I am going to Venice in the next weeks and specially during the night I would like to have these 2 kind of results if possible with my camera.  Can you recommend me the settings i would need to use for these kind of pictures at nigh?
123908
Can you suggest me what kind of settings would I need to make these kind of pictures.  The scenario will be just like the pictures:  Outdoors, lights on the streets, and maybe very small rivers with houses and lights on each side.  Just like Venice or Brugge in Belgium.
18399
I am quite new to photography and was looking into how I can take better indoor photographs, particularly around night time.  I'm currently in a hotel room for the night and decided to try and take a picture of my room to test out my tripod which I haven't used before. However I noticed no matter what I set my camera settings to the artificial lights (particularly the lamp on the left, image attached) just appeared very washed out. You can't tell any detail about the lamp shade all you can see is just some sort of light but not much to it.  I tried a variety of fstop/shutter speed settings and tried a variety of ISO settings but they all appeared pretty much the same unless I massively underexposed the image.  Given that I wondered whether the solution would be to take a HDR image or take a normal exposure and an underexposed image and blend them later? I understand that artificial light like this can be very hard and harsh but I wondered if there's a way of improving the result with looking away from it?  I wasn't trying to take any particular special picture here but just test out my camera a bit more but this was the first thing I noticed and I didn't know how to fix it. Any tips would be greatly appreciated.
119
I feel I am nearing completion of the tutorial but am still having gaps in knowledge on how to render light properly. 2.92.0 blender file:  Overview layout:  Lamp:  128 sample before denoise:  128 sample after denoise:  1024 sample 1080p 100% render before denoise:  1024 sample 1080p 100% render after denoise:  I've been trying different Light paths, but I honestly don't understand the extent of how they interact with each other. I haven't seen any example of what those numbers should be in the tutorial either, if someone knows please let me know.  but it is now again a little bit too opaque, dunno when that happened. :D Not too sure what I am missing out so any suggestions would be lovely! Thank you in advance
65633
Inspired by the question  by , and the response to the subsequent . I would like to ask how to achieve a specific photo effect.  There may be more photographers that pull this off, but I know of two specific ones. The first is the wonderful photographer, . I know that he does lots of post processing, and his talent goes beyond a short list of tips that I can learn from a website, but I think there is something that I can hope to understand.     What is the Dave Hill effect? I have heard people talk about it, but what is it actually and how does one achieve it?   and     On his webpage, the "Nerd ad", "Allen Robinson", and "Jon Heder" shots give the subjects a specific skin tone/saturation. In general, his portrait shots are amazing. The detail and texture mystifies me. How can I pull this eerie feeling off?   Now the second photographer is  from flikr. His shots are also extremely impressive.      Again, he is using some black magic to make skin tone amazing. His subjects look beyond real, and I love it. Three specific examples are , , . Looking at energy, beyond the absolutely phenomenal idea for the shot and execution, and just focusing on the subject, he has this plaster/grey look, and his skin looks wonderful. Similar things are true for those other shots I linked.   Some ideas I have had that might contribute to this are HDR or possibly just phenomenal lighting setups. I have watched the videos on Dave Hill's website, but they just make me think more-so that he sold his soul to Mephistopheles.   I would appreciate any suggestions on how to achieve these results, or even some direction to go in this direction.   Thanks so much!
73395
I make many product photos for the company I work for. For this I use Canon 400D with two external flash devices Walimex CY-600K.  I've noticed an interesting effect on many of the photos I take with white background. On the resulting image there is a red/blue area visible between object and the background. The effect is strongest for black objects and also seems too decrease when I make a brighter photo. It is mostly visible only if zoomed in really close and is not a real problem for me as the resolution is quite high and the resulting images are only 500px wide.   I am just curious as to what is causing it exactly.   For the following example photo I used manual mode with these settings: 1/200 F10 ISO200:  .  You can see blue area left from the object and red area right from it. What is causing this?
46994
What are recommended settings for my Nikon Coolpix P1 to best portray rain?  Here's what I got. No retouching was applied.   The picture I took when the rain was heavy with the automatic settings:  The picture I took with the "Sports" program; by then, however, the rain was not as hard. Ugh, ugly gray strip at the bottom, that was the flat surface I put my camera on to get a stable picture.   My main problem is that the actual rain and hailstorm is very hard to see in the picture. The overall effect is, instead, of fog.    Follow-up from the thread, courtesy of more rain, now with less hailstorm and more thunder.  The feedback amounted to flash and faster shutter. I took a few photos and I'm having some trouble to reconstruct what I did to get each result. Two representative results:   Fast shutter, with some guest starring:I'm talking about that horrible building obviously. Faster shutter and flash:Kinda difficult to say those pictures were taken sixty seconds of each other. :)   I'm not sure, however, that either of this is really an improvement of the original results.
35214
All my attempts to get a good shot of the full moon with my DSLR result in an overexposed circle on a black background.  I've tried using a tripod, remote shutter release, low ISO, and long exposure, but nothing has worked so far.  What combination of ISO and exposure time that will produce good results?   I particularly want to catch a full moon with the reddish effect when it is close to the horizon.
