long exposures drawback

Discussion in 'Photography' started by PeterN, Jul 21, 2013.

  1. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    PeterN, Jul 21, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    As much as you might not want them to, masts move, even on quiet days.
    However in that shot both boats seem to have major OOF issues, and I
    think that is your problem, rather than mast movement. Just take a look
    at the name of the well lit boat, it is OOF not moving.
    So , they are "blurry", I think that is another way of saying OOF.

    I think this is a case where a thoughtful HDR would have done a better job.
     
    Savageduck, Jul 21, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. PeterN

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 2013-07-21 05:44:00 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    :
    : >
    : > I have been playing with long exposures. One of the issues I have run
    : > into is with boats.
    : > As shown in the shots below, while the water is smooth, the masts
    : > become blurry.
    : >
    : > <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/sunset glow bar harbor.jpg>
    :
    : As much as you might not want them to, masts move, even on quiet days.
    : However in that shot both boats seem to have major OOF issues, and I
    : think that is your problem, rather than mast movement. Just take a look
    : at the name of the well lit boat, it is OOF not moving.
    : So , they are "blurry", I think that is another way of saying OOF.
    :
    : I think this is a case where a thoughtful HDR would have done a better job.

    "A rising tide lifts all boats."
    - Maratime truism adapted to apply to national economies.

    Boats wallow around randomly in any large body of water. It's not surprising
    that both boats look blurry, and I doubt that better setting of the focus
    would help.

    What's surprising about this picture is a boat that size with four masts! It's
    undoubtedly longer than it appears from that angle, but even so ...

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jul 21, 2013
    #3
  4. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    Compare these two images. Both have been sharpened. The first was not.
    <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/harbor sharpened.jpg>
     
    PeterN, Jul 21, 2013
    #4
  5. PeterN

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 2013-07-21 05:44:00 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    :
    : >
    : > I have been playing with long exposures. One of the issues I have run
    : > into is with boats.
    : > As shown in the shots below, while the water is smooth, the masts
    : > become blurry.
    : >
    : > <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/sunset glow bar harbor.jpg>
    :
    : As much as you might not want them to, masts move, even on quiet days.
    : However in that shot both boats seem to have major OOF issues, and I
    : think that is your problem, rather than mast movement. Just take a look
    : at the name of the well lit boat, it is OOF not moving.
    : So , they are "blurry", I think that is another way of saying OOF.
    :
    : I think this is a case where a thoughtful HDR would have done a better job.

    One more point: This isn't an HDR picture, so the issue is collecting, not
    redistributing, the light. So whatever the number of shots taken to assemble
    the final result, their total exposure time would have to be as great as the
    single exposure here. So the motion of the boats would have the same effect.

    And if focus is the problem, wouldn't the HDR shots have been OOF too? If you
    stopped down enough to get a DOF advantage, the number of exposures (and
    therefore the total time) would go up, magnifying the effect of the motion.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jul 21, 2013
    #5
  6. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    That is a bit better. I can now read "Tiger Shark" on the smaller boat.
    However, I would point to the movement of the mast top flags waving in
    the wind.
    There is a bit of pixelation due to the jpeg compression, and there is
    quite a bit of purple fringing along the masts.
     
    Savageduck, Jul 21, 2013
    #6
  7. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    Not necessarily. Peter's shot is a 30sec. exposure @ f/22 & ISO 50.
    Avoiding movement, either by the boats, or by Peter trying for a 30
    second handhold would have been next to impossible. I could have made a
    decent 5 shot exposure bracket for HDR processing in HDR Efex Pro2 in
    1.5-3 seconds, perhaps less at f/6.3-/f8 & ISO 200, in that light, and
    the result would have been decent.
    Agreed
     
    Savageduck, Jul 21, 2013
    #7
  8. PeterN

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 2013-07-21 07:02:45 -0700, Robert Coe <> said:
    :
    : > On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 06:12:53 -0700, Savageduck
    : > : On 2013-07-21 05:44:00 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    : > :
    : > : >
    : > : > I have been playing with long exposures. One of the issues I have run
    : > : > into is with boats.
    : > : > As shown in the shots below, while the water is smooth, the masts
    : > : > become blurry.
    : > : >
    : > : >
    : > <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/sunset glow bar harbor.jpg>
    : :
    : :
    : >
    : > As much as you might not want them to, masts move, even on quiet days.
    : > : However in that shot both boats seem to have major OOF issues, and I
    : > : think that is your problem, rather than mast movement. Just take a look
    : > : at the name of the well lit boat, it is OOF not moving.
    : > : So , they are "blurry", I think that is another way of saying OOF.
    : > :
    : > : I think this is a case where a thoughtful HDR would have done a better job.
    : >
    : > One more point: This isn't an HDR picture,
    :
    : Correct.
    :
    : > so the issue is collecting, not
    : > redistributing, the light. So whatever the number of shots taken to assemble
    : > the final result, their total exposure time would have to be as great as the
    : > single exposure here. So the motion of the boats would have the same effect.
    :
    : Not necessarily. Peter's shot is a 30sec. exposure @ f/22 & ISO 50.
    : Avoiding movement, either by the boats, or by Peter trying for a 30
    : second handhold would have been next to impossible. I could have made a
    : decent 5 shot exposure bracket for HDR processing in HDR Efex Pro2 in
    : 1.5-3 seconds, perhaps less at f/6.3-/f8 & ISO 200, in that light, and
    : the result would have been decent.
    :
    : > And if focus is the problem, wouldn't the HDR shots have been OOF too? If you
    : > stopped down enough to get a DOF advantage, the number of exposures (and
    : > therefore the total time) would go up, magnifying the effect of the motion.
    :
    : Agreed
     
