Quote from: topol on November 28, 2013, 07:43

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.

Quote from: bunhill on November 28, 2013, 14:23

Quote from: topol on November 28, 2013, 07:43

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, 18:05

Quote from: topol on November 28, 2013, 17:52

Quote from: ShadySue on November 28, 2013, 17:47

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: ShadySue on November 28, 2013, 18:16

Quote from: Ron on November 28, 2013, 18:07

(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!

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!

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

Quote from: JPSDK on November 29, 2013, 08:43

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.

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.