The fact is your camera's light meter likes to measure light onto an 18% gray surface.
So,the measurement is accurate only if you use a 18% gray surface as a model.
Pure white,like snow,reflects about 2 more stops of light to the meter so,in order to have a proper exposure,you must set a +2 bias inside your camera.
If,like me,you don't want to think about it too much just do it properly and learn a bit about each color reflection.
You will discover that purple reflects less light than,say,yellow...
I am getting used to shoot in manual,i just measure the light onto a medium tone surface,check that the light is consistent all over the frame and then i click the shutter button.
Also,don't try to get your White balance right at the scene.Just shoot raw and do it properly at home.
It will save you time and allow you to finer tune the color temperature of your image.
The first two images you posted look underexposed and blueish.
The third one is better,but it would have required just a bit more light.
It's just a matter of time.
If you wait for the ambient light to drop to almost 0 and then you expose for the lights the only thing you will get is a black picture with coloured dots on it.
Instead,try to reach your position much earlier and start taking pictures as the sun goes lower into the sky.
Sun intensity and artificial light intensity must be pretty much the same in order to get a properly exposed pictures.
The only way to get a good picture is to have the stongest and the dimmest light source within your camera's dynamic range,otherwise some detail will get lost in either pure black or white.
I do agree with you.
I just said that the picture isn't very interesting because those light spots aren't really catching the attention considering the environment isn't that well lit as well.
If it was me,i would have tried to gain access to the harbour and find some good and interesting point of views.There is more light down there and more things to photograph as well.
You know,a black sea and a black hill which occupies a good half of the frame isn't that interesting,but,again,that's just my opinion.
No one is telling Electric Eye not to try again,maybe he doesn't know certain things about photography or maybe,like many of us,he can't really judge a picture he took himself in an objective way.
Maybe its partecipants won't take it good but i think im speaking the truth.
You know,after all that is not my problem,i am just trying to point a guy in the right direction and typing a couple of good words in front of a bad picture is the simplest thing a user can do.
I do read a couple of photographic forums,i know people which would always state a friend of their's picture is awesome,whatever the picture is.
I know that attitude and i reject it.
We're all friends,i know,but when i say that a picture lacks a bit of composition i think im just suggesting its photographer to reconsider that picture a bit.It's not offensive,it's not disrespectful,it's just me telling my opinion about something and you,reader and photographer,have the option to read and learn from it or simply ignore it.
That's your choice,i may be wrong but i felt like saying those things.
I could stop but since this thread in particular gathers such a different variety of people which share the same passion(at different levels) i think that any good suggestion can only be of help.
If not,just ignore me and continue straight with your things.
It is not just the quality that is lacking.
I see big pieces of black all around the frame,almost 3/4 of it is pitch black and has no detail.
When photographing landscapes or using very wide lenses the challenge is not to leave a big part of the frame without detail.
I know that it was night and there was the water for most of the frame but...
Electric Eye's pictures lack in composition,a couple of lights can't do all the job.
I know a couple of guys who sell their photos to stock sites but other than that...no,not many.
I also know a couple of freelancer photographers but i have no clue how they get to access some events.
Yes,i know that the Tokina and the Pentax share the same optical design but,as far as i know,they are built in different factories(am i right?) and the pentax has the SDM motor.
So,i considered buying the tammy but...i really fell in love with that sigma in my hands.The weight,the zoom ring that feels tough,the focus ring that has a clutch,the big glass.
Does the Tokina show a lot of flare?Are there any normal zoom lenses that do not protrude while zooming?As far as i know there aren't
Is a fast motor(USM,HSM or similar) a must on a zoom like this?
Guys,im looking for a good lens to use as a normal zoom on the 20D.
The 17-50(the old one)looks pretty good optically but i dont like the fact that it is made of plastic.
So,i am considering buying a Tokina 16-50 2.8.The 2.8 is a must,now that i have my Zigma i can't use a dim lens anymore and i want the new lens to have a comparable build quality(i like the weight and the tank feel).
Would you recommend buying one?
Are this kind of threads being posted to kill the boredom somehow?
I know we are all waiting but,sometimes i can't really understand what a topic is about and this is one of them.
Why do you want to know our opinion about lfs in a 10 years time?
Do you want to invest billions of dollars on LFS and make a profit?
Or you're just,let's say,making another useless thread based upon nothing at all?
Just received my second hand Sigma 70-200 2.8 APO EX HSM.
Well,it's...pretty much like im the first one unboxing it.
I could have believed it was new if he told me so.
Really,no sign of use,no scratches,no defects,i tested the AF and it is very silent and fast(but not blazing fast).
Im starting to love it,it weighs but the system is now very well balanced.
It's a shame the guy lost the tripod mount,i should look for an aftermarket one.
Ah,just 355€ for a NEW lens,wow.
Ebay isn't good for bargains anymore.
I suggest you to subscribe to a local photography forum and look for a "Buy/Sell" subforum.
I bought all of my equipment on forums like these
I can't really understand what topics like this are all about.
If you're poor then you have to worry about something a little more important than DORIFTOOOOOO!!!!
Back to the first reflex choice:
The main thing you have to worry about is the lens offer.
Scroll all the manufacturer's list of optics and decide which you feel most comfortable with.Nikon doesn't have a "cheap" f4 telephoto lineup,for instance.There are pro and cons for each brand,just don't try to save some £ to buy a system you won't like in a year.
I choose Canon and im pretty happy with that choice but if i started now i would have chosen Nikon probably.
Pentax,Sony and Olympus have the stabilized sensor which is a good thing.
You will find also that you can buy lenses for pentax for a ridicolous amount of money and still have a perfect compatibility with your digital body(unlike Nikon or Canon).
Canikon,on the other side,have a pretty big lineup of lenses for just every possible use.You really can't think of a lens of of them do not have.
It's up to you,choose a brand and go with it.Evaluate all the good and bad things according to your needs and pockets.
And remember,a good body may last 3-4 years while a good lens can last pretty much forever.
Yes,but i can't stand the olympus crop factor and i don't really like the files that the sony cameras produce.
The K-x seems to have all the features to be the best entry level camera.