Cool lighthouse pic

Well, I think it is, anyway.

Umpqua River (Oregon) Lighthouse, Friday night just after twilight,
with fog. Canon 400D, 24-105L @ 24mm, Ÿ4.0 @ 0.8 seconds, 400 ISO. I
tried fill flash to get a little more of the tower itself, but the fog
caused it to wash out, so this one has no flash.

http://www.nwconcessions.com/temps/umpqua.jpg

I did a little noise reduction on it, nothing else (well, straightened
it a tiny nooodge, too).

This lighthouse is pretty spectacular at night with fog or mist in the
air. There are 24 beams (16 white & 8 red) coming from the light
simultaneously as it slowly rotates over a period of 2 minutes (3
flashs every 15 seconds from any one vantage point, alternating two
white & 1 red)

Can't back off any further to take the pic, really, because the CG
housing there clutters everything up around the base. I would have
liked to have gotten a wider shot of the beams, but c'est la vie.

http://www.discoveroregonlighthouses.com/umpqua.html

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

Ken Lucke wrote:
Well, I think it is, anyway.

Umpqua River (Oregon) Lighthouse, Friday night just after twilight,
with fog. Canon 400D, 24-105L @ 24mm, Ÿ4.0 @ 0.8 seconds, 400 ISO. I
tried fill flash to get a little more of the tower itself, but the fog
caused it to wash out, so this one has no flash.

http://www.nwconcessions.com/temps/umpqua.jpg

I did a little noise reduction on it, nothing else (well, straightened
it a tiny nooodge, too).

This lighthouse is pretty spectacular at night with fog or mist in the
air. There are 24 beams (16 white & 8 red) coming from the light
simultaneously as it slowly rotates over a period of 2 minutes (3
flashs every 15 seconds from any one vantage point, alternating two
white & 1 red)

Yes, that is a neat shot. Congrats. I thought it was a starburst flare
effect & it took me reading twice to realize those are the signal beams
in 3D space lighting up the fog.

I guess this is a longer exposu
http://www.outdoorexposurephoto.com/department/Architecture_Photos/Lighthouse_Images/2422.html
I wonder if an even shorter exposure with ISO boosted would have given a
different look to your capture.

Can't back off any further to take the pic, really, because the CG
housing there clutters everything up around the base. I would have
liked to have gotten a wider shot of the beams, but c'est la vie.

What might have worked is a fisheye lens up closer to the tower &
pointed almost straight to the sky.

http://www.discoveroregonlighthouses.com/umpqua.html

http://images.google.com/images?q=Umpqua+River+Lighthouse&btnG=Search&svnum =10&hl=en&safe=off

In article , Paul
Furman wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:
Well, I think it is, anyway.

Umpqua River (Oregon) Lighthouse, Friday night just after twilight,
with fog. Canon 400D, 24-105L @ 24mm, Ÿ4.0 @ 0.8 seconds, 400 ISO. I
tried fill flash to get a little more of the tower itself, but the fog
caused it to wash out, so this one has no flash.

http://www.nwconcessions.com/temps/umpqua.jpg

I did a little noise reduction on it, nothing else (well, straightened
it a tiny nooodge, too).

This lighthouse is pretty spectacular at night with fog or mist in the
air. There are 24 beams (16 white & 8 red) coming from the light
simultaneously as it slowly rotates over a period of 2 minutes (3
flashs every 15 seconds from any one vantage point, alternating two
white & 1 red)

Yes, that is a neat shot. Congrats. I thought it was a starburst flare
effect & it took me reading twice to realize those are the signal beams
in 3D space lighting up the fog.

I guess this is a longer exposu

http://www.outdoorexposurephoto.com/...tos/Lighthouse
_Images/2422.html

Here's a couple of longer exposures I took as well - nothing at all
done to them at this point, not even noise reduction. These are from a
different angle (about 50 yards to the right of the perspective of
where I took the other shot), and I didn't get the azure blue of the
twilight sky as well.

