-Filter Forums-
Loading posts...

Time exposure

Ph

Time exposure

Postby fsm » Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:58 am

The other night Ruby decided to make a contribution to DIY Rainbow Crossings. It was pretty dark, so I set the camera up on a tripod and set a 30 second exposure time. It was too dark for the autofocus to work, so I had to use live mode so I could zoom in and manual focus on the rainbow. I took a few shots with the Speedlight flash, but this time exposure turned out much nicer. The long exposure also gave the water a nice smoothness. A little kid ran through this exposure a couple of times, but he didn't stay still long enough to show up in the picture.

26
Two + two equals fish.
User avatar
fsm
 
Posts: 463
Images: 146
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Time exposure

Postby roughbarked » Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:19 am

Nice work. :)
roughbarked
 
Posts: 882
Images: 2

Re: Time exposure

Postby justjj » Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:42 am

I saw a couple of similarly simple and effective ones in Magill Road, in Norwood yesterday; people walking by smiled at them and at each other.
Sure lifts the absent-minded-faced strangers trudging along the streets on their way through their days.
justjj
 
Posts: 803
Images: 0
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Time exposure

Postby fsm » Thu May 16, 2013 10:41 am

Time exposure is one of my favourite photography techniques. It seems to add a richness to the image, expecially when there is water involved. The movment of waves across the water merge and smooth. This is a 30 second exposure of Swansea Bridge near Newcastle, after dark.

53
Two + two equals fish.
User avatar
fsm
 
Posts: 463
Images: 146
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Time exposure

Postby roughbarked » Thu May 16, 2013 12:56 pm

That's very nice, fsm. :) Now you are going to make me dig through my archives.. I'd like to point out that time exposure is also a much under-published aspect of my photographic experimentation.. this also includes doing the same, in daylight.

ie: Image
DSC_5683 by roughbarked, on Flickr
roughbarked
 
Posts: 882
Images: 2

Re: Time exposure

Postby fsm » Thu May 16, 2013 9:50 pm

That's an interesting effect roughbarked. Did you use a ND filter?
Two + two equals fish.
User avatar
fsm
 
Posts: 463
Images: 146
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Time exposure

Postby roughbarked » Thu May 16, 2013 11:09 pm

fsm wrote:That's an interesting effect roughbarked. Did you use a ND filter?

Some of my lenses still have UV filters on.. I've broken the others. These are the only filters I've ever used apart from some coloured ones when I used to do B&W and UV film.
I've wondered whether I should try an ND filter but since all my lenses are pre-digital, The filters may not help me much at all.
No. The action in this shot is of backlighting and wind from the correct direction against the light at a shutter speed that should have stopped the action apart from the whippy-ness of the wind gusts. I could see the type of shot I was going to get through the viewfinder so I went for it.
roughbarked
 
Posts: 882
Images: 2

Re: Time exposure

Postby Jonathan Tea Time » Fri May 17, 2013 10:06 am

An ND filter should still work on your film camera. All they are intended to do is cut the light hitting the film/sensor. I've recently been playing with a variable ND filter (with mixed results), which is essentially just two polarising filters mounted together so that one can be rotated, you can adjust the density from almost clear to pretty much opaque.
Jonathan Tea Time
 
Posts: 34
Images: 9

Re: Time exposure

Postby roughbarked » Fri May 17, 2013 11:10 am

To clear the issue. I am using a digital camera. Nikon D80.
The lenses are all AI(auto indexing) lenses from the 1970's and 80's. So nothing digital works with them.

All light metering is done by my peon, Manuel Guesswork. Nothing comes through the lens to the camera sensor other than light. Apart from dirt and fluff and stuff that is.

I can and will try ND and/or GND filters but I think my first purchase when I win lotto would be a good digital lens or two.

Thanks
roughbarked
 
Posts: 882
Images: 2

Re: Time exposure

Postby Jonathan Tea Time » Fri May 17, 2013 2:01 pm

Here's on of the better shots I've got with the Variable ND filter. I'm reasonably pleased with it given that it was less than $50.00.

