discovered that on a heavy overcast morning, the quantity of light was much more (totally different camera readings) than on a similar morning here, even if the quality / end result wasn't any different/better.

I just searched google and shutterstock for Glasgow night, and there were nice blue hour shots.

That's what I said above: I've seen the photos online, but I've never seen anything like that in real life. (I don't live in Glasgow, it's my nearest city, but I've been there, waiting at the 'right' time of day often.)
BTW, we had a talk a few weeks back at the CC from a multi-award-winning local photographer with many stunning landscape shots from our area, and everyone said, "when does he ever see that?" Even the people who actually live on the coast said they'd never seen light like that in his pics. Turned out later he mentioned he's dual colour-blind, so he must be cranking up the saturation like crazy, though the pics didn't actually look 'over-saturated', just 'unreal' in an undefined manner. Very lovely in their own way.

The sensors picks up light in long exposure that you dont see with the naked eye

Well, that's my 'something new' learned today. Tx!

Quote from: ShadySue on November 28, 2013, 23:16

Quote from: Ron on November 28, 2013, 23:07

Quote from: ShadySue on November 28, 2013, 23:05

Quote from: topol on November 28, 2013, 22:52

Quote from: ShadySue on November 28, 2013, 22:47
I've heard it a lot, I've even seen some allegedly 'blue hour' photos from Glasgow; but the only way I can get that sort of effect is by intensive manipulation. I have never seen it and I've never heard it mentioned around here. In fact, I specifically looked for it in both Memphis and San Diego, because I'd only heard about it from the US, but didn't see it there either (bad luck with sky conditions, probably).

A bit like 'sunny f16'. For years I wondered why no camera that I ever had or borrowed exposed properly with the sunny f16 and its equivalents, then I discovered that it was a rule made near New York, on a similar latitude to Madrid. We don't have the same intensity of light. In Baja I discovered that on a heavy overcast morning, the quantity of light was much more (totally different camera readings) than on a similar morning here, even if the quality / end result wasn't any different/better.

I just searched google and shutterstock for Glasgow night, and there were nice blue hour shots.

That's what I said above: I've seen the photos online, but I've never seen anything like that in real life. (I don't live in Glasgow, it's my nearest city, but I've been there, waiting at the 'right' time of day often.)
BTW, we had a talk a few weeks back at the CC from a multi-award-winning local photographer with many stunning landscape shots from our area, and everyone said, "when does he ever see that?" Even the people who actually live on the coast said they'd never seen light like that in his pics. Turned out later he mentioned he's dual colour-blind, so he must be cranking up the saturation like crazy, though the pics didn't actually look 'over-saturated', just 'unreal' in an undefined manner. Very lovely in their own way.

The sensors picks up light in long exposure that you dont see with the naked eye

Well, that's my 'something new' learned today. Tx!

you knew it already Sue, imagine you shooting some animal and leave the shutter open for a second, how will it look? next to white the more you let it open the more light will enter!

Quote from: luissantos84 on November 28, 2013, 23:19

Quote from: ShadySue on November 28, 2013, 23:16

Quote from: Ron on November 28, 2013, 23:07
(Re: Blue Hour) The sensors picks up light in long exposure that you dont see with the naked eye

Well, that's my 'something new' learned today. Tx!

you knew it already Sue, imagine you shooting some animal and leave the shutter open for a second, how will it look? next to white the more you let it open the more light will enter!

Yes of course, but I had no idea that that was what the Blue Hour was (something I've only heard of on stock forums, AFICR).
I honestly thought that the Blue Hour was something that would be visibly apparent if the light was 'right on the night' and I was 'there' at the right time. Just like we almost never have sunrises here (it usually just gets paler and paler grey), but if the sky is clear, we get a 'bit' of a sunrise (our sunsets tend to be much better when conditions are right).
Now that I've learned it, will I remember?

Quote from: ShadySue on November 28, 2013, 22:47
I've heard it a lot, I've even seen some allegedly 'blue hour' photos from Glasgow; but the only way I can get that sort of effect is by intensive manipulation.

Budapest by night. No Photoshop, no manipulation, straight from the Gopro 3 black. 9pm

man that building is going to fall

Looks like, but the building is made 150-200 years ago (guess) and it's still there and will be

By the way rejected for....... whatever reason but somehow I'm glad not being accepted. Means it's good photo at least for my standards.

Quote from: ShadySue on November 28, 2013, 12:47
In all my life, I've never seen any evening around here that looks remotely like 'Blue Hour' photos - must be a lot of Photoshopping going on!

http://www.bluehoursite.com

And all this while I thought everyone knew about the Blue Hour and when to shoot it!?

Guess not!?

Quote from: ShadySue on November 28, 2013, 23:05

That's what I said above: I've seen the photos online, but I've never seen anything like that in real life.

