How to get a night shot like this?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Brett, Nov 25, 2005.

  1. Brett

    Brett Guest

    Brett, Nov 25, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Brett

    Jim Townsend Guest

    Brett wrote:

    > The photographer of this photo says the exposure was left open for 400
    > seconds.
    > http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/3396232/in/set-270103/. Can any one
    > tell if something else was done to get that type of shot?


    Looks like a regular time exposure.. You can see the clouds have
    streaked because of the movement.

    > Also, how are these night shots coming out so crisp? Is this film or
    > digital?
    > http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/14564181/in/set-270103/
    > http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/14562963/in/set-270103/



    Why shouldn't they come out crisp ? Film gives you a bit more latitude
    because it's not prone to noise.. But The new digital cameras can take
    exposures of well over 1/2 hour with no problem..

    Here's a shot I took last September with my 10d. It's a 27 minute exposure
    and shows the trails the stars leave as the world turns...

    http://www.pbase.com/jim_townsend/image/51018310
     
    Jim Townsend, Nov 25, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Brett

    Brett Guest

    "Jim Townsend" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Brett wrote:
    >
    >> The photographer of this photo says the exposure was left open for 400
    >> seconds.
    >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/3396232/in/set-270103/. Can any
    >> one
    >> tell if something else was done to get that type of shot?

    >
    > Looks like a regular time exposure.. You can see the clouds have
    > streaked because of the movement.
    >
    >> Also, how are these night shots coming out so crisp? Is this film or
    >> digital?
    >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/14564181/in/set-270103/
    >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/14562963/in/set-270103/

    >
    >
    > Why shouldn't they come out crisp ? Film gives you a bit more latitude
    > because it's not prone to noise.. But The new digital cameras can take
    > exposures of well over 1/2 hour with no problem..


    I don't know that he is using film.

    >
    > Here's a shot I took last September with my 10d. It's a 27 minute
    > exposure
    > and shows the trails the stars leave as the world turns...
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/jim_townsend/image/51018310
    >


    I did look at some of your photos and don't see the same crispness there.
    Why is that?

    Thanks,
    Brett
     
    Brett, Nov 25, 2005
    #3
  4. Brett

    jean Guest

    "Brett" <> a écrit dans le message de
    news:...
    >
    > "Jim Townsend" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Brett wrote:
    > >
    > >> The photographer of this photo says the exposure was left open for 400
    > >> seconds.
    > >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/3396232/in/set-270103/. Can any
    > >> one
    > >> tell if something else was done to get that type of shot?

    > >
    > > Looks like a regular time exposure.. You can see the clouds have
    > > streaked because of the movement.
    > >
    > >> Also, how are these night shots coming out so crisp? Is this film or
    > >> digital?
    > >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/14564181/in/set-270103/
    > >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/14562963/in/set-270103/

    > >
    > >
    > > Why shouldn't they come out crisp ? Film gives you a bit more latitude
    > > because it's not prone to noise.. But The new digital cameras can take
    > > exposures of well over 1/2 hour with no problem..

    >
    > I don't know that he is using film.
    >
    > >
    > > Here's a shot I took last September with my 10d. It's a 27 minute
    > > exposure
    > > and shows the trails the stars leave as the world turns...
    > >
    > > http://www.pbase.com/jim_townsend/image/51018310
    > >

    >
    > I did look at some of your photos and don't see the same crispness there.
    > Why is that?


    A building will not move at all but a tree will sway in the wind making it
    "blurr" itself on the "film"

    Jean
     
    jean, Nov 25, 2005
    #4
  5. In article <>, Jim Townsend
    <> wrote:

    > Brett wrote:
    >
    > > The photographer of this photo says the exposure was left open for 400
    > > seconds.
    > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/3396232/in/set-270103/. Can any one
    > > tell if something else was done to get that type of shot?

