L.A. at night

[edluva]

yup, if there's a bottom of the barrel that needs scraping....

[Echo Park]

lol, true. But it's getting obnoxious.

[Quixote]

Anyways...

That's a nice set of photos.

[Upward]

Originally Posted by edluva

there is a debate about whether these pics are overexposed.

Long exposure is not the same as overexposure.

At night, it is almost always necessary to use an exposure long enough to blur the motion of cars. An exposure short enough to freeze that motion would be so dark that the buildings would hardly be visible.

Overexposure is when the picture is so bright that it loses detail. A daytime picture in which the blue sky shows up as white is overexposed. It's hard to completely overexpose a night picture, though individual parts of one may be overexposed due to a scene containing a wider dynamic range than can be captured in a single photograh.

[stranger]

That first picture is absolutely incredible!

[edluva]

Originally Posted by Upward

Long exposure is not the same as overexposure.

At night, it is almost always necessary to use an exposure long enough to blur the motion of cars. An exposure short enough to freeze that motion would be so dark that the buildings would hardly be visible.

Overexposure is when the picture is so bright that it loses detail. A daytime picture in which the blue sky shows up as white is overexposed. It's hard to completely overexpose a night picture, though individual parts of one may be overexposed due to a scene containing a wider dynamic range than can be captured in a single photograh.

a play on words. i guess my point was that in either case, the reality is not being conveyed, and dave is milking that to his advantage. but whatever. people know his reputation anyhow.

[Echo Park]

Originally Posted by edluva

the reality is not being conveyed

Arguable. Quit being a dickhead already. Most city photo threads does this.

[alleystreetindustry]

i have never seen that much light pollution in my life. good god.

[PerfectlyPresentable]

bright city!

[edluva]

Originally Posted by alleystreetindustry

i have never seen that much light pollution in my life. good god.

because there's really not as much light pollution as these pics convey. but daveofcali wishes to mislead you guys into thinking so.

[latennisguy]

what the heck are you talking about? L.A. is very bright at night:


From Flickr, by tobega[/QUOTE]

[latennisguy]

well, whatever...here's some more of L.A. at night:


from flickr by noeltykay

following from flickr by gsgeorge

Harbor / Pasadena Fwy at 4th.



Skyline from Elysian Park



Harbor / Pasadena Fwy though Elysian Park



Flower St. from Bonaventure Hotel walkway

More at http://www.flickr.com/photos/gsgeorge/

[Patrick]

I freakin love LA. No other city like it
CANT WAIT TO GO BACK

[DaveofCali]

Who cares if these pictures are overexposed, they are a lot less than other cities like NYC (minus times square) and SF. L.A.'s still a bright city at night, comparable to Chicago at night (though Chicago doesn't have the neon and other signage) and far brighter than San Francisco, San Diego, and New York City (minus times square) at night.

[plinko]

Not sure what the light pollution/comparative brightness nonsense is all about, but the pics are marvelous.

I love flying in and out of Santa Barbara because you always skirt the north or south ends of the basin at 10,000' and at night it's simply amazing.

Nothing like flying over Tokyo/Nagoya/Osaka/Kobe on a clear night at 30,000' on the way to Taipei from SF though.

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by DaveofCali

Who cares if these pictures are overexposed, they are a lot less than other cities like NYC (minus times square) and SF. L.A.'s still a bright city at night, comparable to Chicago at night (though Chicago doesn't have the neon and other signage) and far brighter than San Francisco, San Diego, and New York City (minus times square) at night.

Light pollution isn't something to be proud of, but I like overexposed (enhanced flash) photos... more interesting to look at. Fortunately LA isn't really that bright at night or I would go insane.

[DaveofCali]

Originally Posted by dktshb

Light pollution isn't something to be proud of, but I like overexposed (enhanced flash) photos... more interesting to look at. Fortunately LA isn't really that bright at night or I would go insane.

I love lights at night and to me, dark cities feel small and feel dead and gloomy. I'd rather have neon and bright illumination and more of a feeling of aliveness, thank you.

BTW, for anyone here, to get the best effect of L.A. at night, you have to either be on top of some tall hill or mountain, or be in a dark residential neighborhood of L.A. with short houses and little trees, and facing a part of the metro which goes deep (i.e. facing a direction that points to much of the basin rather than the beach if your near the beach), and you'll see for yourself just how illuminated L.A.'s sky looks.

[Echo Park]

Strange though L.A., in reality, is far more "dead and gloomy" than those "dark cities" you listed a few posts up.

The photos in this thread are awesome but at best they say nothing, and at worst, completely lie about life at street level.

[DaveofCali]

I find it interesting that only a thread about L.A. has to be crapped on and messed up by trolls, no other city that I've seen (other than Atlanta) has had its photo threads messed around like this. And it always happens with the same gang of L.A. trolls, who can't get enough of putting down L.A. (while pretending to be objective) and make L.A. sound as dystopic as possible.

[DaveofCali]

For everyone else, here's two videos of aerials taken within the past few years of downtown L.A. (and around) at night
• Video Link

• Video Link