Lake Tahoe at Night

[PrevailingConditions]

Since the last couple were a bust, I thought I'd try again with a couple night shots from Lake Tahoe. The landscape orientation (#2) was intended to capture more of the lake and north shore, while the other (#1) is intended to catch more of the sky and the milky way.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

PC

#1


#2

[Anbesol]

VERY cool on both. I especially like #1. In #2, I'd like to see the moon not blown out.

Excellent job!

[Coastal Flyer]

PC,

Very nice, both. I like #2. No, wait #1. No, on second thought #2. I like them both. Nice job.

CF

[OldClicker]

I'm a #1 fan. #2 is just light polution. - Terry

[Greg McCary]

I love them both but agree a moon replacement is in order on the second one.

[arne saknussen]

# 1 is most definitely brilliant. NIce silhouette, curves and that sky make it exceptional.

[PrevailingConditions]

Thanks for all the nice comments - I really appreciate it. It looks like I'm going to have to find a moon shot to "adjust" #2. I'll see what I can come up with. I was also a little concerned about the star movement in the first, but it's a compromise to get enough light to capture the stars.

Also, I don't think the light on the horizon in #2 is light pollution, it's the remnant of the setting sun. The light on the horizon in #1 is definitely the light from the casinos and buildings on the south shore of the lake (probably 30 miles from where I was)

Thanks again,

PC

[daq7]

The first one, no comment. Amazingly done. Second one.. also very good, but the moon needs taming for maximum impact.

[Anbesol]

PC - I noticed that too, I tried an edit with a high pass filter overlay, sharpened up the stars a bit and brought them out a little too. Might give that a shot.

Still, sort of like complaining about a gorgeous woman for having a hair out of place.

[armando_m]

I like them both but the starts in #1 are incredible !

[GB1]

For # 1, it's colors are powerful and it has a feeling of the Earth being small compared to the rest of the Universe. The composition's a little unconventional, but I think you did this to show off the stars which is understandable. My only real complaint is the softness of all the lights.. seems like there was a wind storm or something like that.

The 2nd image took awhile to load, but I see it now. I think its size is a plus. It shows a lot of what's happening. But the shot also looks a bit odd, esp the moon which seems half normal/half spotlight ..??? There's also too much softness in the lights here too. I am wondering why... hmm.

G

[draymorton]

#1 is incredible.

[Don Schaeffer]

How did you get these?! Magnificent. I like the edgy quality in the moon in number 2.

[LeeIs]

lovely captures. love your processing of the milky way :-) They are both excellent. Love the foreground lights in the 2nd one, it gives it some depth. I would clone out the stars in the 2nd one though, they don't add to the shot , they look more like undesirable tiny streaks.

[PrevailingConditions]

Thanks again for all the nice comments.

Anbesol - Thanks for the comments on the filtering. I may give that a try and see what it does. I'll have to be careful about over sharpening, but it doesn't hurt to try.

GB - Yes, I was trying to focus on the sky in #1 with a little ground left in to anchor it somewhat. I also suspect the softness is more related to the motion of the stars while the shutter was open.

For Don - thanks for your comments. I shot these at ISO 800 with a 30 second exposure at f/2.8. I then applied some noise reduction and tweaked the curves in the upper portion of each.

As for the moon in the second, this is the result of the brightness of the moon against the dark sky, combined with the long exposure. I don't know how to get both properly exposed at the same time.

So, here's a version that has a "new" moon instead of the bright spot.

Thanks,

PC

[daq7]

The moon in the second version is really nice.

[PrevailingConditions]

Thanks Daq. I was trying to find something that was in the same lunar phase, but couldn't, so I swapped in a full one instead.

PC

[OldClicker]

Also, I don't think the light on the horizon in #2 is light pollution, it's the remnant of the setting sun.
PC

Actually, I was refering to all the man made lights, not the horizon. Just me. - Terry

[LeeIs]

Love your moon edit. As for your question on how to perfectly expose for the moon and the skies at the same time without over exposing the moon, the only answer I know of is bracketing. combining multiple exposures.

[Anbesol]

Getting the moon and sky exposed properly at the same time - can't be done, at least not in the setting you've shot. The only way to do it is how you've done it. I think removing the brightness from around the moon would make it more believable, otherwise it is very believable and very well implemented.

[pafindr]

I really like #1 and the second version of #2.
These are great shots keep up the good work!

[PrevailingConditions]

Actually, I was refering to all the man made lights, not the horizon. Just me. - Terry

Ah, yes. Tahoe is getting very crowded these days.

Liban, Anbesol, & Hector- thanks for the comments and feedback. I was actually tempted to "shoot the moon" while I was there, but opted not to. I was even thinking of trying to do some bracketed exposures to see how they would turn out, but the exposures were long enough, plus I had long exposure noise reduction turned on so each 30s exposure ended up taking over a minute and I'm not that patient.

Thanks again,

PC