Alan Lichtenstein, QPSA
March 2026 - CHARLES BRIDGE AT NIGHT
About the Image(s)
Nearly 18 years ago, I visited Prague on a river cruise, one of the first trips my wife and I had taken as we commenced our retirement. I had a brand-new Olympus E-500 that I had no idea how to use and created images in Automatic because the salesman said just put it in AUTO; you’ll never have to do anything. That advice worked pretty well until I tried to create an image on the Charles Bridge as we walked on it in the evening, and I didn’t understand why the camera wasn’t creating the images that I desired. Nearly 18 years later, I have advanced somewhat in my photographic knowledge and abilities and lamented the fact that I couldn’t create an image of this iconic bridge at night. So, we finally returned to Prague as a conclusion to another river cruise on the Elbe and with my 18 year-old goal of creating an image of the bridge at night.
Gear: Olympus EM-10 , Zuiko 18-180 mm opened to 27 mm
Data: ISO 1600, f4.2, 1/8 sec.
Metering: Pattern
WB: Manual, measured directly, but did not record color temp.
EV: -1.7
Date image created: October 29, 2025
12 comments posted
Alan, Prague is a fascinating city indeed. Other camera salesperson may say put it in P (erroneously labeled as professional) which in fact, is the same as AUTO. Interesting image of the bridge and from a non conventional vantage point. The presence of the boat adds interest to the image. I just made the horizonthals straight, and added a touch of light to the shadows. Posted: 03/04/2026 13:54:21
Looks better Posted: 03/12/2026 08:23:02
It does. Posted: 03/12/2026 14:33:35
Isaac, thanks for your suggestions. I didn't check the image when I created it, which I usually don't do until after I've gone and am looking at the day's images at the end of the day, but when I looked at it afterwards, I saw that I over-compensated and should have compensated -1.3 or even 1.0. My frame of reference was what I usually do at night to avoid a blue cast to the sky. Most images posted to all the study groups don't measure the white balance and they also don't compensate. In my experience, you need to do both in order to get the proper conditions ( a black sky instead of a dark-blue or dark indigo cast). Never-the-less, you're right and I should have compensated less, or at the very least, bracketed the image. I could have corrected it in post processing , but IMV, that's cheating. I should have taken the image properly in the first place, which I didn't. Another comment, the EM-10 has either a horizontal or vertical leveler; not both. Had it had both, as my a-7 has, there would have been no need for horizontal correction. But the camera cannily do what it can do. Posted: 03/04/2026 15:12:29
Alan, you are indeed a "purist". Posted: 03/09/2026 09:11:26
Indeed, I am, Isaac. I took up photography when I could no longer fish at night due to my double vision (correctable, but still an impediment to night fishing). While I was on the beach, there was a fishing club, one of many, called the "Tradition al Anglers." They were the purists of surf fishing. They looked down on all types of fishing except with lures. They claimed that when you fished with lures, you actually had to catch the fish (they're right, you did). I fished both with lures and with bait and I felt their views were pompous, particularly when fish I caught on bait won a trophy in competition.
I now understand the rationale for their views, because, in a 180 degree turnaround, I adopt their views to photography. They felt that to fish solely with lures, you really had to learn the art of fishing (yes, to a degree, it is an art) and I take the same position with respect to photography. If you shortcut the learning process by using programs that essentially, manipulate the image you created, you learn little and IMV, don't improve your art, just as if you fish with bait, where the fish hooks itself. Yes, to be sure, it's far easier to correct your image after the fact as opposed to learning and implementing the tools you have to create it in the first place. It takes reading and study and above all practice to become a good photographer. So, yes, I'm a purist because I endeavor to learn and improve my art and using editing programs just doesn't do that. Hope you don't think of me a pompous. Posted: 03/09/2026 12:12:40
I now understand the rationale for their views, because, in a 180 degree turnaround, I adopt their views to photography. They felt that to fish solely with lures, you really had to learn the art of fishing (yes, to a degree, it is an art) and I take the same position with respect to photography. If you shortcut the learning process by using programs that essentially, manipulate the image you created, you learn little and IMV, don't improve your art, just as if you fish with bait, where the fish hooks itself. Yes, to be sure, it's far easier to correct your image after the fact as opposed to learning and implementing the tools you have to create it in the first place. It takes reading and study and above all practice to become a good photographer. So, yes, I'm a purist because I endeavor to learn and improve my art and using editing programs just doesn't do that. Hope you don't think of me a pompous. Posted: 03/09/2026 12:12:40
Alan, to fulfill all of your requirements, go back to film photography. You had no choice. It had to come out right from the camera, and then the cameras did not have all the functions they have now. Posted: 03/12/2026 08:53:27
You could come close. You had to select the right type of film, and now you can dial in the type of film with white balance. Digital is better, no question about it, which is why film is just about a thing of the past. But you're right. You had no choice but to get it right SOOC and that is my whole point. With the vastly increased functionality of digital, there is no reason why you can't get it right SOOC. Posted: 03/12/2026 14:37:23
Just a query! If you went to Prague to capture a beauty which you had missed 18 years before, then why didnt you carry/use tripod?
With tripod, low light photos can be experimented differently & look great too, in my opinion. So asked Posted: 03/12/2026 08:26:33
With tripod, low light photos can be experimented differently & look great too, in my opinion. So asked Posted: 03/12/2026 08:26:33
Great observation and question. I rarely carry a tripod when I travel because, as I state in my bio, I rarely have time to set it up because I travel with groups, and the pace of the group precludes that. Also, because of weight and the fact that most images I take when I travel are in daylight and I have no need for a tripod. I did carry a tripod whenI went to Churchill a year ago to photograph the Northern lights, because there all my photography was going to be at night under those circumstances. I have generally been able to get reasonable effects by using appropriate metering, compensation and white balance to get these images, but I admit, a tripod and low-light photography would be better. I wouldn't have had to guess about the compensation with a tripod. Posted: 03/12/2026 14:32:31
Thank you for taking my query in right spirit & giving an elaborate explanation. Actually after reading narration of the photo, I felt bad that after 18 yrs, you went all the way to take a photo , so should have carried tripod to try different exposure combos. Any way, you are satisfied with your captures, that is more imp Posted: 03/13/2026 03:43:20
Actually, I wasn't completely satisfied as per my comment to Isaac. But it was a learning. experience and it taught me to bracket the EV under conditions with which I was not familiar. If I wasn't so lazy I should have used a tripod, and should have brought one, as I knew I was going back to capture that scene at night and wouldn't be slowed down by the group. So you're right. Posted: 03/13/2026 07:04:11