    >
    > Looks like a regular time exposure.. You can see the clouds have
    > streaked because of the movement.
    >
    > > Also, how are these night shots coming out so crisp? Is this film or
    > > digital?
    > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/14564181/in/set-270103/
    > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/14562963/in/set-270103/

    >
    >
    > Why shouldn't they come out crisp ? Film gives you a bit more latitude
    > because it's not prone to noise.. But The new digital cameras can take
    > exposures of well over 1/2 hour with no problem..
    >
    > Here's a shot I took last September with my 10d. It's a 27 minute exposure
    > and shows the trails the stars leave as the world turns...
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/jim_townsend/image/51018310


    Did the camera set the total time or did you? 27 minutes seems an odd
    time in this base-10 society. I would have expected 25 or 30. Why 27?
     
    Steve Cutchen, Nov 25, 2005
    #5
  6. Brett

    Paul Heslop Guest

    Brett wrote:
    >
    > "Jim Townsend" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Brett wrote:
    > >
    > >> The photographer of this photo says the exposure was left open for 400
    > >> seconds.
    > >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/3396232/in/set-270103/. Can any
    > >> one
    > >> tell if something else was done to get that type of shot?

    > >
    > > Looks like a regular time exposure.. You can see the clouds have
    > > streaked because of the movement.
    > >
    > >> Also, how are these night shots coming out so crisp? Is this film or
    > >> digital?
    > >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/14564181/in/set-270103/
    > >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/14562963/in/set-270103/

    > >
    > >
    > > Why shouldn't they come out crisp ? Film gives you a bit more latitude
    > > because it's not prone to noise.. But The new digital cameras can take
    > > exposures of well over 1/2 hour with no problem..

    >
    > I don't know that he is using film.
    >
    > >
    > > Here's a shot I took last September with my 10d. It's a 27 minute
    > > exposure
    > > and shows the trails the stars leave as the world turns...
    > >
    > > http://www.pbase.com/jim_townsend/image/51018310
    > >

    >
    > I did look at some of your photos and don't see the same crispness there.
    > Why is that?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Brett


    He may have tampered with the image? sharpened it a little?
    --
    Paul (Dear Sir, I have a complaint)
    -------------------------------------------------------
    Stop and Look
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
     
    Paul Heslop, Nov 25, 2005
    #6
  7. Brett

    Mark² Guest

    Mark², Nov 25, 2005
    #7
  8. Brett

    Guest

    Sorry to disagree, but when I looked at the 'fullsize' originals (which
    are still quite small), they are actually rather unsharp. The smaller
    ones are slightly oversharpened. But any decent camera with a
    reasonable time-exposure feature (say 30 seconds or more) could take a
    similar shot. I have plenty of similar shots, mainly taken around
    industrial areas on cloudy nights, or at late dusk to get a bit of
    light in the sky. Many are on 35mm film taken on old slr's, but some
    have been taken with 'prosumers', eg the Sony 717, 828 and more
    recently an Olympus C8080. Sadly I don't have any posted right now,
    but if you are totally desperate I could probably dig a couple out and
    post them.


    All you need for these shots is a tripod, a bit of patience, a suitable
    scene, and a bit of experimenting to get a feel for exposure times. An
    eye for good composition will help..


    Jim's shot looks like it probably *is* sharp, but has suffered a bit
    from over-compression. Nice work, Jim - I have a very similar shot
    with the tree foliage brightly lit by a campfire, at which I was
    getting drunk on a good port, at the time... (O:
     
    , Nov 25, 2005
    #8
  9. Brett

    m Ransley Guest

    Yesterday I used my old Cokin Pola red- blue#171 and red-green#170 and
    got those colors on a lake handheld, it was probably 171 but am not
    sure. Id say he possibly used a filter but long exposures at dusk will
    do that. The shot is not that sharp to me, easy to do with a tripod and
    time exposure, the real feature is the time needed to move the clouds.
    Experiment with what you have even with much less than 400 seconds say
    30 you can do amazing things. Ive used an A1 for years shooting long
    night exposures. My first digital a sony w5 with only 30 sec timed can
    do shots like that, but there alot of time was needed for the clouds to
    move.
     
    m Ransley, Nov 25, 2005
    #9
  10. On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:57:17 -0800, "Brett" <> wrote:

    >The photographer of this photo says the exposure was left open for 400
    >seconds.
    >http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/3396232/in/set-270103/. Can any one
    >tell if something else was done to get that type of shot?


