# Where I live



## yustr (Sep 27, 2004)

A couple of shots from just down the road. Still playing with long exposures. The lighthouse was 14 sec at F32. The other is 4 shots combined - from 2.6 sec down to 0.5 sec all at F27. If you got to full size you'll see the blurred water. 

Hope you like them...


----------



## mcorton (Apr 16, 2009)

Nice shots. I love lighthouses.


----------



## zuluclayman (Dec 16, 2005)

nice light in the panorama, nice place too :grin: - the title indicates HDR? using?


----------



## WereBo (Apr 5, 2008)

Beautiful photos yustr, both of them - The detail at long distance is superb ray:


----------



## DonaldG (Aug 23, 2007)

Congrats on a couple of superb images. Lets see more...Please

I was reading up on long time exposures in daylight - the photographic ND (Neutral Density) filters are very expensive but for a small loss in optical quality a 'replacement welding glass #11' is a very cheap way of getting into it.

This is the sort of stuff at $9.... :smile:


----------



## Mack (Nov 8, 2004)

Breatifull shot. Seabrook I think or something simular. Very fond of lighthouse Photography.


----------



## yustr (Sep 27, 2004)

One more. Not totally happy with this one...:4-dontkno











9 Sec @ F11


----------



## WereBo (Apr 5, 2008)

Oddly, that works well for me - The long exposure means the whole moon is exposed, rather than being partly covered by the clouds. That plus the high yellow/gold saturation gives it a wonderful fantasy/sci-fi feel


----------



## Mack (Nov 8, 2004)

Little mucky for me. Photoshop would help. Also a little over exposed in the reflection but it is an interesting image.

Maybe a better crop and straighten out the horizen might help.

Edit-> Streching it to a landscape makes a big difference.


----------



## Done_Fishin (Oct 10, 2006)

maybe I am not a perfectionist ... love that moon shot .. the colours, the clouds, the sea .. reflections .. to me it's beautiful .. Mack might be right about faking it a bit by resizing the vertical whilst keeping the horizontal the same however I go more for truth than fakery and I think, as a layman, that without any photoshop trickery it's a superb photo .. I'm jealous ..


----------



## DonaldG (Aug 23, 2007)

Done_Fishin said:


> .. Mack might be right about faking it a bit by resizing the vertical whilst keeping the horizontal the same however I go more for truth than fakery and I think, as a layman, that without any photoshop trickery it's a superb photo .. I'm jealous ..


Where is the 'trickery' and 'untruths' in the recomendations? What is the truth? So as not to hijack this yustr's thread I have started a seperate one for replies on this subject. See here.


----------



## WereBo (Apr 5, 2008)

With regards to yustr's moon-shot, it would be a lot of work to resize it to landscape, it can't just be stretched without turning the moon oval or other obvious distortions - Cutting and pasting parts would very likely result in sharp steps in either the clouds or the water ripples too.


----------



## Done_Fishin (Oct 10, 2006)

quite rigt .. we mus always remember that Murphy is lurking just around the corner or peeping over our shoulder to ensure that what seems like a simple modification is, in reality, just a nightmare in disguise :smile:


----------