92935
is it possible to take clear night sky shots with stars/ planets visible from Redmi Note 4? what settings do I use? when I try to take it just comes black, unless on full moon day with HDR, though stars like Orion's belt won't get captured. Would using a telescope make celestial objects much clear to capture?
74558
This is the Milky Way above Kakadu National Park, Australia, and my first try at astrophotography.    Thirty second exposure, f/4.0 at 17mm with ISO 12800 (!!) which in hindsight probably was way too high and resulted in a lot of noise. I also used Picasa to increase contrast, but I probably went a bit overboard there as well.  , I am looking for input on how to better postprocess this picture to reduce noise.
107045
I see a lot of questions about low light, and one of them which stood out to me was   All my flash pictures tend to turn out great, but my shots in low light without flash are always terrible   blurry bad colors under exposed   My setup is: Nikon D3200 with a 35mm f/1.8 prime.  After reading the above question, it seemed that I should have gotten a good photo, but below is what I got in RAW. Settings: ISO 800, 35mm, f/1.8 1/15sec.     Can someone give me a suggestion of what my settings should have been, perhaps? (Remember that I don't want to use the flash, so I can capture the ambient). It's typically situations or candid portraits like this I would be taking. Also any advice on what quick adjustments I could make if I get a dim result like below?  I don't want to ask for the subject to stand still until I get a great shot, so if I get a poor result on my first trial, what settings should I immediately switch to in order to hopefully get my second shot closer to a likeable shot?  Note: getting another body or lens would be a last resort if I run out of options.
13212
How can I take a photo like the ones below? The problem is that my photos (taken with a bridge, Sony H2) will get blown up at the highlights. Is it because I'm using a weak camera? Is it because I'm shooting in JPG (can't use RAW)?  Is this dynamic range achieved by greater cameras + RAW? Or is it by post-processing?  Is there a pattern to this type of photos like: wide apperture (&lt; f5.0), RAW, ...?  Examples:   or  or
3489
I'm shooting with a Nikon 810, and my night shots often have a strong moire when I export them from Lightroom at 640x640 (optimized for Instagram).   This photo was shot at f2.8, ISO 4000, 15 seconds with a Nikkor 17-35mm. Does anyone know why this is happening??
43492
I sometimes find I want to photograph a room showing the view outside the window. This is tricky — either  you adjust the shutter speed so that the the window is so bright  you can see no detail, or the room looks very dark and gloomy.    Are there any techniques I can use to get the best photo showing as much as possible of both room and view?   My camera is a Sony Nex3, and for this sort of thing I usually use it with an elderly Pentax-M 1:2.8 / 28mm manual focus lens with an adaptor, although I would be prepared to buy another (cheap manual!) lens.
94580
I recently went to a one-year-old's birthday party. The event took place inside; there was some light coming through the windows from outside and there was also light from the lightbulbs in the room, although not nearly enough. I used S mode on my Nikon D5100 (with an 18-55 stock lens) in order to reduce blur as much as possible, even though I wasn't able to go too low with the speed given the lighting; I also increased ISO to about 640.  Some of the pictures came out orangey due to the lightbulbs (the white balance was set to incandescent), especially when people were sitting just below the light source, while others came out blurry, despite my effort.  What should I have done better? Would shooting in RAW have helped?
96752
I've read through several threads similar to this, but I'm looking for a comparison of two options here.   I currently take photos on a raised glass platform against a white foam board background and run about 300w of lights (3 100x LEDs @ 5000k, Home Depot Specials in softboxes and umbrellas). As you can imagine, it takes me about 15 minutes of post processing to achieve a perfect white background, and sometimes I have a particular photo that I am unable to get there.  I want to upgrade to either a photography table with a translucent background that I can place a speedlight under, or a cyclorama infinity background such as the MyStudio MS20. The latter option may require an upgrade to my lighting, which I am planning to do anyways.  The idea of course is to get a blown out 255 background with no post processing, other than color correction on the jewelry or product as needed. This would cut my time after the shoot to a ridiculously small amount of time.   Which option would make my life easier?   For reference, I currently use a D5300 with a Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro lens.  This is the best shot I got after quite a lot of effort, before and after processing:      Note that the silver is not shiny like it should be, and the sparkle on the gems is lost.
102019
The season of the falling stars started and I want to try to achieve some picture of stars and falling one too. I see a lot of picture with a immense number of stars but they are still. Now I'm concern about the shutter speed. What is the amount of time at a given aperture to get still bright stars without trails?  And what are your tips for taking good picture? I need to know because I'm not sure if the 30" of my EOS are enough or I need to but a remote bulb.
45777
I find that taking pictures where the subject is in motion (people, pets, toy helicopters) I get a blur where there is movement.  On the other hand I see images of a drop of water in free fall in perfect clarity.  How fast does the shutter need to be to capture action in motion with perfect crisp clarity?  For example I want to catch a dog shaking himself dry after a swim and not get a bury mess but to see the hairs flying and water frozen in the air as it flies off the dogs fur and makes a giant mist around the dog.