Image

Here's a comparison between a time exposure and High Dynamic Range (HDR)

Image

Image
This one is the in camera HDR offered by my Canon 650D
Jonathan Tea Time
 
Posts: 34
Images: 9

Re: Time exposure

Postby Lary » Thu Jun 13, 2013 11:03 am

I enjoy a bit of long exposure, but normally combined with timelapse.
My last attempt was a failure that yielded some great results.
http://brokentoyshop.wordpress.com/2013 ... n-of-stars

I'm working in the North West, near a large port, but I couldn't fit a tripod in my luggage. Not cool, there are some great scenes here at night.
Lary
 
Posts: 13

Re: Time exposure

Postby roughbarked » Thu Jun 13, 2013 11:44 am

Lary wrote:I enjoy a bit of long exposure, but normally combined with timelapse.
My last attempt was a failure that yielded some great results.
http://brokentoyshop.wordpress.com/2013 ... n-of-stars

I'm working in the North West, near a large port, but I couldn't fit a tripod in my luggage. Not cool, there are some great scenes here at night.



I've got a little 150 mm tripod that can be sat on posts and the like. An inexpensive but useful tool.
roughbarked
 
Posts: 882
Images: 2

Re: Time exposure

Postby fsm » Thu Jun 13, 2013 4:37 pm

roughbarked wrote:I've got a little 150 mm tripod that can be sat on posts and the like. An inexpensive but useful tool.


You have to be careful with some of those cheapo mini tripods. They might not be designed to carry the weight of a DSLR.
Two + two equals fish.
User avatar
fsm
 
Posts: 463
Images: 146
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Time exposure

Postby morrie » Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:15 pm

Lary wrote:I enjoy a bit of long exposure, but normally combined with timelapse.
My last attempt was a failure that yielded some great results.
http://brokentoyshop.wordpress.com/2013 ... n-of-stars

I'm working in the North West, near a large port, but I couldn't fit a tripod in my luggage. Not cool, there are some great scenes here at night.


I took my relatively high end tripod up to Port Hedland recently. It cost me $30 in excess baggage. That wasn't really a problem apart from the fact that the ticketing machine wouldn't accept my credit card and I got bumped from pillar to post trying to get the thing onto the plane and nearly missed the flight.

On the way back I got my friend who has a platinum card to take it as excess baggage and he didn't get charged.
morrie
 
Posts: 40

Re: Time exposure

Postby Stan 101 » Sat Jun 15, 2013 12:04 pm

I've been playing around with a bit of time exposure. I've ordered a 10-22 canon lens. Here are a my first couple of shots last weekend at St Kilda pier.

Image

Image
Ravaged by peptides
Stan 101
 
Posts: 24

Re: Time exposure

Postby nut » Sat Jun 15, 2013 12:13 pm

Stan 101 wrote:I've been playing around with a bit of time exposure. I've ordered a 10-22 canon lens. Here are a my first couple of shots last weekend at St Kilda pier.


Great shots Stan! I have the 10-22 and love the lens. Personally I find it better to capture a wide view close to the camera than a wide view further away. Am very interested to see how you go with it :)
nut
 
Posts: 255
Images: 45

Re: Time exposure

Postby Stan 101 » Sat Jun 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Thanks for the encouragement, Nut. Those shots were with my 17-50 Tamron lens. I took about 50 shots of varying exposure lengths to get a feel for the results. it seems F22 is the smallest aperture to use on the Tamron before refraction starts to really show.
I can't hardly wait for the 10-22 and get some excellent foreground emphasis as you mentioned. It's a steep learning curve!
Ravaged by peptides
Stan 101
 
Posts: 24

Re: Time exposure

Postby roughbarked » Sat Jun 15, 2013 12:27 pm

nut wrote:
Stan 101 wrote:I've been playing around with a bit of time exposure. I've ordered a 10-22 canon lens. Here are a my first couple of shots last weekend at St Kilda pier.


Great shots Stan! I have the 10-22 and love the lens. Personally I find it better to capture a wide view close to the camera than a wide view further away. Am very interested to see what how you go with it :)



Wide angles capture more light more slowly.
Light still needs to be falling on subject matter. There needs to be some available light whatever the source.

If using narrower angle lenses, one is obviously focusing on a greater area of the light source.
roughbarked
 
Posts: 882
Images: 2

Re: Time exposure

Postby roughbarked » Sat Jun 15, 2013 1:11 pm

I was looking for a different photo but photobucket and I just don't seem to get along anymore.. so I'll fax this one which I've previously posted on this site. This shot is looking directly at the major general light source.

Image

I was actually looking for a photo or two in the same series which demonstrated the effects of light in the sky and light on the ground. In the case or cases (if photobucket would allow me at my own images) I could display the effect of the additional light sources of the full moon and the street lighting.

