Night exposure

Discussion in 'Photo Hut' started by aaronshore, Jan 1, 2010.

  1. Jan 1, 2010 #1
    aaronshore

    aaronshore Well-Known Member

    1,391
    1
    891
    This is an example of a timed exposure like I was talking about in Eric's last thread. This was shot from a tripod. ISO 100, f/16, 30" exposure time. Also shot with a few second timer delay since I do not have a remote. Funny thing, if you look in the lower right hand corner there is the back of a cop car, there but not. It was a New Smyrna cop that stopped halfway through the exposure. I was pissed, until I saw the pic. LOL

    [​IMG]
     
    aaronshore, Jan 1, 2010
    aaronshore, Jan 1, 2010
  3. Jan 2, 2010 #2
    Weedy

    Weedy Well-Known Member

    817
    1
    393
    Cool pic! I have done the same picture with the back of a car and it turned into a drive way about 8 houses down. It was cool the way the red streaks in the pics.
     
    Weedy, Jan 2, 2010
    Weedy, Jan 2, 2010

  5. Jan 2, 2010 #3
    skinny_water

    skinny_water Well-Known Member

    1,341
    3
    891
    Cool shot, nice balanced exposure too!
     
    skinny_water, Jan 2, 2010
    skinny_water, Jan 2, 2010
  6. Jan 2, 2010 #4
    tom_in_orl

    tom_in_orl Founder of Microskiff, Member of the Gheenoe Army

    5,309
    5
    1,891
    Arron, Thats a great photo. Good technique too.

    This is a 4 second exposure with a flash. The long exposure give the lighted night scene and the flash captures the family photo and snow falling.

    [​IMG]

    (and yes my brother is nuts)
     
    tom_in_orl, Jan 2, 2010
    tom_in_orl, Jan 2, 2010
  7. Jan 2, 2010 #5
    snooknreds2

    snooknreds2 Well-Known Member

    558
    0
    391

    Aaron, first off cool picture, especially the car. I gotta ask though for my own knowledge (I have seen your work and must say you rock!), why only the 100 ISO and not like a 400 that way you could get about a 50 shutter speed and loose some of the streaks, especially since you cranked the f stop so high in the pitch black?  Plus by doing like a 400 ISO you get a longer "gate opening" (see my new thread for explanation) and you could drop the f stop and still get the background clarity that you wanted?
    Or is that what you were aiming for? 
    I think you and I need to meet one day!
    Forgive me if me not reading "Erick's last thread" makes me ignorant here!!
     
    snooknreds2, Jan 2, 2010
    snooknreds2, Jan 2, 2010
  8. Jan 2, 2010 #6
    aaronshore

    aaronshore Well-Known Member

    1,391
    1
    891
    Well, I shot this in RAW because thats what we have to do in school, and then converted it to JPEG for posting. The main reasons I shot the picture how I did was for the desired effect and sharpness/depth of field. I would have used an ISO of 50 and f/22 if I wouldnt have had to use the bulb setting. Due to the available light 30" @f/16 was the longest exposure I had available. I chose f/16 because I wanted the greater depth of field. I chose the ISO setting due to the sheer size of the original file, if I had printed the shot with a higher ISO it would have had more grain. Once you get into the second(s) exposure times the reciprocal relationship between your aperatures and shutter speeds goes out the window and you just have to experiment. I dont know if I answered your question, or just rambled on. LOL
     
    aaronshore, Jan 2, 2010
    aaronshore, Jan 2, 2010
  9. Jan 3, 2010 #7
    snooknreds2

    snooknreds2 Well-Known Member

    558
    0
    391
    Yea I figured that you were ultimately going for a large depth of field, which was achieved very well.
    As for the question, you kinda answered it, I am still just confused why you only shot the 100 ISO? I shoot weddings so this type of Photography is newer to me than it is to you. I am just not sure why you thought the grain would be too much at a higher ISO. What camera did you use?
     
    snooknreds2, Jan 3, 2010
    snooknreds2, Jan 3, 2010
  10. Jan 3, 2010 #8
    aaronshore

    aaronshore Well-Known Member

    1,391
    1
    891
    I have a Canon 50D. In the film world the higher the ISO, the more grain you notice in the exposure. Same with digital only its called "noise".
     
    aaronshore, Jan 3, 2010
    aaronshore, Jan 3, 2010
  11. Jan 4, 2010 #9
    snooknreds2

    snooknreds2 Well-Known Member

    558
    0
    391
    Yea the higher the ISO the more noise you get, I am used to being able to shoot up to 800 ISO in RAW format with out too much noise popping through, sometimes even higher if I have to. The mark II does something stupid like 25600!! But at that point it does get really noisy and should really not be used. I couldn't remember what it went up to and found a cool web page when I looked it up.

    On this webpage you will see color splotches that will change quality as you mouse over the different ISO settings. It is comparing a Mark II to the original Mark I but it is still cool to see the difference change right in front of you. It also talks about noise reduction in the post production process.
    http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-DSLR-Digital-Camera-Review.aspx

    I hope that this helps you guys out!!
     
    snooknreds2, Jan 4, 2010
    snooknreds2, Jan 4, 2010
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
1st time with night exposure Photo Hut Jan 4, 2010
Night fishing guide in Sanibel or Keys? General Fishing May 24, 2017
Austin Fly Fishing Film Tour Thursday night Fly Fishing Apr 12, 2017
Night Fishing Florida Gulf Coast Apr 1, 2017
Tarpon on Fly at Night pointers Fly Fishing Mar 26, 2017