Fort Worth at Night (and dusk)
#1
Posted 29 September 2006 - 11:28 AM
(Sorry for the blur on some of them, I didn't have a tripod)
Also, I have a question. Does any one know why my photos look pixely? I can't figure out if it's my screen resolution, editing software, photo host, or camera, although I doubt it's the camera because it's a pretty nice digital SLR. I'm so frustrated that after spending a hefty amount on a nice camera I still can't get the pictures to be nice and smooth when posted on the internet. I've seen smooth pics from the same camera on the internet before, so I know it's possible. Can anyone help me out here?
#2
Posted 29 September 2006 - 11:41 AM
They don't look "pixely" (if I'm understanding what you mean) to me and I'm using a crappy 6+ year old VGA monitor.
#3
Posted 29 September 2006 - 05:32 PM
#4
Posted 29 September 2006 - 10:15 PM
#5
Posted 30 September 2006 - 02:31 PM
If you're seeing a sort of 'stepped' gradient in colors instead of smooth blend of colors, that could possibly be becasue your monitor's color gamut is narrower than your camera or editing software (not likely with CRT, but quite possible with LCD). You could test that by printing the images - if the problem doesn't manifest in the prints, it's your monitor.
#6
Posted 03 October 2006 - 06:36 AM
I came accross this thread and had another thought for you...it could have something to do with shutter speed. Maybe yopu're referring to a certain graininess that's especially apparent in the sky? If that's the case, try putting the camera on a tripod, drop the aperture and increase the exposure. I kinda got out of photography about the time digital went mainstream, but understanding is that with digital cameras if you have very little light coming throught lens (ie night shots) with a ver short exposure (ie no tripod to hold the camera still for a time) you'll end up with grainy images due to the electronic gizmos having to 'interpolate' some of the image.
It's kinda the same as using hi-speed film - you sacrifice crispness and smoothness in order to capture little light in a short time period.
#7
Posted 04 October 2006 - 08:51 PM
#8
Posted 05 October 2006 - 06:26 AM
Yeah, I do...one other thing: If your camera has several options for file formats, and you want the most crispness you can get, don't choose JPG. JPG is good for small images on the web, but crappy for archiving and will collect 'digital artifacts' due to it's compression method. Always choose a lossless file format like TIF or RAW.
Addendum to this post: if you are uploading images to web, DO use JPG. This is perfectly sufficient for online view. Afterall the most resolution anyone will be able to get out of them is 72dpi (unless you intend for people to rip off your photos and print them for themselves).
#9
Posted 05 October 2006 - 08:13 AM
72 dpi is dots per inch used on a printer
72 ppi is pixels per inch used on a monitor
Acually they are nearly the same thing dpi/ppi
And yes I too have Photoshop CS2 and frequently use Adobe's Camera Raw Converter to convert from our RAW .CR2 to Tif's.
Also it helps if you resize your images to about 600 or 700 pixels wide and about 50 to 60kb for use in the forum. Keeps from having to scroll to the right to see the whole photo.
The photo's above are a good width too.
Dave still at
Visit 360texas.com
#10
Posted 13 August 2008 - 08:24 PM
#11
Posted 21 February 2009 - 10:11 PM
The grand Blackstone looking kind of puny. (Cropped to grainy, but what I wanted.)
#12
Posted 23 January 2010 - 09:24 PM
When I was on 6th a guy stopped his car and started coming toward me. I was a bit scared. (Not as much for my safety as for my 15K in photo gear on me.) Pretty quickly he said, "He, do you post pictures on the Fort Worth Forum?" I then realized he was not about to steel my gear. (Bad guys don't usually hang around on architectural forums.)
He said his name was Stephen and he does not post much but enjoys the forum. He asked me who I am. I told him monee9696 as he would not likely know who Brian Luenser was. Sure enough, he was familiar with my pics. Nice guy sure enough.
And now, the photos...
I sure think I could live in these apartments.
#13
Posted 24 January 2010 - 12:13 AM
#14
Posted 24 January 2010 - 02:35 PM
-Stephen (a.k.a. surpluspopulation)
#15
Posted 25 January 2010 - 08:04 AM
#16
Posted 25 January 2010 - 03:18 PM
#18
Posted 26 January 2010 - 08:45 PM
Thank you and Vjackson and Surplus for your kind comments. Fort Worth may or may not be the prettiest city at night. But is the only major city in the world I would walk around in the dark with lots of expensive gear taking pictures. I am grateful.
#19
Posted 27 January 2010 - 06:49 AM
#20
Posted 06 April 2010 - 09:18 PM
This past Friday my brother (also a shutterbug) and I went to the porch of the ACM and I got my first go at night photography with a DSLR. Here's the result:
This next shot I really like the cloud formations over downtown:
Wandered over to the FWMSH next and got some shots of the new "lantern" feature of the building:
I love the orange glow of the bricks and the actual lantern itself:
I still have a long way to go in learning DSLR, but just one night out with a tripod and camera...I'm hooked!!
#21
Posted 06 April 2010 - 10:19 PM
I still have a long way to go in learning DSLR, but just one night out with a tripod and camera...I'm hooked!!
Great shots Art! I think you've joined that weird group of people that roam the night with a tripod and remote release. Have fun and keep them coming!
#22
Posted 08 April 2010 - 11:31 AM
I have the skyline tattooed across my arm. I love my city.
Fort Worth Texas
#23
Posted 22 May 2010 - 07:22 AM
#24
Posted 24 June 2010 - 06:05 PM
Amon Carter Museum east portico:
Kimbell Art Museum south porch:
Sculpture, Kimbell lawn:
Fort Worth Museum of Science and History:
Kimbell south porch and approaching aliens?
#25
Posted 08 September 2011 - 07:46 PM
They are sure enough working late hours on the 5 Guys Burgers restaurant. (Walked by there and there were like workers on the sidewalk taking a smoke break.)
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users