I am working on that image link from memory of the other file names but photobucket does stuff that may make me talk about it in the big brother whistleblower thread..

oh hang on.. It is a problem with my antiquated firefox version.. this link is one

Image

You can clearly see on the rainwater tank.. the moon and the streetlighting.
roughbarked
 
Posts: 882
Images: 2

Re: Time exposure

Postby roughbarked » Sat Jun 15, 2013 3:14 pm

I'm not spruiking.. I simply happened to be on the spot when it happened with a camera.. I was pre-warned the night previously by awakening to need a wee walk and finding the dunny window which faced south, ablaze. Upon walking outside looking for the bushfire was entranced by the white gauze curtains dancing to music across the night sky which was oddly all shades of the red end of the rainbow but yet mixed with the pink end(bluish).. I'm a very long way from the antarctic and the last time I saw this was when I could barely walk let alone hold a camera.

this shot also displays both the effects of Full moon and street lighting against the background of an aurora. This faces WSW.

Image
roughbarked
 
Posts: 882
Images: 2

Re: Time exposure

Postby Stan 101 » Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:03 am

Went out on the weekend and played around with my cheap ND filters. All the water shots in this album are shot with stacked ND4 and ND8 filters. Composition wasn't my main aim; technique was. Besides, I didn't bring any wet weather gear and that water was cold!

Image

Image

Image

Image








Here's the link to the album. There are a couple of other shots of the super moon rising and the opposing sunset.

http://s37.photobucket.com/user/sanquar ... t=3&page=1
Ravaged by peptides
Stan 101
 
Posts: 24

Re: Time exposure

Postby roughbarked » Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:19 am

I like the effects you are getting.
roughbarked
 
Posts: 882
Images: 2

Re: Time exposure

Postby fsm » Tue Jun 25, 2013 11:12 am

Those are great water shots!
Two + two equals fish.
User avatar
fsm
 
Posts: 463
Images: 146
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Time exposure

Postby fsm » Tue Jun 25, 2013 11:18 am

Have you tried taking any long exposure HDR photos? There are some excellent examples here...

18 of the Finest Long Exposure HDR Photographs Ever
Two + two equals fish.
User avatar
fsm
 
Posts: 463
Images: 146
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Time exposure

Postby Jonathan Tea Time » Tue Jun 25, 2013 12:40 pm

Some great images in that link :)
Jonathan Tea Time
 
Posts: 34
Images: 9

Re: Time exposure

Postby freak » Tue Jun 25, 2013 3:06 pm

Have you tried taking any long exposure HDR photos? There are some excellent examples here...

18 of the Finest Long Exposure HDR Photographs Ever


Hate HDR.

Love Trey Ratcliff's video - last on that page. One thing that blew me away on my recent trip to NZ even more than the topography were the incredible cloud formations...
freak
 
Posts: 15

Re: Time exposure

Postby justjj » Tue Jun 25, 2013 6:23 pm

And I believe that for those who know their stuff, photographing the moon this weekend is likely to be very rewarding.

And yeah, NZ skies are something else ... and even the "long white clouds as you fly in from OZ are distinctive as well as spectacular.

Have I missed your pics on Flickr?

Guess you are pretty busy ... cant do everything.

The sunrises and moon rises here in the bush are obscured by the very bush that I so love; am going to have to head in to some cleared space for a couple of overnight stays so I get a clear view of the horizon at the sun up and moon up.
justjj
 
Posts: 803
Images: 0
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Time exposure

Postby freak » Tue Jun 25, 2013 8:00 pm

Have I missed your pics on Flickr?


Maybe:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/babushka/s ... 267719790/

I have been extremely busy, but no excuse for lack of contact. Will email soon with updates :)
freak
 
Posts: 15

Re: Time exposure

Postby Stan 101 » Sun Oct 27, 2013 12:46 pm

I've been playing around a bit more with long exposure and ND filters.

Image
In the South Gippsland region on sunset.

Image
Down near Blackrock.

Happy for critique.
Ravaged by peptides
Stan 101
 
Posts: 24

Re: Time exposure

Postby Teleost » Sun Oct 27, 2013 2:35 pm

Noice
User avatar
Teleost
 
Posts: 446
Images: 12

Re: Time exposure

Postby roughbarked » Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:32 am

Stan 101 wrote:I've been playing around a bit more with long exposure and ND filters.

Happy for critique.


Wish I had a lens that would work with..

Otherwise.. you steal my heart away.. ;)
roughbarked
 
Posts: 882
Images: 2

Re: Time exposure

Postby fsm » Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:23 am

Beautiful shots!

