Azure Serenity
- Widescreen 16:10
- 2304x1440
- 2048x1280
- 1920x1200
- 1680x1050
- 1440x900
- 1280x800
- 1152x720
- Widescreen 16:9
- 2560x1440
- 1920x1080 - 1080p HDTV
- 1280x720 - 720p HDTV
- Dual monitors
- 2560x1024
- Fullscreen 4:3
- 1600x1200
- 1400x1050
- 1280x960
- 1024x768
- Fullscreen 5:4
- 1280x1024
- Netbook
- 1024x600
- 800x480
- iPhone
- 320x480
- BlackBerry
- 320x240
- Other
- 480x272
No match
This is a shot from a morning excursion to the beach. This 17-minute shot was taken at 4:50am before the sunrise in almost complete darkness. I brought a beach chair and relaxed while this picture was taken.
About the photo
Nikon D90, Nikon D90 with Sigma 10-20mm.
Related wallpapers
More by paul.charles.k
Comments (43)
-
@Four Symbols--they actually make a very dense ND filter. I believe it is a 9 or 10-stop filter.
-
I never would have guessed this was taken in complete darkness, but now that you mention it, the only way to get a shot like this during day is with an insanely dense ND filter. Anyway, great work!
-
Haak
not a fan. it was chosen because it was a 17 min shot. otherwise its nothing great
-
Evil Napkin
Like your other recent photo I think I would've loved this as just a click and done shot. No long-time exposure or whatever. I guess though I prefer those types of photo's more. The color in this is really great IMO, but again, if I could've seen more detail from the water I would've loved this colorful shot.
-
@Clyde, I laughed at your monkey comment but monkeys could type if trained ;) We'll drop that argument though. "If post processing MUST be done then why not take a photo at 2:00pm and Photoshop the hell out of it until it looks like a shot taken at 04:00..Saves you getting up so early ;)" Because it would literally be impossible to recreate the light of 2am. You might as well paint the picture pixel by pixel because the harsh light and shadows dominate in the afternoon. I don't mind getting up early for photography. There are no people, it's completely relaxing and calming. I am just there alone on the beach doing what I really enjoy. I know you weren't being completely serious but whatever.
-
I guess I didn't see your last part. You would get the rotating star trails but you wouldn't get a black sky. You might need to do a custom white balance to get the blue sky (sometimes my skies are red but that's because the camera struggles with the white balance). Maybe these pictures will help you: http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b104/f8pc/startrails.jpg And the picture I submitted here: http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b104/f8pc/azure.jpg
-
Clyde
From your own link.."and the "monkey" is not an actual monkey, but a metaphor for an abstract device that produces a random sequence of letters" I meant real monkeys :) If post processing MUST be done then why not take a photo at 2:00pm and Photoshop the hell out of it until it looks like a shot taken at 04:00..Saves you getting up so early ;)
-
@Baldanders, you had fair enough assessment looking for a wallpaper. Unfortunately for IFL, I take photos not wallpapers ;) Thanks for your comments and I am still working on making good star trail photos so maybe my next will make it. @Clyde, your entitled to your own opinion but people are entitled to disagree and debate it. Also, about the monkeys, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem. Post processing is unavoidable. It MUST be done, not optional, because either you let your camera do it or you use Photoshop to convert from RAW to JPEG. It happens. Great photos take time too but I understand your point. @Chris, I agree with a lot you are saying. Sometimes, though, photography isn't capturing what I am seeing though. For some photos, (not this one), I like to make it different than real world. (For example, I like infrared photography but don't do it yet). @paulevermore, I've only had sensor heat manifest in slightly more noisy pictures. I think the difference between Nikon and Canon was CCD versus CMOS sensors but that is becoming less of a difference because the Nikon D90 has a CMOS sensor, unlike the D80, which uses CCD. CMOS doesn't get as hot as quickly and is partially the reason video is making it's way to dSLRs. No purple halos in my CMOS D90 or CMOS Canon bodies. Also, light and mood are everything, you're right. @Sprogz, everyone starts somewhere--don't feel bad about questions. Yes, most of the color comes from exposing the scene correctly--having any artifical light will usually ruin night shots though--this scene was lit by the moon. You can make the colors pop though in post processing but the colors are there because of exposing the picture long enough. Taking a picture of the moon is different because your taking a picture of a light source. You'll never get the blue of the night sky and the moon because it'll overexpose before you get the blue of the sky. You would get a blue sky if you just pointed to a blank bit of sky but it could take minutes instead of seconds--if you'd like to talk about it more, contact me using the "Contact the Artist" button and we can talk in email.
-
Sprogz
Whoa, I feel very small with all this debate about what "art" is o_O because I have a very noob question... @paul.charles.k thanks for answering my original question. I am still amazed at the vibrance of the colours. Are you saying this sort of colour comes out purely as a result of the long exposure or is an element of digital processing (I'm purely talking about the vibrance of the colours here, not noise-reduction or anything else) required? I ask because I recently took a shot of the moon in a clear November sky. Ignoring the moon, the sky was, of course, black. Are you suggesting that with a long enough exposure, if I just pointed at a blank bit of sky I'd get a blue-coloured sky (if it was clear of cloud) or would it require some digital processing? Surely I'd end up with one of those rotating, star trail photos against a black (not blue) sky?
