Maximizing Lighting Effect

>>3094626
Bump for interest

have you tried a lower shutter speed?
also you can always use Lightroom to increase each colour saturation

>>3094653
Yes i have played around with the shutter speed but at the same time i know very well what i should base it off and then set the other settings to for the effect, that is true ill have to get a free trial and try that out

You need a strong base to start out from, so for a scene like this your prolly want a tripod. From there on its post processing. Get good at Lightroom and photoshop

Underexpose.

>>3095628
why both

>>3095634
>"I want brighter night photos"
>underexpose it

care to explain or are you trolling him

>>3095883
To control the highlights.

But the more obvious answer to OP's question is:

1) Bracketing
2) HDR processing

>>3095883

Did he say he wanted it brighter? "Bring out the lighting" can mean any number of things. To me, based on his included photo, I assumed that he meant he wanted nicely saturated highlights with lots of color. Underexposure (or exposing for highlights) does a great job of doing just that. The brighter your highlights, the less vibrant and colorful they will appear.

>>3094626
>>3095886
Also shoot at blue hour, to not get black sky. Color temperature seems low while tint is towards magenta. Maybe play with some Tungsten film presets in Lightroom and see where it gets you?

>>3095886
>>3095894
whoa, I had a brain fart. I always shoot slide film at night so for some retarded reason I was thinking OP would be too.
you guys are right, ignore what I said

File: sR0004066b.jpg (470KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

470KB, 800x800px

>>3094626
That picture has cool lighting because the scene being photographed has cool lighting. It's not created by any camera settings or post processing techniques. It's created by you having a good, trained eye, and getting out and finding interesting shit to point your camera at.

Three fundamental things make up a photograph: subject, lighting, and composition. (notice I didnt include gear used, lightroom filters, photoshop macros, whatever else the kids are using these days).

- get none and you have an image not even worth scanning
- get one and you have an image worth keeping, looking at, and learning from (pic related)
- get two and you have a good image. post it on the internet and think about how you could have gotten the third
- get three and you have something worth adding to your portfolio

Learning how to use your camera (manipulating those little spinny wheels on the top of your camera and lens) is just a prerequisite for even getting in the door. Post processing is a crutch for images lacking the fundamentals. Focus on the important things.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	GR
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3264
Image Height	4352
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:06:16 21:06:47
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Brightness	-1.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.30 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	800
Image Height	800
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal

>>3096773
don't be daft and pretentious, you know what he meant.

no, its not all about the scene. if you were standing at that spot in real life, your eyes would not see it like that. unless you are on LSD. that photograph was made, not just taken.

File: officeview.jpg (2MB, 2400x1764px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2400x1764px

>>3096803
not being daft and pretentious, im being helpful. if youre telling op to create his pictures in lightroom then youre doing him a disservice.

there have been countless times where ive seen a particular scene every day with nothing there, and then one day the perfect combination of lighting will hit it and make the shot. you have to be looking for those situations. no amount of post processing will create them for you, and theyre what separate a bad image from a good one, or a good one from a great one.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:06:16 23:52:05
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2400
Image Height	1764

>>3096759

wouldn't you still want to underexpose slide film? it's even more sensitive to overexposure and blown highlights than digital.

>>3096814
mate if you think you were being helpful you have a problem. I refuse to believe you aren't just being pretentious and purposefully misunderstanding OP's question

helpful answers:
>>3095886
>>3095894
>>3096682

>>3096871
Okay well then don't listen to me. Doesn't make any difference to me one way or the other.

>>3096821
No, because slide film doesn't have any more leeway in the shadows than it does in the highlights.

>>3097244

Sure it does. An overexposed slide is just clear plastic, an underexposed slide will still show lots of detail in shadows if you have a bright enough light.