    First of all, I think that the photographer used a tripod.
     
    Lukas Kovacic, Nov 25, 2005
    #10
  11. Brett

    Rich Guest

    On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:57:17 -0800, "Brett" <> wrote:

    >The photographer of this photo says the exposure was left open for 400
    >seconds.
    >http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/3396232/in/set-270103/. Can any one
    >tell if something else was done to get that type of shot?
    >
    >Also, how are these night shots coming out so crisp? Is this film or
    >digital?
    >http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/14564181/in/set-270103/
    >http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/14562963/in/set-270103/
    >
    >Thanks,
    >Brett
    >


    There was some foreground lighting on the lighthouse or whatever it
    is. Also, notice the spikes coming off the lights? He stopped down
    his lens to a small aperture as well.
     
    Rich, Nov 25, 2005
    #11
  12. Brett

    Matt Ion Guest

    Jim Townsend wrote:
    > Brett wrote:
    >
    >
    >>The photographer of this photo says the exposure was left open for 400
    >>seconds.
    >>http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/3396232/in/set-270103/. Can any one
    >>tell if something else was done to get that type of shot?

    >
    >
    > Looks like a regular time exposure.. You can see the clouds have
    > streaked because of the movement.
    >
    >
    >>Also, how are these night shots coming out so crisp? Is this film or
    >>digital?
    >>http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/14564181/in/set-270103/
    >>http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/14562963/in/set-270103/

    >
    >
    >
    > Why shouldn't they come out crisp ? Film gives you a bit more latitude
    > because it's not prone to noise.. But The new digital cameras can take
    > exposures of well over 1/2 hour with no problem..
    >
    > Here's a shot I took last September with my 10d. It's a 27 minute exposure
    > and shows the trails the stars leave as the world turns...
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/jim_townsend/image/51018310


    Digital also doesn't have the reciprocity failure (color shifts) common
    to long exposures on film.

    This one's about an 8.5 minute exposure on a Digital Rebel:
    http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1571505


    ---
    avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
    Virus Database (VPS): 0547-4, 11/24/2005
    Tested on: 11/25/2005 8:27:38 AM
    avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
    http://www.avast.com
     
    Matt Ion, Nov 25, 2005
    #12
  13. Brett

    Matt Ion Guest

    Brett wrote:
    > "Jim Townsend" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>Brett wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>The photographer of this photo says the exposure was left open for 400
    >>>seconds.
    >>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/3396232/in/set-270103/. Can any
    >>>one
    >>>tell if something else was done to get that type of shot?

    >>
    >>Looks like a regular time exposure.. You can see the clouds have
    >>streaked because of the movement.
    >>
    >>
    >>>Also, how are these night shots coming out so crisp? Is this film or
    >>>digital?
    >>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/14564181/in/set-270103/
    >>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/14562963/in/set-270103/

    >>
    >>
    >>Why shouldn't they come out crisp ? Film gives you a bit more latitude
    >>because it's not prone to noise.. But The new digital cameras can take
    >>exposures of well over 1/2 hour with no problem..

    >
    >
    > I don't know that he is using film.
    >
    >
    >>Here's a shot I took last September with my 10d. It's a 27 minute
    >>exposure
    >>and shows the trails the stars leave as the world turns...
    >>
    >>http://www.pbase.com/jim_townsend/image/51018310
    >>

    >
    >
    > I did look at some of your photos and don't see the same crispness there.
    > Why is that?


    The links you posted are shot with a very wide lens (note the fisheye
    distortion), and possibly a higher-quality lens, both of which would
    help the sharpness. Jim's shot would also be subject to the tree moving
    with even a slight breeze, whereas the lighthouse would not, and the
    stars can be blurred by any clouds or pollution in the atmosphere.


    ---
    avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
    Virus Database (VPS): 0547-4, 11/24/2005
    Tested on: 11/25/2005 8:30:59 AM
    avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
    http://www.avast.com
     
    Matt Ion, Nov 25, 2005
    #13
  14. Brett

    Guns/Zen4 Guest

    Ya think?

