Congress Avenue in Austin

[photophorous]

Please let me know which of these shots you prefer. I'm thinking about giving a print of one of these to a photographer friend who will be showing me around her town when I visit soon. Do you think either of these is a good choice for that?

I won't have a chance to re-shoot this before my trip, but I may when I return, so please let me know if you have suggestions for improvement.

Thanks,
Paul

[Alison]

WOW! That first shot is fantastic.
Probably because there aren't so many motionless head lights in it. They seem to make it a little over-exposed in #2.
I tried some shots like this but I was in a moving car lol.
Maybe I should try to do some more with my tripod.
Great shots!

[Copy_Kot]

NUMBER ONE! It's a great shot!

[Greg McCary]

I agree no.1 is awesome.......

[freygr]

I have to agree rest that #1 shot is the better of the two. Adjusting the gama or curves in ps could make shoot #2 a keeper also.

[photophorous]

Alison, Paul, Greg, GRF,

Thank you all for your kind comments. I ordered a print of the first one.

Paul

[Ronnoco]

The top one is the best, but the buildings and other sections are underexposed. The usual approach for this type of shot is perfect timing. That means when it is sufficiently dark for the lights to be on, but with the sky still sufficiently bright to give some detail to the shape and details of the buildings and other areas of the shot.

Another approach has been to blend an earlier shot with a little light in the sky and details in the building with a later shot for greater effect of the car lights.

Ronnoco

[photophorous]

The top one is the best, but the buildings and other sections are underexposed. The usual approach for this type of shot is perfect timing. That means when it is sufficiently dark for the lights to be on, but with the sky still sufficiently bright to give some detail to the shape and details of the buildings and other areas of the shot.

Another approach has been to blend an earlier shot with a little light in the sky and details in the building with a later shot for greater effect of the car lights.

Ronnoco

Hi Ronnoco,

Thanks for the comments. I agree about the buildings being underexposed. The second shot was actually taken about 10-15 min earlier than the first shot. The sky was brighter and I think the buildings look better in that one. I think the composition is stronger in the first one though, and that seems to overpower the technical issues.

Paul

[Greg McCary]

I still think that I like the first one best. I think that the underexposure brings out more detail in the trails. If there is any weakness at all in this it's the funny looking light on the far right building. IMHO...
Greg

[McMadCow]

Definitely the first. VERY nice. The second shot is probably a bit more dynamic, but the tones just aren't as strong.
Great contribution!

[starriderrick]

#1 DUDE ! Ronnoco has some sound advice.Some of the best I've seen.He is helping others bring the science of composing,creating the ideal conditions to push the capture to new levels. I like this side of photography.. Knowing the secrets is 90% the battle.Todays gear is so sweet it pulls its weight easily. Nice capture :thumbsup: Keep going with this location if poss.

THANKS to Ronnoco for the valuable info.
Rick

[GB1]

Paul - Great shots and great angle. Seems like you shot them from a very low pt from the ground. I bet you freaked out some cars being that close to the road.

# 1 has prettier colors. The sky is a nice saturated dark blue. But I also like how #2 has the buildings closer in.

Shoot some more and post em.
GB

[photophorous]

Greg, Thanks again. I agree about that funny looking light on the far right building. I havne't been able to figure out what that is.

McMadCow, Rick, GB, Thank you for your comments, as well. I do like this spot. This shoot was a learning experience. I'll try to go reshoot this when I get back from my trip.

Paul