Long Exposure C&C welcome

CONMIKE12

I have been trying out some long exposures recently and got this up at blessington lake. a couple were ober/under exposed but i was delighted with thios one.observations and c&c welcome.

CONMIKE12

BTW,a big thanks to shiny's thread in the Digital darkroom for finally,after 8 months of trying,allowing me to actually post the pic in the thread rather than linking it !!

Lex_Diamonds

That is really nice. Well done.

magicbastarder

very nice indeed. what length exposure?

kjt

Lovely shot Really like the blue tones throughout the pix.

magicbastarder

looks good - possibly better - in b&w, especially if you boost the contrast.

abulense

Wow, great shot.
This might sound like a stupid question but how do you get an exposure of 149 seconds?
The shutter speed on my camera only goes up to 30secs? Is there something I'm missing?!!

magicbastarder

do you have a B or bulb option?
what camera?

PaulieC

Lovely tones. I'm not normally one for 'rules', but I think the image could be improved by showing less sky and more foreground as in rule of thirds...

CONMIKE12

The exposre was for 149 secs at f14 or 11,can't remember at the minute.i tried it in b&w but it looked much better(imho) in colour.

Valentia

I love the blue Conor. Beautiful pic. I know the horizon is correct but it looks crooked. Maybe it would be worth straightening the waterline just to see if it works. What time was this taken?

Huggy Bear

Great shot!
the colored lights on the bridge and in the distance make the shot stand out for me, they break up, but add more to the fantastic blues that you've got going ...

CONMIKE12

To get such a long exposure the camera (20d) was set to "bulb" then i used a remote timer that you can program in any time you want, up to 99 hours i think.
Danny,it was at about 7ish in the morning.i know what you mean about it not looking level,the angle the bridge is running at causes that , nothinjg i could do about it i'm afraid!

Ruu_Old

Excellent stuff, quality shot.

mikeanywhere

Stunning shot mate, well done!!

So peaceful

311

Lovely smooth shot ,did you have a UV filter on the lens or any filters?

CONMIKE12

Thanks,i appareciate you all giving me your feedback.brian,there was a polariser on the lens,but i didn't adjust it at all cos it was dark and i could see very little through the viewfinder.lens was a Canon 16-35mm

Shiny

CONMIKE12 wrote:

BTW,a big thanks to shiny's thread in the Digital darkroom for finally,after 8 months of trying,allowing me to actually post the pic in the thread rather than linking it !!

No problem.
Well done with the picture.

B0rG

CONMIKE12 wrote:

Thanks,i appareciate you all giving me your feedback.brian,there was a polariser on the lens,but i didn't adjust it at all cos it was dark and i could see very little through the viewfinder.lens was a Canon 16-35mm

Mike, with all due respect, Im kinda failing to see the point of shooting something when it's pitch dark on tripod with a polarizer and 149 seconds exposure.

Furthermore closing apperture down to 14. Given the light condition it would cost you 3 - 4 stops easy enough.

Normally people close apperture to bring out the detail on a complex background. This is normally done with enough light to actually expose the details. When it's not enough light - you don't need the details.

Again normally people use polarizer to reduce glare and aftereffects of direct sun light. This is costing 1 stop. Usually. Also, I would presume that it's circular polarizer, that you suppose to rotate to evaluate the effect in the viewfinder, how did you evaluate the effect when it was that dark I do not know.

Moreover this image is too small to actually see anything except blurry water some sky and a shady background. As a friend of mine used to say - "no front plan". I would presume that given the conditions and exposure time (iso would prolly be around 800) there is a huge grain from sensor overheat (with that exposure) that doesn't really add anything to the image. So resizing it kills the iso noise and makes it sharp.

And horizon is not straight.

Covey

People get so up tight about straight horizons. How bloody boring.

I do agree about the polarisor, in fact as well as contributing little, it may take away from other aspects of the shots coloration.

Personally the left third adds nothing to the shot for me at all. If you had maybe moved to the right a bit and made the bridge more of the focal point into the photo or/and changed the perspective to portrait you'd have the 2/3 interest 1/3 sky shot. Though having said that I'm NOT a slave to the thirds rule or indeed any rules.

I know it was early but the shot is probably 10 minutes too late to make use of those house lights. Or maybe thats the polorisor kicking in!

Just my 2c.

T.

311

CONMIKE12 wrote:

Thanks,i appareciate you all giving me your feedback.brian,there was a polariser on the lens,but i didn't adjust it at all cos it was dark and i could see very little through the viewfinder.lens was a Canon 16-35mm

Lovely smoothness to the water ,it's great that you got the movement so soft without burning the image.

Morlar

Thats an excellent shot, everything about it is quality. Wouldnt mind seeing the level of detail in a higher resolution version though, as that one is pretty small.

bp_me

I would suggest a fairly aggressive crop for this.

Most of the sky and left hand portion in fact.

(most of the darker blue from the top and nearly over to the village)

Valentia

My horizon comment was just a try it and see Conor. Crop?? Surely the sky plays a major role in this picture? Crop if you want but it wouldn't convey the feeling of solitude this photo does. I think this is a fantastic photo. Of course others may interpret the scene differently if they were there. Let them off ( I mean drive up there) and lets see the results. Morlar, the full size on Flickr is worth a visit

Valentia

B0rG wrote:

Normally people close apperture to bring out the detail on a complex background.