    --
    Reply via the web portal at www.faczen.com or
    email usenet at firstaidco dot ca

    "Lukas Kovacic" <> wrote
    > First of all, I think that the photographer used a tripod.


    > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:57:17 -0800, "Brett" <> wrote:
    >>The photographer of this photo says the exposure was left open for 400
    >>seconds.
    >>http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/3396232/in/set-270103/. Can any one
    >>tell if something else was done to get that type of shot?
     
    Guns/Zen4, Nov 25, 2005
    #14
  15. Brett

    Brett Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Sorry to disagree, but when I looked at the 'fullsize' originals (which
    > are still quite small), they are actually rather unsharp. The smaller
    > ones are slightly oversharpened. But any decent camera with a
    > reasonable time-exposure feature (say 30 seconds or more) could take a
    > similar shot. I have plenty of similar shots, mainly taken around
    > industrial areas on cloudy nights, or at late dusk to get a bit of
    > light in the sky. Many are on 35mm film taken on old slr's, but some
    > have been taken with 'prosumers', eg the Sony 717, 828 and more
    > recently an Olympus C8080. Sadly I don't have any posted right now,
    > but if you are totally desperate I could probably dig a couple out and
    > post them.
    >
    >
    > All you need for these shots is a tripod, a bit of patience, a suitable
    > scene, and a bit of experimenting to get a feel for exposure times. An
    > eye for good composition will help..


    My Olympus c2100z is limited to about a 20s max exposure time. I can only
    shoot JPEG and TIFF. Would RAW be needed to get that type of sharpness in
    the photos I posted? I know you disagree, but to me, this seems extremely
    sharp and crisp:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/14564181/in/set-270103/. The coloring
    is excellent. I'm referring mainly to the white/green marker in the
    foreground. Yes, the background is not as sharp. Do you think that photo
    was done in RAW?

    You mentioned any decent camera could probably get the sharp photo. Here's
    one I did with the Olympus:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/50219627@N00/66672000/in/set-1438467/. Notice
    how pixelated the water is. What would help? Just shooting at very high
    quality TIFFs?

    Thanks,
    Bretts
     
    Brett, Nov 25, 2005
    #15
  16. Brett

    Brett Guest

    "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:57:17 -0800, "Brett" <> wrote:
    >
    >>The photographer of this photo says the exposure was left open for 400
    >>seconds.
    >>http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/3396232/in/set-270103/. Can any one
    >>tell if something else was done to get that type of shot?
    >>
    >>Also, how are these night shots coming out so crisp? Is this film or
    >>digital?
    >>http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/14564181/in/set-270103/
    >>http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/14562963/in/set-270103/
    >>
    >>Thanks,
    >>Brett
    >>

    >
    > There was some foreground lighting on the lighthouse or whatever it
    > is. Also, notice the spikes coming off the lights? He stopped down
    > his lens to a small aperture as well.


    By stopping down, you are saying he went to a higher f number (f6, f8, etc)?

    Thanks,
    Brett
     
    Brett, Nov 25, 2005
    #16
  17. Brett

    Rich Guest

    On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:45:24 -0800, "Brett" <> wrote:

    >
    >"Rich" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:57:17 -0800, "Brett" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>The photographer of this photo says the exposure was left open for 400
    >>>seconds.
    >>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/3396232/in/set-270103/. Can any one
    >>>tell if something else was done to get that type of shot?
    >>>
    >>>Also, how are these night shots coming out so crisp? Is this film or
    >>>digital?
    >>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/14564181/in/set-270103/
    >>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/14562963/in/set-270103/
    >>>
    >>>Thanks,
    >>>Brett
    >>>

    >>
    >> There was some foreground lighting on the lighthouse or whatever it
    >> is. Also, notice the spikes coming off the lights? He stopped down
    >> his lens to a small aperture as well.

