<<< o >>>touchdown #1 30 comments + add yours

I was going to continue posting my 'walk along the beach' shots today but I got a call from Paul yesterday evening saying he was on the beach and it was a glorious sunset. Anyway, by the time I got there the sun had set but we decided to go and do some more night photography of my favourite structure.

Unfortunately though the night looked as though it was going to be a washout as i) the moon didn't come up (I forgot to check the times, and when we tried ringing Bob to ask him we got an answer-machine), and ii) there was a lot of mist in the air (which equals lots of light pollution).

Anyway, we climbed up on top of the pier and took a few shots of the twilight (one of which I might post in a few days) but none of the other shots we tried worked out. In the end though, we both got a reasonable shot by turning around to shoot towards the shore.

As for this shot: it's the first of two that I'll put up. My wife prefers this one, while I like tomorrow's best, so as always I'd be interested to hear what you think. Paul's shot will be going up at about 12.10am tomorrow and I think this will be the url.

Update: following the first couple of comments I thought I'd clarify what this is. Many years ago, this structure (on which Paul and I are standing to take this shot) was part of St. Annes pier – the subject of this shot. But at some point the joining sections burnt down leaving the structure about 150 feet away from the end of the pier. So, last night we were stood on the former end of the pier photographing the current end of the pier.

23.28pm on 30/4/05

Canon 20D

EF 70-200 f/4L USM

168mm (269mm equiv.)


6m 2s







C1 Pro


capture date
focal length
shutter speed
shooting mode
exposure bias
metering mode
image quality
RAW converter

3x2 + piers [St. Annes] + night shots [long exposures] + fylde coast [scenic]
comment by Alec Long at 09:03 PM (GMT) on 1 May, 2005

All I get is a small white box with no photo information. Maybe I'm a few minutes too early. I can see the title and comments, though.

comment by djn1 at 09:07 PM (GMT) on 1 May, 2005

Alec: oops. it's fixed now. Thanks for letting me know.

comment by bmoll at 09:07 PM (GMT) on 1 May, 2005

Seems there's a problem with the files :/ rss-msg came over 10 min ago.

comment by Daaave at 09:09 PM (GMT) on 1 May, 2005

Er, looks a bit soft to me David. What was the tripod resting on...sand? Nice colours all the same.

comment by Adriana at 09:13 PM (GMT) on 1 May, 2005

This angle in this one adds a new perspective for me. since I already now, a few pictures of ths structure. The blue environment makes it look like a fairy tale boock. One of my favorites in a while. :)

comment by djn1 at 09:18 PM (GMT) on 1 May, 2005

Daaave: lol, no, it was on the iron platform of what was once the end of this pier. As for the sharpening: after all the comments yesterday I purposefully left this one a bit soft. That said, the version that's up now has been sharpened a bit more.

comment by picturegrl at 09:19 PM (GMT) on 1 May, 2005

What is this thing?

comment by Alexander at 10:00 PM (GMT) on 1 May, 2005

I have to agree with Daaave here, it looks a bit soft to me. Oversharpening is always an issue with digital photography, but this photo looks to me like it's a little out of focus. Or maybe, the sensor was shaken a little during the exposure.

comment by djn1 at 10:03 PM (GMT) on 1 May, 2005

Alexander (and Daaave): part of the reason for the softness way well be the DoF. From what I can remember I focussed on infinity and relied on the aperture to bring the rest into focus – which probably wasn't such a good idea.

comment by Amy at 10:12 PM (GMT) on 1 May, 2005

This photo is fabuolous. The colours really stand out when you view it with the black background. I love the twinkles on either side of the building. Great job !

comment by bob at 10:29 PM (GMT) on 1 May, 2005

David -- I JUST got your message! I had my mobile off --- I was wondering what you too scalawags were up to on a night where the moon wouldn't be out until LATE!

You both still managed to come up with some great shots -- certainly better than mine! (I got skunked) ---

Now -- next full moon is in 21 days, 22 hours! I'll have to keep a close eye on you two...

comment by paul at 11:12 PM (GMT) on 1 May, 2005

laugh!! hello bob, that would have been me on the phone.

Turned out great Dave, your lighting flares turned out much more defined than mine. Lots of fun, thanks for the flask of coffee.....and I will phone you earlier next time ;)

comment by djn1 at 11:53 PM (GMT) on 1 May, 2005

bob: I guess we still have a bit to learn about night photography, hence the phone call - we were going to ask you when the moon was going to come up ;-) I've since printed off the moonrise (and set) times for the rest of the year so we should be able to do a better job next time :-)

paul: I still have plans for that pier – so I'll give you a call too.

comment by Juice at 12:06 AM (GMT) on 2 May, 2005

Did you use one of those filters to make the lights flare out like stars or have you achieved it in some other way?

comment by lisa at 12:14 AM (GMT) on 2 May, 2005

really nice shot. I especially like that twinkle star of light on the right side, and how it's just perfectly sitting there.

comment by Matt at 12:24 AM (GMT) on 2 May, 2005

Great job. Love the darkness, with the light coming in from the back.

comment by david at 01:30 AM (GMT) on 2 May, 2005

The softness may be from the combination of super-long exposure and creating a silhouette against from virtually nonexistant light (or wind or setting the tripod on sand, or another of the endless variables that arise at night). I wouldn't have noticed - this is a phenomenal image.

comment by PWrocker at 02:11 AM (GMT) on 2 May, 2005

I, personally, think the softness really adds to it. I'm also a little curious about the starburst (I think) effect. Never let down by your shots.

comment by docvoo at 03:10 AM (GMT) on 2 May, 2005

i am sorry to say but i do prefer paul's(almost identical shot in terms of position and composition, i guess his camera was a little bit more to the left than yours, which is more centred) although i do prefer the colours of your picture i miss the sharpness. the structure in paul's picture almost looks like a cutout as oposed to yours where you can see the edges at the two rooftops.

comment by docvoo at 03:11 AM (GMT) on 2 May, 2005

oh. forgot to add the url of paul's shot:

comment by Crash at 03:46 AM (GMT) on 2 May, 2005

nice angle ... looks like an oil rig platform ...

comment by djn1 at 09:52 AM (GMT) on 2 May, 2005

Juice/PWrocker: the starburst is a natural artefact from shooting at a small aperture.

docvoo: Paul was on the right but it's his composition that's a bit better than mine rather than the position of the camera; i.e. the camera's were only about 18" apart and it was at least four or five hundred feet to the seafront. And I agree, the composition and sharpness of Paul's are both better.

comment by leo at 10:35 AM (GMT) on 2 May, 2005

that's really cool

comment by Jessyel Ty Gonzalez at 11:04 AM (GMT) on 2 May, 2005

Hot damn. Awesome job Dave.

comment by Andreas at 02:52 PM (GMT) on 2 May, 2005

At first I wondered if it was a fake.. could almost look like a model of the buidlning standing in front of a screen..
- But I love the colors in it and that "fake" feeling to it

comment by Michael at 04:51 PM (GMT) on 2 May, 2005

Very nice.

comment by fernando at 04:57 PM (GMT) on 2 May, 2005

that's very nice...

comment by djn1 at 09:06 PM (GMT) on 2 May, 2005

Thanks everyone.

comment by TJ at 05:03 AM (GMT) on 3 May, 2005


comment by stijn at 03:06 PM (GMT) on 3 May, 2005

wooowww!!! now this is like ...great shot man