30 seconds at Ÿ22:
http://www.nwconcessions.com/temps/umpqua2.jpg

1.3 seconds at Ÿ4:

http://www.nwconcessions.com/temps/umpqua3.jpg

I wonder if an even shorter exposure with ISO boosted would have given a
different look to your capture.

It would have, but I didn't want to trade the noise for the shorter
exposure I could have gotten with the higher ISO - I _rarely_ even
shift the camera out of 1st gear (100 ISO), as I mainly do landscape
stuff, so for me to go to 400 to speed things up that much is actually
pretty phenomenal. :^)

My main frustration was trying to get some "illumination" on the tower
despite the fog, while trying to keep the beams as tight as possible
with their inherent motion. As I said, fill flash just wiped
everything out, with the fog that was in the air. As you say, I could
have upped the ISO, but I hate noisy shots. I may try it anyway, next
time I'm down that way, and just fight it in Noiseware Pro.

I'm also going to try backing up a little and using the 50mm Ÿ1.8 -
even though it's not an L lens, it's pretty sharp, so that way I should
gain some speed over the Ÿ4.0 L.

Another option that I tried, but didn't work out, was to take a fast
shot for the beams, and a long, slow one for the tower to pull up more,
and then Photoshop them together. Unfortunately, the ambient light
from beams in the longer exposure for the tower shot was really obvious
[casting a glow from above] when combined (compared with the beams
themselves), and it looked truly "faked".

I'd really like to nail this shot... I think it could be a very popular
addition to my portfolio.


Can't back off any further to take the pic, really, because the CG
housing there clutters everything up around the base. I would have
liked to have gotten a wider shot of the beams, but c'est la vie.

What might have worked is a fisheye lens up closer to the tower &
pointed almost straight to the sky.

Yeah, I was going to do that with my 10-22mm, but I had an impatient
wife sitting in the truck, waiting to go to the motel. :^(

I almost came back to do more [after dropping her off], as the vacation
rental we were in was only about 3 miles away, but I was too pooped
after driving 4 hours on windy Hwy 101 with a 6000+ lb trailer behind
me, then unloading and moving about 3000 lbs of restaurant equipment
and another 750 lbs of ice chests and food out of it (and the pickup]
and into place & setting up at a seafood & wine festival, and I had to
be back up at 0700 again to start prep work.

And, unfortunately, you can't get any closer to the tower this time of
year (or indeed, at all any time after dusk, even when it is open
during the tour season, because the tours end before dusk) because the
fence line demarcates the "Gub'ment Property" CG housing area, and the
Coasties get really snorky if you cross over into what they consider
their personal space and front yard. Trust me, I _had_ that
conversation with one of them last time I was there - and that was just
from my asking permission to step two feet inside the fence gate to get
a better angle.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

Ken Lucke wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
Ken Lucke wrote:

Well, I think it is, anyway.

Umpqua River (Oregon) Lighthouse, Friday night just after twilight,
with fog. Canon 400D, 24-105L @ 24mm, f/4.0 @ 0.8 seconds, 400 ISO. I
tried fill flash to get a little more of the tower itself, but the fog
caused it to wash out, so this one has no flash.

http://www.nwconcessions.com/temps/umpqua.jpg

I did a little noise reduction on it, nothing else (well, straightened
it a tiny nooodge, too).

This lighthouse is pretty spectacular at night with fog or mist in the
air. There are 24 beams (16 white & 8 red) coming from the light
simultaneously as it slowly rotates over a period of 2 minutes (3
flashs every 15 seconds from any one vantage point, alternating two
white & 1 red)

Yes, that is a neat shot. Congrats. I thought it was a starburst flare
effect & it took me reading twice to realize those are the signal beams
in 3D space lighting up the fog.