    >
    >By stopping down, you are saying he went to a higher f number (f6, f8, etc)?
    >
    >Thanks,
    >Brett
    >


    Yes, the spikes are caused by the small aperture and diffraction as
    the light travels past where the shutter blades meet.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Nov 26, 2005
    #17
  18. Brett

    Brett Guest

    "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:45:24 -0800, "Brett" <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Rich" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:57:17 -0800, "Brett" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>The photographer of this photo says the exposure was left open for 400
    >>>>seconds.
    >>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/3396232/in/set-270103/. Can any
    >>>>one
    >>>>tell if something else was done to get that type of shot?
    >>>>
    >>>>Also, how are these night shots coming out so crisp? Is this film or
    >>>>digital?
    >>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/14564181/in/set-270103/
    >>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/14562963/in/set-270103/
    >>>>
    >>>>Thanks,
    >>>>Brett
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> There was some foreground lighting on the lighthouse or whatever it
    >>> is. Also, notice the spikes coming off the lights? He stopped down
    >>> his lens to a small aperture as well.

    >>
    >>By stopping down, you are saying he went to a higher f number (f6, f8,
    >>etc)?
    >>
    >>Thanks,
    >>Brett
    >>

    >
    > Yes, the spikes are caused by the small aperture and diffraction as
    > the light travels past where the shutter blades meet.
    > -Rich


    How would opening the aperature more have affected the foreground (I
    understand the background will become clearer)? I suppose shutter speed
    would stay constant since this is a multi minute setting for the longer
    exposure.

    Thanks,
    Brett
     
    Brett, Nov 26, 2005
    #18
  19. Brett

    Brett Guest

    "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:45:24 -0800, "Brett" <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Rich" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:57:17 -0800, "Brett" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>The photographer of this photo says the exposure was left open for 400
    >>>>seconds.
    >>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/3396232/in/set-270103/. Can any
    >>>>one
    >>>>tell if something else was done to get that type of shot?
    >>>>
    >>>>Also, how are these night shots coming out so crisp? Is this film or
    >>>>digital?
    >>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/14564181/in/set-270103/
    >>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/14562963/in/set-270103/
    >>>>
    >>>>Thanks,
    >>>>Brett
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> There was some foreground lighting on the lighthouse or whatever it
    >>> is. Also, notice the spikes coming off the lights? He stopped down
    >>> his lens to a small aperture as well.

    >>
    >>By stopping down, you are saying he went to a higher f number (f6, f8,
    >>etc)?
    >>
    >>Thanks,
    >>Brett
    >>

    >
    > Yes, the spikes are caused by the small aperture and diffraction as
    > the light travels past where the shutter blades meet.
    > -Rich


    Here's another that is so clean and crisp with great colors:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/elton/66967511/in/pool-11947580@N00/. I'd
    imagine it went from RAW to JPEG and he used a very high quality lens.
    Could I be wrong on that? Again, mine are just so fuzzy and and the water
    pixelated compared to that.

    Thanks,
    Brett
     
    Brett, Nov 26, 2005
    #19
  20. Brett

    Tony Guest

    Here is a start on night shooting. Basically what you have to do is go out
    and try it. With digital you don't have to have it planned out as much as
    with film - just try until you get it right. There are other articles on
    night shooting and a lot of night shots in the galleries too.
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/mani/techs/mmlongood2.html

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    "Brett" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > The photographer of this photo says the exposure was left open for 400
    > seconds.
    > http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/3396232/in/set-270103/. Can any one
    > tell if something else was done to get that type of shot?
    >
    > Also, how are these night shots coming out so crisp? Is this film or
    > digital?
    > http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/14564181/in/set-270103/
    > http://www.flickr.com/photos/notraces/14562963/in/set-270103/
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Brett
    >
    >
     
    Tony, Nov 26, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. John Russell

    Sky from shot 1 with landscape from shot 2

    John Russell, Aug 4, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    459
    John Russell
    Aug 4, 2003
  2. bk

    Faster SD card cuts shot-to-shot time

    bk, Sep 10, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    731
    MarkH
    Sep 11, 2004
  3. Dirty Harry

    20d night shot

    Dirty Harry, Aug 7, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    403
    Dirty Harry
    Aug 8, 2005
  4. Tass

    Shot to shot speed

    Tass, Feb 13, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    541
    timeOday
    Feb 13, 2006
  5. Vance

    The non-night night shot

    Vance, Oct 12, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    457
    Robert Coe
    Oct 13, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page