27 Jul 2013

Urban Inspection 2

Today's second edition of Urban Inspection shows that I am getting slightly better at taking photos, as well as taking advantage of some slow shutter speeds. As with last time, the photos are unedited!

A street light that is turned off for construction, 4 second exposure. (Seems to be the slowest my camera  has)

At first it looks like all yellow and white lights, but there are some blues and greens too.

Another 4 second exposure, it's amazing the light that can be picked out if you just have the patience.

This is the old city hall, and you could hardly see the clock tower in the dark.

Back to the old B.P.O.E. again. The really dingy part is actually about 40 years newer than the main structure.

My favourite of the three entrances.

That is one creepy elk. Did all Elks members look like that?

Some bits of the building are completely gone, but others are almost preserved.

By this time, what is the real point of scratching "WEED" onto things? It was added since my last Urban Inspection.

The Spanish Steps that lead to the main entrance.

The main entrance that the Spanish Steps lead to.

And that creepy face. It used to be everywhere. It is a really eerie ghost of one of the children who died.

None of these pictures were taken with a tripod, though the 3 long exposure ones were taken with the camera resting on a ledge. All the rest were taken just in my hands, and I typically crouched on the ground with my elbows resting on my knees, hence the low viewpoint in many of the photos of the Elk B.P.O.E. building.


  1. Mmm our camera has great dynamic range. These have worked out well!

    1. Now that you mention it, yeah it really does! It's essential when you're trying to photograph a lit-up white building like this at night. Going over these pictures it's amazing how, well into the industrial revolution, so much attention was paid to minute details that have no function. People just weren't letting go of the past quite yet.

  2. Very nice photos of the city. I was surprised several years ago when I bought a new digital camera at the quality of the low light and night images. Up until then I always used film. With digital there is no more white balancing, filtering, reciprocity, and many of the other problems. The night problems with film are especially difficult with images such as the oil tanks and all the various light types. With film; a compromise. With digital; a proper rendition of what the eye sees. That is why I like to use new things as well as the old.

    Very nice camera.

    1. I understand what the film purists are coming from, but as far as actually taking really good pictures it's down to a really nice digital camera. You can do so very much more!

      Unless, of course, you want the 'feeling' of film. Then you need film.

  3. Lovely night time photos - it looks like a set for a vampire movie. You could maybe treat yourself to a good used tripod - you might get even more from these long exposures. Over time and with close examination, you might find the odd phantom pixel showing up red or blue on those darker backgrounds. Film is fresh every day (well, almost) but the CCD can start to show signs of pixel fatigue over time.

    1. I have a cheap tripod I just use occasionally but I hadn't figured on bringing it along with me since I was also taking Ned out on a walk just to reduce the stuff I'm bringing along.

      Would its deterioration correspond to its age, or to the number of times it was exposed to light?