    Robert Coe, Jul 21, 2013
    #8
  9. PeterN

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 2013-07-21 07:02:45 -0700, Robert Coe <> said:
    :
    : > On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 06:12:53 -0700, Savageduck
    : > : On 2013-07-21 05:44:00 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    : > :
    : > : >
    : > : > I have been playing with long exposures. One of the issues I have run
    : > : > into is with boats.
    : > : > As shown in the shots below, while the water is smooth, the masts
    : > : > become blurry.
    : > : >
    : > : >
    : > <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/sunset glow bar harbor.jpg>
    : :
    : :
    : >
    : > As much as you might not want them to, masts move, even on quiet days.
    : > : However in that shot both boats seem to have major OOF issues, and I
    : > : think that is your problem, rather than mast movement. Just take a look
    : > : at the name of the well lit boat, it is OOF not moving.
    : > : So , they are "blurry", I think that is another way of saying OOF.
    : > :
    : > : I think this is a case where a thoughtful HDR would have done a better job.
    : >
    : > One more point: This isn't an HDR picture,
    :
    : Correct.
    :
    : > so the issue is collecting, not
    : > redistributing, the light. So whatever the number of shots taken to assemble
    : > the final result, their total exposure time would have to be as great as the
    : > single exposure here. So the motion of the boats would have the same effect.
    :
    : Not necessarily. Peter's shot is a 30sec. exposure @ f/22 & ISO 50.
    : Avoiding movement, either by the boats, or by Peter trying for a 30
    : second handhold would have been next to impossible. I could have made a
    : decent 5 shot exposure bracket for HDR processing in HDR Efex Pro2 in
    : 1.5-3 seconds, perhaps less at f/6.3-/f8 & ISO 200, in that light, and
    : the result would have been decent.

    I didn't realize that ISO 50 was used. (Where did you find the Exif data?) Not
    sure what the point of that is. My cameras go down to 100, but I never use
    less than 200 unless I'm trying for a low DOF on a bright day. At 200 the
    noise is already negligible. Is there some other reason to prefer a low ISO?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jul 21, 2013
    #9
  10. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    With the browser on my Mac (Safari), if I right click I get a menu with
    options which include showing the EXIF for the image.
    < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_261.jpg >
     
    Savageduck, Jul 21, 2013
    #10
  11. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    BTW: I believe Peter has been experimenting with Low ISO & long
    exposure in questionable light, a combination which I don't think is
    going to give particularly good results.

    Peter is one for pushing strange boundaries when it comes to his
    photography. I think if he shot at ISO 800 @ f/8 he would have had a
    well exposed image benefitting from the low noise of his D800.
     
    Savageduck, Jul 21, 2013
    #11
  12. Ships in calm water rock back and forth.
    It may be imperceptible but is enough to blur a long
    exposure photo and get me seasick.
     
    Paul in Houston TX, Jul 21, 2013
    #12
  13. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    There was no reason to make an HDR image. Adjustments made were minimal.
    My whole point was to illustrate that long exposure, is not always an
    appropriate technique.

    Here is close to the look I want with a long exposure.

    <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/foggy rocks1 unchanged.jpg>
     
    PeterN, Jul 21, 2013
    #13
  14. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    Yes, but I would not have the smooth water I a looking for.
     
    PeterN, Jul 21, 2013
    #14
  15. PeterN

    Mitch Bujard Guest

    Sorry, but this is not the same picture. It's evident by the look of
    clouds. Besides, light has changed so much, all is flat in the second
    picture. Granted, it is sharper, but sad and lifeless. No matter the
    sharpening, it is as dead as a stone. I like better the first one. Even
    the relative blur does not mask the real glow of light around these
    boats.

    Mitch
    http://FontMenu.com
     
    Mitch Bujard, Jul 21, 2013
    #15
  16. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    I suspected that was where you were going with this, and that is OK.
    However, the idea is to get the water to appear smooth and creamy while
    retaining the detail in the surroundings, and you are not getting
    either.
    Is this the type of thing you are trying to get? This was shot at ISO
    200 @ f/29 for 1/3 sec.
    < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSC0991-E1w.jpg >
     
    Savageduck, Jul 21, 2013
    #16
  17. PeterN

    otter Guest

    What I've seen done is to take one picture with everything in sharp
    focus, and another with long exposure to smooth the water and clouds,
    and then selectively blend the two together to get the parts you want
    sharp show up sharp, and mask out the other parts. Blend with less than
    100% opacity so it doesn't look like a cut and paste job, but more like
    the results of taking a long exposure shot using flash and
    second-curtain sync.
     
    otter, Jul 21, 2013
    #17
  18. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    BTW: if you are using a variable ND filter such as the Singh-Ray, it is
    the ND filter which effectively stops the exposure down appropriately
    negating the need to stop down the lens. So if you are using that
    Variable-ND consider being a little less radical stopping down.
    The Singh-Ray for example will give you 2-8 stops. Instead of cranking
    down the aperture, use shutter priority and select a sensible slow
    speed, say 1/3 to 11/3 sec depending on the speed of the water you are
    trying to blur, at ISO 200. Adjust the variable-ND appropriately, now
    you should have a normalized exposure and blurred water movement. You
    could go all manual, but shutter priority should be OK.

    I did not have an ND with me when I took the shot above, and that is
    the reason I cranked it down to f/29 forcing the slow exposure.
    If I had an appropriate ND I would probably not have used aperture priority.
     
    Savageduck, Jul 21, 2013
    #18
  19. PeterN

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Eric Stevens, Jul 22, 2013
    #19
  20. PeterN

    Mitch Bujard Guest

    Mitch Bujard, Jul 22, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.