I guess this is a longer exposu

http://www.outdoorexposurephoto.com/department/Architecture_Photos/Lighthouse_Images/2422.html

Here's a couple of longer exposures I took as well - nothing at all
done to them at this point, not even noise reduction. These are from a
different angle (about 50 yards to the right of the perspective of
where I took the other shot), and I didn't get the azure blue of the
twilight sky as well.

30 seconds at f/22:
http://www.nwconcessions.com/temps/umpqua2.jpg

I do like this one, it's less confusing: looks more like light beams.
But it's cool to see the individual beams in your chosen version.

1.3 seconds at f/4:

http://www.nwconcessions.com/temps/umpqua3.jpg

I wonder if an even shorter exposure with ISO boosted would have given a
different look to your capture.

It would have, but I didn't want to trade the noise for the shorter
exposure I could have gotten with the higher ISO - I _rarely_ even
shift the camera out of 1st gear (100 ISO), as I mainly do landscape
stuff, so for me to go to 400 to speed things up that much is actually
pretty phenomenal. :^)

Try it & see : - )

My main frustration was trying to get some "illumination" on the tower
despite the fog, while trying to keep the beams as tight as possible
with their inherent motion. As I said, fill flash just wiped
everything out, with the fog that was in the air. As you say, I could
have upped the ISO, but I hate noisy shots. I may try it anyway, next
time I'm down that way, and just fight it in Noiseware Pro.

I'm also going to try backing up a little and using the 50mm Ÿ1.8 -
even though it's not an L lens, it's pretty sharp, so that way I should
gain some speed over the Ÿ4.0 L.

Another option that I tried, but didn't work out, was to take a fast
shot for the beams, and a long, slow one for the tower to pull up more,
and then Photoshop them together. Unfortunately, the ambient light
from beams in the longer exposure for the tower shot was really obvious
[casting a glow from above] when combined (compared with the beams
themselves), and it looked truly "faked".

I'd really like to nail this shot... I think it could be a very popular
addition to my portfolio.

Yes, it's a nice capture, careful study, unique. Thanks for the
additional explanations.

Can't back off any further to take the pic, really, because the CG
housing there clutters everything up around the base. I would have
liked to have gotten a wider shot of the beams, but c'est la vie.

What might have worked is a fisheye lens up closer to the tower &
pointed almost straight to the sky.

Yeah, I was going to do that with my 10-22mm, but I had an impatient
wife sitting in the truck, waiting to go to the motel. :^(

I almost came back to do more [after dropping her off], as the vacation
rental we were in was only about 3 miles away, but I was too pooped
after driving 4 hours on windy Hwy 101 with a 6000+ lb trailer behind
me, then unloading and moving about 3000 lbs of restaurant equipment
and another 750 lbs of ice chests and food out of it (and the pickup]
and into place & setting up at a seafood & wine festival, and I had to
be back up at 0700 again to start prep work.

And, unfortunately, you can't get any closer to the tower this time of
year (or indeed, at all any time after dusk, even when it is open
during the tour season, because the tours end before dusk) because the
fence line demarcates the "Gub'ment Property" CG housing area, and the
Coasties get really snorky if you cross over into what they consider
their personal space and front yard. Trust me, I _had_ that
conversation with one of them last time I was there - and that was just
from my asking permission to step two feet inside the fence gate to get
a better angle.

Hi Ken

To my untrained eye I think you nailed it with the first shot
The exposure of the lamp housing isn't blown right out and there's enough of
the tower visible in the dark to show exactly what it is
Works just fine for me - wish I'd taken it :-)

Tim
--
http://www.timdenning.myby.co.uk/

In article , Tim
wrote:

Hi Ken

To my untrained eye I think you nailed it with the first shot
The exposure of the lamp housing isn't blown right out and there's enough of
the tower visible in the dark to show exactly what it is
Works just fine for me - wish I'd taken it :-)

