Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
huhu
Feb 24, 2006
This is the view just outside of my door. Sadly, my last purchase of camera gear didn't include a tripod. I'll have to wait a few more months until I can get some interesting foregrounds.

huhu fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Jul 29, 2014

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

huhu
Feb 24, 2006
Ok, so this question is really dumb, and I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but I'm hoping someone could clarify this for me a bit.

Do longer exposures, in any way reduce the amount of light in the shot? I'm watching a video of a guy taking a nighttime shot of some rocks with a small brick building in the background. He paints the rocks with this massive flashlight, nick named "The Sun" or something. The shot comes out looking pretty decent but I'm thinking if you're shining "the sun" at a rock it should show up as white on the camera. As a note, he shot at ISO100 for 18 minutes.

huhu
Feb 24, 2006

xzzy posted:

In short, yes.

If you use a very small aperture at a low ISO, you'll need a whole bunch of light over a long period to get it to show up in the image. When you're talking about 18 minutes of time, a couple seconds of light from a flashlight is not going to be enough to overexpose anything.

I can't think of a great way to explain it other than go buy a copy of Understanding Exposure, it should help you visualize what's going on a lot better.
Sorry, let me clarify a bit.

Given:
Situation A: ISO100, f/22, 18 minutes
Situation B: ISO100, f/22, 30 seconds

If you have a quantity of light X, will both situations register it as X or would A register it at (fake values I just made up) X and then B register it at .23*X. (So that 23% less light gets in)

Less technical, if you took situations A and B, illuminated a large rock for 5s in each shot, would that rock look exactly the same in both shots?

huhu
Feb 24, 2006
I finally got a remote for my camera but it's the rainy season now and the next cloudless night will probably be in January. : suicide:

huhu
Feb 24, 2006
Panama 078 by esa_foto, on Flickr

huhu
Feb 24, 2006

Panama 080 by esa_foto, on Flickr

huhu
Feb 24, 2006

7-365 Stars and Palm Trees (Cocle, Panama) by esa_foto, on Flickr

huhu
Feb 24, 2006
Safe in the Harbor (Ometepe Island, Nicaragua) by Esa Foto, on Flickr

huhu
Feb 24, 2006
Star Trails from the ISS:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/04/04/what-do-star-trails-look-like-from-the-iss/#543ff3db47eb

huhu
Feb 24, 2006

CommanderApaul posted:

Does 10 seconds count as long exposure?

I walked around DC for 4 hours tonight, I think this is the best one I got, even though it's the most cliched shot of DC you can take. I had to do a ton of post to get rid of the high ISO noise and I'm not really happy with how it turned out.



What ISO/aperture did you shoot this at? It's quite blurry. Also, did you use a tripod or just leave it on a flat surface?

huhu
Feb 24, 2006

CommanderApaul posted:

I had it on a gorillapod on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. I used Lightrooms built-in presets and it kinda blew everything out, I was exhausted when I got back to the hotel last night. I'm going through some of them with Nik tools now and that's working much better.

10 seconds at f/22, ISO 3200. I realized this morning that I left ISO at Auto the whole time I was down there and about 75% of my shots look like rear end. If the rain holds off I may go back down tonight and try again. Tips would be helpful, I've got an 18-55, a 28-135 3.5/5.6 and a 50 1.8.



With such a far subject distance, you should be able to shoot wide open and still get a solid depth of field. If you're curious you can check out the DOF calculator here: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html Use your 2s self-timer because taking a picture causes the camera to shake a slight bit. Try to lower your ISO and take use longer shutter speeds. Turn off image stabilization since you're using a tripod.

huhu
Feb 24, 2006

CommanderApaul posted:

Yeah, I was hoping I just didn't suck but in the end, there it is. :)

Thanks for the criticism and suggestions and I'll see if I can't figure this out if I go back down tonight. Flying back home on Friday afternoon.

For the future, practice on random crap so that when you're actually in a cool place you'll be ready. Star photos - practice from your backyard, sports - practice with your animals/kids running around, panning - practice on cars, etc.

huhu
Feb 24, 2006
For those that are unaware.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-how-to-watch/

huhu
Feb 24, 2006

I'm charging up my gear now. Just bought myself a 6 pack as well.

huhu
Feb 24, 2006
I used spray and pray, got some garbage pictures of clouds and a half decent shot. I miss living in the middle of nowhere Panama if only for the star photography.

DSC08657 by Esa Foto, on Flickr

huhu
Feb 24, 2006
This was pretty cool though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGdm4JEb3iY

huhu
Feb 24, 2006
I did 5s, f1.8, ISO 1600. What's your max aperture?

huhu
Feb 24, 2006
How about you guys post some of the pictures you shot?

I took this:
Palm Tree and Stars (Cocle, Panama) by Esa Foto, on Flickr

with a garbage camera that didn't really function past 800ISO. This shot was F1.8, 16s, ISO1600 and I didn't even have a tripod, just set my camera flat on the ground and pointed it straight up.

huhu
Feb 24, 2006
IMG-20170103-WA0001 by Esa Foto, on Flickr

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

huhu
Feb 24, 2006
DSC_8664

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply