can't decide.

so i got my last roll of film back from my sumemr in utah. and i have 2 sets of 2 pics i can't decide which i like better. so i'm putting both sets up here for comment.
i didn't edit any of them they were developed and put on cd by cheap photo developer in 1 hour....

set 1
pic 1
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c3...ost/026_29.jpg

pic 2
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c3...ost/027_30.jpg



set 2
pic 3
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c3...ost/028_31.jpg

pic 4
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c3...ost/029_32.jpg


so let me know which you like out of each set, and overall. along with any comments. thanks.

Hmmm... A mystery here. I take that these are night shots, and that the circles in the sky are stars?? If so, then that the light is the moon. It produced a somewhat errie effect. If not, then there's a lot of dust on the negatives

I prefer the composition of the top ones. But comparing the two top images, I have a hard time deciding if either are winners. They both have the nice silhouette of Delicate Arch... but the top one is missing something in the lit-up foreground area, and the next one just has too much black area. The lit-up foreground, too bad there wasnt a person sleeping there, or a tent, or ?

These shots also made me wonder, what would this scene be like with snow on the arch? No idea how often that happens... it certainly gets cold out there, but I dont think they get much precipitation.

GB

yes they are night shots. taken on film, so i could leave the shutter open long enough to catch the stars, and it is the moon, although i'm not sure why it "exploded out" like that. as usually it would just 6 point star. maybe because differeent lense?

i see what you mean about missing something in the forground, tent would be bad idea due to requlations... and a person would have been hard due to the extended shutter.... but flash might have helped.



also i posted 3 or 4 more in the nature forum so go check those out.

Dylan -

Just got an idea about the arch:

next time you're back there, if there's no moon or if it's in another part of the sky, you could try getting right up near the arch's base and aim up at about a 60 degree angle and do a long time exp, say 1-2 hrs. At the beginning of the B setting, using about f 5.6, externally aim your flash it it and fire it at ~ 1/2 to 1/4 pwr to illum it. Then let the shutter stay open for the 1-2 hrs to get the stars zipping by behind it.

Here's a shot I took about 3 yrs ago while there. You'd have to be at least this close for the flash to reach it.

Gb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan8i

yes they are night shots. taken on film, so i could leave the shutter open long enough to catch the stars, and it is the moon, although i'm not sure why it "exploded out" like that. as usually it would just 6 point star. maybe because differeent lense?

i see what you mean about missing something in the forground, tent would be bad idea due to requlations... and a person would have been hard due to the extended shutter.... but flash might have helped.



also i posted 3 or 4 more in the nature forum so go check those out.

---

There is a large difference between the stars and the moon with light. At first look it looked like the SUN was in the frame. The time exposure you used the moon was giving the film as much light as the sun would.

gb1 yeah i would have liked to do that, but i don't have a shutter release cord, so i wouldn't want to sit there for wa logn time with my hand pressing the shutter button, not shaking. i have seen pics of it done , illuminating the arch with a flashlight..... the flash isn't strong enough, due to the terrain you can't really get that close.

ps i think shot 4, i did shoot off my flash, off camera, a few times, and you can see how much it lit it up. ( the arch is like 40 feet tall)

freygr, i realize the moon and sun ar different but other full moon exposure shots i've taken have stared out nicely, while this one didn't. so i was wondering if it was the different camera or lense. or if it was film vs digital or what.

I like pic one in set one. I think the 'exploded moon' looking like a sun gives it an other worldly effect. The last two are so identical my untrained eye can't detect the dif.

the "sun" and the stars almost make i look painting quality. very interesting shots indeed

there are diferent qualities out of all them i like, when the forground is too bright then the difference in contrast between the sky near the stars and near the moon is just right, and when that difference is not as noticable the forground is perfect, its kinda a give and take situation.

btw the major difference between each photo per set is one used a (less) flash while one used more (multiple ) flashes. so in the top set the foreround is illuminated, while in the bottom set the arch is more illuminated.


and it is very surreal, i like them, just nto sure which combo works best. and like i said no post editing, so you can bring out the stars more and what not.

i like the top one the setup, i actually thought these were day shots with that moon exploded like that it looked jsut like the sun and the stars i thought your lense was dirty or something but i like the top one. these are very intresting shots

nice job