-
@ clyde The light and mood would have been different at 2.00pm.
-
@ paul.charles.k Thank for your response. The purple fringes I mean are caused by the sensor heating up during long exposures. Nikons are known for it. Canons less so. This is why historically, Canons have been preferred for astrophotography. I have a D80 and it still exhibits these purple halos's. They must have resolved the problem with the D90.
-
Why must we take away post processing in this argument? The reason photography is considered an art is because it isn't strictly about capturing a scene for documentation purposes, but rather using filters, long exposures, and post processing to express what the photographer is seeing or feeling. I think when you say "art in the traditional sense" you mean paintings, in which case you're right - photography is not that. Another thing to consider - how much time do you think the great photographers like Ansel Adams spent hiking to remote places and waiting for the right light before clicking the shutter? Let alone the time spent in the darkroom.
-
Clyde
Let me first state that my opinion of "art in the traditional" sense is just that. My opinion. Yes, I would agree that there are many paintings/drawings/sculptures that have nothing to do with art. Just because the creators of these pieces have managed to find a willing market that will pay silly money for them is of no consequence. It isn't art. I don't agree that if you give monkeys typewriters they would produce Shakespeare, eventually. That. obviously, cannot happen :) Great photography consists of a brief moment to compose the picture and a press of a button. If we take away post processing, which we must in this argument, then there is nothing more to it. Knowledge of the technology definitely helps, but isn't essential. Great painting/drawing consists of weeks, months or even years of meticulous work. Also,unlike photography, it is not dependent of having the very best equipment as some contributors on this site seem to imply. No photograph I've seen could capture an image like Goyas "Shootings On The Third of May " or "Colossus". http://www.canvasreplicas.com/images/Shootings%20on%20Third%20of%20May%201808%20Francisco%20de%20Goya.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Goya.colossus.jpg Yes, these are paintings that combine both real and imaginary events so perhaps not fair examples. But the brilliance and determination of a true artist like Goya is hard to comprehend. He witnessed these things, he sketched the basics of his work and then took his sketches and his memories back to a studio where he would paint the final work. That's my idea of traditional art.I highlighted Goya as he's obviously my favorite artist. But I do enjoy many other styles including impressionism :)
-
paul.charles.k, I realized that was your goal and I must say that I left my comment while looking for a wallpaper, not for a photo. But I admit it was not clear enough. Sometimes the fact that we share knowledge and malice we got behind the lens makes us feel privileged to exercise that function, while we forget that the artist is who chooses and decides the level of content, even if the 'lover' refuses or falls within the final value of the work, because it is only the artist who sees what he did and come away satisfied that it ends, as you said. This matters, whether in a picture, a painting, or in any legitimate sense of art. Thank you for your answer and, by the way, Star Trails Ablaze seems incredible...
-
@Clyde, I diagree about your "no matter what time you took it" theory but to each his own. @Chris, I think you stated the "idea" of this image well, thanks. @firefly.serenity, yes, some photography is art. So are water colorings by five year olds. Quality is determined by a number of factors and like five year olds, most experienced photographers don't create art until they are more mature in their craft. Every photograph isn't good art. I'd say most good images are clear though--that blurry stuff is iffy. @Clyde again, read my response to firefly. If you have enough monkeys on typewriters, you'd get Shakespeare, too. @Chris again: Again, good points, but I guess I don't appreciate/understand the impressionist photography. It's not debatable whether photography is art. It is. The problem that causes contention, I believe, is what photographs should be considered art. Snapshots are generally not considered art photography (if you know what I mean). However, that can be debated because many older paintings are of family, etc.
-
@Clyde, whether photography is comparable to painting is irrelevant. My point was that there are different styles of photography, and that there are some styles you may never understand or appreciate. In general, the longer the exposure the less 'realistic' a photo becomes, and that's why I chose impressionism in paintings as an example. Having said that, impressionist photography does exist as a genre of its own (e.g. http://www.redbubble.com/groups/impressionist-photography) although this submission doesn't quite fall into that category (IMO).
-
firefly.serenity
@Clyde I'm just curious - what is the "traditional sense" of art? Wouldn't you agree that there are many pieces of modern art that looked like someone gave a monkey a number of brushes and buckets and told it to "go nuts?" Some of these items can fetch quite the high bid at auction...and I disagree entirely that photographs are created simply by pushing a button. Finally! An intelligent discourse on IFL. Let's debate!
-
Clyde
@Chris Gin Photography is not "art" in the traditional sense. That's my personal opinion and to compare impressionist painters to someone who can push a button is an insult. Don't get me wrong, I love photography and everything involved with creating a great image but if you gave monkey a camera, eventually it would produce a stunning image.
-
firefly.serenity
Thank you, Chris. I wish that people would look at photography as a genre of modern art. For those of us in the art world, it is refreshing to see a unique perspective and individuality reflected in submissions. Photography is not meant to produce a crystal clear image every time...at least in my opinion...
-
@Clyde, I'm sure you don't 'get' every style of painting that are out there either (I know I don't!). A long exposure like this is just a different view of the world, a bit like impressionism is in art. I'm sure a shot taken at 2pm from the same spot would look completely different, and maybe you would like it more but that's not the point.