#Nighttime cityscape tiltshift iso#

My exposure would have been around the same.Ĭrop vs FF? Anyway it was the ND that seemed to catch most of us there as odd.

#Nighttime cityscape tiltshift iso#

6 ND and shot at f/22 I would have had to kick the ISO up to 400 or 800. I had a 16-85 f/8 to f/16 (no ND) and my exposure started around 8 to 10 seconds and ended at 20 seconds. These numbers would not have worked on my D7100.

Exposure seemed to be around 8 to 10 seconds up to twenty seconds or so. 6) I think he said ISO100 and aperture of f22. I do not really know if he was going to do an HDR of what he had taken.Īgain his equipment was a Nikon D4 and what looked like a 70-200 2.8 (he was using a ND filter #4 or. I think a few of the photographers there were talking HDR. Here's photo using a vintage 2008 Point and Shoot Canon G-10 and no filters: What's further baffling, is that he shoots at f/22 which smears the image in diffraction. Of course the darker areas would be near black unless another exposure was taken and the two merged into an HDR. And he would eliminate the possibility of additional reflections from the filter. He could do that by just exposing for a shorter time. 'He added he was using a number 4 ND filter which he said helps make the lights sharper.' Let's say his logic was that he's darkening the entire scene, to prevent blooming on the sensor (Notice the street lights in my example). Since this can now be done with greater control in post processing without the need to attach filters in the field, I just take two differently exposed shots and composite them on the computer.Ģ. Makes perfect sense when you want to darken a portion of the scene to balance the exposure with an already darker area. The difference between what you do and what the guy the OP came across said are:ġ. Just my own theory and I am sure someone is going to come up with a formula that says I am wrong, but you just cannot argue with what you get from your camera no matter how you do it when you like the results. I am no pro, but my reasoning is to have a longer exposure to bring in darker areas without blowing out the bright lights or sky from say the moon. Not sure of why someone would say not to. I use an ND filter (graduated) at night all the time. Polarizers cut glare from light reflected onto materials from an angle. But a polarizer would not be called for in the case you described because the light source is coming straight at you from the buildings. The additional layer of glass, depending on the quality of the coatings, may in fact raise the probability of glare and flare.Ī polarizer will reduce glare and is an excellent filter to use for landscape and product photography for that reason. You did not miss out on anything of importance.Ĭan anyone tell me the reasoning behind using NDs in nighttime cityscapes? I am thinking it might help with glare etc but it would really help if someone could explain the reasoning? I did have a NDs on me, but only had a #6 and darker and didn't want to miss anything while fumbling around in the dark. Now to set the scene I am using my D7100 with a 16-85mm, ISO 100, f8 to f16 anywhere from 10 seconds to 20 seconds. So a more reasonable f/8 would not only have made the overall scene sharper, but also limited motion blur because it would have allowed for a faster shutter speed. A night skyline where your subject is focused at infinity, can be shot at the lens' optimal aperture. There are two common reasons the ND filter is used to allow for longer shutter speeds at the desired aperture when you're already at the lowest ISO (to show water flow, light trails, etc.) and to allow lower f stops for shallow depth of field in bright light when your camera doesn't have faster shutter speeds available.Īny filter will degrade to some extant the sharpness of the image and possibly result in additional reflections of bright lights so you want to have a good reason to put it on.įurthermore, unless this guy was using f22 to extend the depth of field to include something pretty near the camera, he was unnecessarily fuzzing out his entire scene due to diffraction. I'll to be polite and just say he was wrong. I asked him what ISO he was using and he had told me, ISO 100 F22 at around 4 to 6 seconds, nothing totally unusual so far but he had then he added he was using a number 4 ND filter which he told me it helps make the lights sharper. His equipment was a Nikon D4 and probably a 70 to 200 f2.8. I have a question While I was shooting in Seattle I happen to have met a gentlemen who was taking pictures of the nighttime Seattle skyline.