I use a ND400. This reduces the light by about 9 stops. This allows me to keep the aperture open in bright daylight while shooting rock engravings with a remote flash. Without the filter the aperture has to be stopped down to around f18 ~ f22 depending on the brightness of the sun and the reflectivity of the rock surface. Using the filter and keeping the aperture open lets the lens operate in its sweet spot.
Two + two equals fish.
User avatar
fsm
 
Posts: 463
Images: 146
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Time exposure

Postby justjj » Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:58 pm

It's been ages; I've not looked at this thread for a long time . some beaut work.
I have enough on my hands learning regular stuff, but it doesn't mean I don't enjoy other peoples' shots.
Thanks for posting them.
justjj
 
Posts: 803
Images: 0
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Time exposure

Postby Stan 101 » Fri Nov 01, 2013 5:54 pm

Thanks for the encouragement, team. :)

fsm wrote:Beautiful shots!

I use a ND400. This reduces the light by about 9 stops.


Well we need to see some photos for inspiration, FSM ;)

I just purchased an ND400 round filter. It's my last toy in photography for a while. Are you enjoying it? What colour cast, if any does it throw? Mine throws a very blue colour cast when attached to my Canon 10-22 lens, however it is quite neutral when used with my Tamron 17-50 lens. Seems odd. Must be the different coatings of some lenses.
Ravaged by peptides
Stan 101
 
Posts: 24

Re: Time exposure

Postby fsm » Sun Sep 14, 2014 11:46 am

Here is a shot from last weekend using the ND400 filter. The exposure was 25 seconds. It had rained earlier in the day so the falls were on show.

205
Two + two equals fish.
User avatar
fsm
 
Posts: 463
Images: 146
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Time exposure

Postby nut » Sun Sep 14, 2014 12:09 pm

Nice fsm.
nut
 
Posts: 255
Images: 45

Re: Time exposure

Postby Teleost » Sun Sep 14, 2014 4:02 pm

That's lovely.

How high was your aparture setting?
It looks like it was in the middle of the day.
User avatar
Teleost
 
Posts: 446
Images: 12

Re: Time exposure

Postby Helix » Sun Sep 14, 2014 4:03 pm

Looks good, FSM.

*sigh*

I have to get my camera and lenses cleaned again, because they've got organic filters now.
At the fringes of civilisation
Helix
 
Posts: 969
Images: 17

Re: Time exposure

Postby flying spaghetti monster » Sun Sep 14, 2014 7:05 pm

>>Nice fsm.<<

Hmmm, sometimes.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice.
User avatar
flying spaghetti monster
 
Posts: 148
Images: 2

Re: Time exposure

Postby nut » Sun Sep 14, 2014 7:36 pm

Teleost wrote:... How high was your aparture setting?
It looks like it was in the middle of the day.


I think that is the filter working? I saw sometime back about someone taking beach shots in the middle of the day with a couple of filters. Results weren't to bad.
nut
 
Posts: 255
Images: 45

Re: Time exposure

Postby nut » Sun Sep 14, 2014 7:37 pm

Helix wrote:Looks good, FSM.

*sigh*

I have to get my camera and lenses cleaned again, because they've got organic filters now.


Those organic filters sound expensive :(
nut
 
Posts: 255
Images: 45

Re: Time exposure

Postby Helix » Sun Sep 14, 2014 10:42 pm

nut wrote:
Helix wrote:Looks good, FSM.

*sigh*

I have to get my camera and lenses cleaned again, because they've got organic filters now.


Those organic filters sound expensive :(



They can be! I have to send them to Melbourne to get them done properly.
At the fringes of civilisation
Helix
 
Posts: 969
Images: 17

Re: Time exposure

Postby fsm » Mon Sep 15, 2014 5:07 pm

Teleost wrote:How high was your aparture setting?
It looks like it was in the middle of the day.


That image was taken at 3.30 in the afternoon. The aperture setting was f6.3 (This is the sweet spot for that lens).
Two + two equals fish.
User avatar
fsm
 
Posts: 463
Images: 146
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Time exposure

Postby fsm » Mon Sep 15, 2014 5:29 pm

Stan 101 wrote: What colour cast, if any does it throw? Mine throws a very blue colour cast when attached to my Canon 10-22 lens, however it is quite neutral when used with my Tamron 17-50 lens. Seems odd. Must be the different coatings of some lenses.


A colour cast might indicate that the white balance is incorrect. I mostly shoot in RAW and adjust the white balance manually.
Two + two equals fish.
User avatar
fsm
 
Posts: 463
Images: 146
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Blog: View Blog (1)


Return to Photography

cron