That's mostly because the brain does very sophisticated and pretty strong WB correction even on parts of the image locally, very much like local correction you might do in photoshop. Same applies to contrast and brightness even more heavily. It actually builds a detailed mask for color and brightness correction, you can actually see it if you quickly close-open-close your eyes while looking at something with strong color and brightness variances. That's why what some 'supposed-to-be-purists' are saying that the unedited image is "the real repesentation" of what you see is pure uneducated nonsense.

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on November 29, 2013, 05:45
And all this while I thought everyone knew about the Blue Hour and when to shoot it!?
Guess not!?

If I went up the street and canvassed people I met, I'd be surprised if even one person had heard of it; and since I've never seen it in local or national camera club competitions, only on stock and occasionally on Flickr, and I've never read about it other than on stock forums, I'm supposing (and could be wrong) it's more of an American fancy (nothing wrong with that, vive la difference).
I had heard of it and knew when to shoot it, but like I said, I'd thought it was like sunrise here, but much more so - you'd have to be really lucky to get the condititions to shoot it; I didn't realise it was like a 'flowing' waterfall or river, it was all down to camera settings.
One more thing to stop puzzling over. 

Blue hour is quite a common thing as far as I understand it. Its not only restricted to photography

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_hour

I didn't knew it was called blue hour but I guess it exists - at least in photography - even without photoshopping.

These are my involuntary blue hour shots (colours unmodified - although a bit of editing could make them a lot more dramatic):
London, England - September 12, 2012 at 9:05 pm
Duesseldorf, Deutschland - August 2, 2009 at 9:39 pm

Now I'll have to add 'blue hour' to the keywords on all sites...

I agree that Rons image would have benifited from being taken during the blue hour.

And sue... you have blue hour in Scotland as well, in fact you have more the further north you get.
But the blue hour may be later than what you expect, maybe an hour after sunset in summer and earlier in winter.
There are blue hour tables so you can look it up, I never use them, as I more like to trust my senses.

Here is an image taken late in the blue our, almost too late, its almost dark and the image is not as vibrant as could be:


and here is one taken too late, its too dark:


Thes elves were hungry and came out early, to fourage in the garbage.
Early blue hour:

Maybe the image I took looks better during blue hour, that doesnt mean the WB is off when its shot at a later time. It also cant be that ALL night time images have to shot at blue hour for them be acceptable. Its nonsense.

I will shoot it at sunset and blue hour, since everyone is raving about it, including me. It was always my intention to shoot the image at sunset, its just that when I visited my friend and had my cam with me, it was night, and it looked like good panorama to me. Regardless of the blue hour.

you should rather go down in the streets and get an object of interest in the main foreground, or hire a goodyear airship to pass through the foreground.

Quote from: JPSDK on November 29, 2013, 13:14
you should rather go down in the streets and get an object of interest in the main foreground, or hire a goodyear airship to pass through the foreground.

Yeah, people keep saying that, but the whole point of the image is the unique elevated view point.

If someone wants to take a photo of a rose, you dont tell him to shoot horses.

customers, Ron, customers.

Quote from: JPSDK on November 29, 2013, 13:43
customers, Ron, customers.

How do you know if that image wont sell?  Images of singled out architecture cant even be sold as commercial, it would have to be editorial.

Quote from: Ron on November 29, 2013, 13:51

Quote from: JPSDK on November 29, 2013, 13:43
customers, Ron, customers.

How do you know if that image wont sell?  Images of singled out architecture cant even be sold as commercial, it would have to be editorial.

I think he is just stating what Scott has already said way above in his large post.

Chit run it through Topaz or NIk whichever one you have and make a few minor adjustments and resubmit it.

Right, this is where I step out. We are now going round in circles, I cant explain myself any further. And when I get into a discussion with you it drains me completely because you have a  5 inch concrete wall in front of you.

Quote from: Ron on November 29, 2013, 13:06
Maybe the image I took looks better during blue hour, that doesnt mean the WB is off when its shot at a later time. It also cant be that ALL night time images have to shot at blue hour for them be acceptable. Its nonsense.

I will shoot it at sunset and blue hour, since everyone is raving about it, including me. It was always my intention to shoot the image at sunset, its just that when I visited my friend and had my cam with me, it was night, and it looked like good panorama to me. Regardless of the blue hour.

I think that much of the time people get stuck on the "rules" a bit too much. Cityscapes need to be shot at the blue hour, everything must fit in the rule of thirds, all that stuff. I tend to agree that these make for pleasing images but seriously, is it truly forbidden to create an image that breaks those rules? Especially for less than $1?

What if Ron's image is a generally accurate rendition of how the sky above that place actually looks? Does every landscape have to look like it was taken with once in a lifetime lighting? Or has been processed in photoshop for an hour?

Again, why not let the buyers decide? Most people are pretty happy with cell phone pictures. Some clients even want that look. Why not work just slightly outside the box occasionally?