When I initially looked at this shot I realised that this one was even more under-exposed than yesterday's – probably by almost two stops; i.e. at this aperture this should have been a 32 minute exposure! But that's the beauty of working with RAW files, they're extremely forgiving.

As for this shot: it's taken about 15' further along the beach than yesterday's and I decided to go for a slightly different colour balance with this one. One of the wonderful things about night shots is that there really isn't a 'right' colour balance; i.e. there's nothing we saw at the time that we can compare the final image to, and I think that's one of the things that makes them magical – that the camera can capture something we couldn't possibly see with our own eyes.

Oh, and I think I prefer this one to yesterday's.

And finally, Bob has excelled himself again, as has John @ Orbit1 – keeping up with those two is certainly a challenge ;-)

capture date
camera
lens
focal length
aperture
shutter speed
shooting mode
exposure bias
metering mode
ISO
flash
image quality
RAW converter
cropped?
7.58pm on 28/12/04
Canon 20D
EF 17-40 f/4L USM
17mm (27mm equiv.)
f/8.0
8m 2s
manual
+0.0
evaluative
100
no
RAW
C1 Pro
no
<<< prev / latest / next >>> // 30 comments // archives + galleries + thumbs // RSS // about + blog // store + training and tutorials
AboutBlogCommissionsPhotoblogGalleriesPrintsStock imagesStoreTraining<<< hide these links 
chromasia.com
nine minutes later / 29 December, 2004 [click for previous image: distant waves]
nine minutes later / 29 December, 2004 [click for next image: down the drain]
Buy our new Black and White Photography ebook and enter our free $1000 USD draw!
© 2003–14 • all rights reserved