No they don't. There are many many other reasons. Try a google!

B0rG wrote:

Moreover this image is too small to actually see anything except blurry water some sky and a shady background. As a friend of mine used to say - "no front plan". I would presume that given the conditions and exposure time (iso would prolly be around 800) there is a huge grain from sensor overheat (with that exposure) that doesn't really add anything to the image. So resizing it kills the iso noise and makes it sharp.

And horizon is not straight.

Jazus!! Did you see the link to his Flickr a/c??? If you took a sec and looked you would see that there is practically no noise on the full size version. Nikon user??There are posting rules here which prohibit large size posting. The rest of your comment is so ill informed I'll skip.

Covey

agree with the above Valentia, but cant see any Flickr link to larger image

T.

magicbastarder

B0rG wrote:

Mike, with all due respect, Im kinda failing to see the point of shooting something when it's pitch dark on tripod with a polarizer and 149 seconds exposure.

Furthermore closing apperture down to 14. Given the light condition it would cost you 3 - 4 stops easy enough.

i've taken shots lasting 16 minutes, and have regularly used not just a polariser to push shots in to several minute exposures, but also neutral density filters which cost three stops of light. and at f11. i don't see what the big deal in deliberately lengthening an exposure is when you want the subsequent effect?

Tarakiwa

Have to admit to not reading all the posts above ............

I enjoyed the shot. I like the blue tone & think that it has a lot going for it!

CONMIKE12

borg,I find your comments to be quite ill informed as regards small aperatures and what you say about the small image and high iso's to be ungracious at best.The shot was taken at iso 100 first of all.I was testing a new technique where one focuses at infinity and sets the aperature to f11-f14 to get as large a depth of field as possible while simutaeneously not sacrificing sharpness to difraction. On my lens,this method has proved far more effective than hyperfocal distance focusing and if you check the large image,you will see very little noise.As for the polariser,it just happened to be on the lens and as my earlier post stated,i just didn't bother taking it off or adjusting.thanks for all the feedback,if anyone wants to view the larger version,here is the link.

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=359382177&size=o

PaulieC

wow, full size is beautiful...can see a lot more detail in the blacks.

Fajitas!

I quite like the photo, without the crop.

There's no evident noise in it. Polarisers are quite useful and often used in night photography, for the extra stop, the ability to tone the sky, especially if near light pollution, and reduce glare from the moon.

It's really well framed, with the rocks in the foreground, leading down the bridge into the background.

Shiny

My new guide should clear up some of the unhappiness
in this thread.

hehe:D

B0rG

There's nothing like a good argument on Fridays but I'm just not in the mood...

Valentia

B0rG wrote:

There's nothing like a good argument on Fridays but I'm just not in the mood...

Phew!!

magicbastarder

do CCDs suffer from reciprocity failure?

Valentia

Good question. I don't think so. At least I have never come across a mention of it

Fajitas!

No, they don't. However, they do suffer from noise from a build up of heat, though newer sensors are built to reduce this...yadda yadda yadda.

Actually, I think Lightroom automatically gets rid of it.

311

magicbastarder wrote:

do CCDs suffer from reciprocity failure?

I just read about the above ,what actually happens to the picture?
Does the negaitive only take in a certain amount of light ,or is it completely over exposed?

magicbastarder

reciprocity failure basically means that at long exposure times, you need to give it even longer to register fully on the film - i.e. halving the light will more than double the exposure time, rather than the doubling you'd expect, if the correct exposure time is anything above a second or two.
different films react in different ways - some layers might suffer reciprocity failure sooner than others, resulting in colour casts.

311

thanks magic , from day one of having my slr ,i've always used a release button and just stood there till I felt the time to let go.
Never used reciprocity in calculating anything.

thebaz

i like the shot, i was up in blessington last saturday , near the bridge , and it looked very unexciting , so you captured something i couldn't see --
as regards the low apperature and polarisers debate, i say fair play , if you stop experimenting , you stop learning , and if your like me boredom can then descend !

magicbastarder

i think it's great, cos for example, if i'm looking at 1 second at f8 for a particular scene, and i slap on an 8x ND filter, instead of the correct exposure coming out at 8 seconds, as you'd expect, you might be looking at 20 seconds. great for blurring water.
i'd usually bracket like **** anyway.

magicbastarder

gas. i didn't know there was a word censor here.

CrowdedHouse

Really like it

Is that the bridge near Valleymount ?

CONMIKE12

yes,just over the bridge and then you're up into valleymount.

thebaz

i browsed your flickr , and some of the other stuff is quite stunning -- feal like packing up this photography lark ! -- do you ps most of the photos up there ? i have to get some hints !!

CONMIKE12

i shoot in raw so everything is edited in ps.I like to do as little as possible but obviuiosly each image needs sharpening, contrast and saturation adjustments.Then I just see what else I can do to enhance it.i dodn't really have that many photshop skills,just the usual.Thanks for the comment about my stream,i appreciate it.And don't pack in the photography !!

thebaz

i'll persist , invested too much now to give up, i must start using ps to edit my shots , rarely use it , but trying to learn it .. one day maybe ... anyway as i say some real quality up there on your flickr.