Tim

Thanks, I appreciate the input. I do really like the more gentle glow
of the lamp, similar to this one I took of the Heceta Head Lighthouse:
http://www.kenluckephotography.com/portfolio/large-44.html (please
don't laugh at my site - I haven't really gotten it tuned up to the
point where I really want to release it into the general public othher
than here in these groups)

I do still want to bring the tower out a bit more, though. When I have
more time next week to sit down and do some serious photoshopping, I
think I might be able to deal with it, but I always prefer to get it
right in the shot to begin with - which makes the next time I have a
similar shot easier. I'm a firm believer in Photoshop (et. al.), but I
am also a firm believer in doing it right in the camera at the time of
the shot, so that PS doesn't have to be used unless there's no other
way. I try to shoot digital the way I would be shooting film if I were
still doing so.

--
would be shooting film

Ken Lucke wrote:

Tim wrote:

To my untrained eye I think you nailed it with the first shot
The exposure of the lamp housing isn't blown right out and there's enough of
the tower visible in the dark to show exactly what it is
Works just fine for me - wish I'd taken it :-)

Oh yeah, I wasn't complaining, just exploring.

Thanks, I appreciate the input. I do really like the more gentle glow
of the lamp, similar to this one I took of the Heceta Head Lighthouse:
http://www.kenluckephotography.com/portfolio/large-44.html

Beautiful.

I do still want to bring the tower out a bit more, though. When I have
more time next week to sit down and do some serious photoshopping, I
think I might be able to deal with it, but I always prefer to get it
right in the shot to begin with - which makes the next time I have a
similar shot easier. I'm a firm believer in Photoshop (et. al.), but I
am also a firm believer in doing it right in the camera at the time of
the shot, so that PS doesn't have to be used unless there's no other
way. I try to shoot digital the way I would be shooting film if I were
still doing so.

On 20 Feb, 03:04, Ken Lucke wrote:
I would have
liked to have gotten a wider shot of the beams, but c'est la vie.

Horizontal image orientation?

Jan Böhme

In article , Paul
Furman wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:

Tim wrote:

To my untrained eye I think you nailed it with the first shot
The exposure of the lamp housing isn't blown right out and there's enough
of
the tower visible in the dark to show exactly what it is
Works just fine for me - wish I'd taken it :-)

Oh yeah, I wasn't complaining, just exploring.

Thanks, I appreciate the input. I do really like the more gentle glow
of the lamp, similar to this one I took of the Heceta Head Lighthouse:
http://www.kenluckephotography.com/portfolio/large-44.html

Beautiful.

Thanks. Now THAT one was tricky g [for me, anyway - the pros in this
group would probably have been able to do it second nature] - the lens
had a beam interval of about 1.5 seconds while out of my FOV for that
shot. When it does swing around, it lights up the trees and brush
behind it with a moving spot of light, which I _didn't_ want to smear
across a longer exposure to get the warm lamp glow at that time of
evening (there's no light shield on the backside of the lens, as
there's nothing around the area that it would annoy, like shining into
people's bedrooms, so the light rotates 360 degrees).

The trick was to find the way to get a nice all around exposure with
the good glow from the lamp, the waning sun on the tower with the
magenta glow and long shadows that it was giving, the blue skies and
puffy clouds, and still time it in the 1.5 second interval so that the
spot of the beam didn't show up in the background. If you look closely
even in that shot you can see the beam just beginning to reenter the
view, from behind the tower, in the "crotch" of the "K" of the
watermark. (I know that I ended up at 1.3 second exposure, timing from
the point at which the rotating beam left a bush at just to the right
side of my FOV, but I don't remmeber off the top of my head what else I
used, settings-wise). Again, I refuse to boost the ISO unless
absolutely necessary.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

In article .com, Jan
Böhme wrote:

On 20 Feb, 03:04, Ken Lucke wrote:
I would have
liked to have gotten a wider shot of the beams, but c'est la vie.

Horizontal image orientation?

Nope - too much clutter (housing, an RV, etc.) to either side of the
tower. Tried it.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard