• Photos

  • Level

  • Score

Night Light

© Stephen Shoff

Night Light

Uploaded: November 30, 2013

Description

f/16.0, 30 sec, ISO 1250; EF 24-70 f2.8L@24mm

January night under the light of full moon.

Exif: F Number: 16, Exposure Bias Value: 0.00, ExposureTime: 30/1 seconds, Flash: did not fire, compulsory flash mode, ISO: 1250, White balance: Manual white balance, FocalLength: 24.00 mm, Model: Canon EOS 5D Mark II

Comments

Stephen Shoff November 30, 2013

While I don't think I can turn this into a portfolio quality picture unless I find a way to deal with the excessive noise particularly in the snow on the ground, I thought I'd share it with the Phellos.

This was taken about 9:00 PM on a January night. #1554469

Jeff E Jensen November 30, 2013

I love the moodiness of this, Stephen. there's just something I love about night shots like this. #10911564

Dale Hardin November 30, 2013

No fair, Stephen. We don't get to see stars in Southern Calif.

I like this and see no evidence of noise in a small rendition such as this. I would think you could minimize the noise using the tools at your disposal. You could certainly apply a more aggressive correction to the snow using a mask. #10911715

Jeff E Jensen November 30, 2013

Dale, you always say that about the stars in California. I was in downtown San Francisco last week, and could see the stars. #10911730

Stephen Shoff November 30, 2013

Thank you, Jeff. The moodiness of the moonlight reflecting off the granite walls along with the storm blowing through are the things that I wanted to share in this image.

However, to Dale's comment, San Francisco isn't in Southern California. And you were in San Francisco, not downwind from San Francisco.

But Dale, Joshua Tree and Big Bear are closer to you than Yosemite is to me.

Dale, I used more aggressive and creative noise suppression in this image than I've ever used before...including a gaussian blur layer over the snow and in the trees. Even so, there is banding visible in snow at the bottom of the picture that Nik Define couldn't suppress.

#10911763

Susan Williams November 30, 2013

What a beautiful capture, Stephen.

Based on my own experience, sometimes noise and artifacts are introduced during the editing process (particularly with plug-ins) and that type of noise is impossible to get rid of entirely. I am wondering if your original has less noise than the image posted. It may be that you have other images captured at the same time where you can "borrow" the snow for this one. But at any rate, I don't see anything here that offends the eye. It's truly beautiful and a very strong image. #10911769

Stephen Shoff November 30, 2013

You are right, Susan. I needed some brightness in the picture so I was trying to brighten the snow. I over did it.

I've re-worked it. Definitely think the snow looks more like snow now than mush.

#10911802

Stephen Shoff November 30, 2013

Jeff, I could get the brighter blue back in the sky, too, if that looks better. #10911803

Dale Hardin December 01, 2013

Nice change on the redo. Susan pointed out a very valuable lesson, that it is easy to go too far on "fixes" and actually create problems. Stephen, you handled the change well. Looks great, and yes, I agree with your later statement that getting the blue back in the sky would be beneficial. #10912312

Susan Williams December 01, 2013

Nice work on the edit, Stephen. I agree the blue in the sky is an appealing feature and balances nicely with the blue beneath the clouds. I love this image. #10912334

Elaine Hessler December 01, 2013

Wow-this is stunning Stephen. I love the reworked image-I don't see the artifacts as much in this one. I have nothing to add, but it is beautiful! #10912510

Rita K. Connell level-classic December 01, 2013

wow this a great shot Stephen I think put the brighter blue back in the sky would make this even better. I like that you can see through the pine trees. #10912755

Michael Kelly level-classic December 01, 2013

Nice Stephen – I like the feel of this one a lot. Good job on the correction as I could see the problem on the original which looked like color noise to me. Great lighting and a wonderful mood. #10912781

Kalena Randall December 01, 2013

Very beautiful composition and you made great adjustments in the re-work. I like night shots. They are sometime difficult, but this is very nice! #10912798

Jeff E Jensen December 01, 2013

Yeah, I'd say bring back the brighter blue.

I'm well aware that San Fran is not in So Cal. It is however, a large city with a ton of light pollution and yet the stars are still there to be seen. not sure what you mean by being downwind. . . #10912955

Stephen Shoff December 01, 2013

The reason you can see stars in San Francisco is because the prevailing winds blow all the smog east...to San Jose, Ramon, Sacramento, etc. That's why we don't see stars very well. Same thing happens as you move inland in Orange County.

Thanks all. Finish this image an submit it.
#10912971

Jeff E Jensen December 01, 2013

Hmm, interesting. #10912978

Peter W. Marks December 02, 2013

There is not too much else to say about this intriguing image Stephen, other than I wouldn't have even considered being out with my camera on a cold January night so I am totally impressed.
I have to thank you for mentioning the color noise on this as by upping the size a bit I could plainly see the color noise and I was beginning to think there was something wrong with me as I couldn't see the noise on my own 'storm clouds' image.
Hey Jeff! That was probably Elvis and Marilyn you saw in SF. #10913444

Beth Spencer December 02, 2013

Stephen, I really like the reworked one. I love the light in the sky. #10913639

To discuss, first log in or sign up (buttons are at top center of page).

Get Constructive Critiques

Sign up for an interactive online photography course to get critiques on your photos.


 

Did You Know?

Discussions by Category: You can view photo discussions on various themes in the Community > Photo Discussions section of the site.

BetterPhoto Websites: If you see an orange website link directly under the photographer's name, it's totally okay. It's not spam. The reason: BetterPhoto is the one that offers these personal photography websites. We are supporting our clients with those links.

Unavailable EXIF: If there is no other information but 'Unavailable' in the EXIF (meaning no EXIF data exists with the photo), the 'Unavailable' blurb is not displayed. If there is any info, it shows. Many photos have the EXIF stripped out when people modify the image and resave it, before uploading.


 

The following truth is one of the core philosophies of BetterPhoto:

I hear, I forget.
I see, I remember.
I do, I understand.

You learn by doing. Take your next online photography class.

You &

Love It!


Copyright for this photo belongs solely to Stephen Shoff.
Images may not be copied, downloaded, or used in any way without the expressed, written permission of the photographer.
Log in to follow or message this photographer or report this photo.