too much light

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Desert Dweller, Jul 18, 2007.

  1. Say it's a bright sunny day and you see a stream. You want to take a
    creative exposure of the stream such that is shows motion. You clamp
    down the aperture as much as possible and set the shutter speed to 4
    seconds.

    Your light meter shows you are way overexposed. You set the ISO as slow
    as possible, to say ISO50. Still your light meter shows you are overexposed.

    What do you do in this situation to get the correct exposure? Is this
    where the ND filters I've been reading about come into play? Or do you
    need some sort of solar eclipse filter to get the shot?

    --
    DD
    Desert Dweller, Jul 18, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Desert Dweller

    Gladiator Guest

    On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:25:51 -0700, Desert Dweller
    <> wrote:

    >Say it's a bright sunny day and you see a stream. You want to take a
    >creative exposure of the stream such that is shows motion.


    What's creative about that? Every tom, dick and harry has emulated
    that shot. To be creative you have to be original.
    Gladiator, Jul 18, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Desert Dweller

    Ray Paseur Guest

    Desert Dweller <> wrote in
    news:Y9jni.41$:

    > Say it's a bright sunny day and you see a stream. You want to take a
    > creative exposure of the stream such that is shows motion. You clamp
    > down the aperture as much as possible and set the shutter speed to 4
    > seconds.
    >
    > Your light meter shows you are way overexposed. You set the ISO as
    > slow as possible, to say ISO50. Still your light meter shows you are
    > overexposed.
    >
    > What do you do in this situation to get the correct exposure? Is this
    > where the ND filters I've been reading about come into play? Or do you
    > need some sort of solar eclipse filter to get the shot?
    >
    > --
    > DD


    DD: This is a perfect application for neutral density filters, which can be
    stacked to get the correct levels of darkness. You'll also need a sturdy
    tripod. If you are using a DSLR-type camera, consider mirror-lock-up, too.
    With MLU, you compose the scene, then lock the mirror up (to avoid
    vibration from the mirror slap) before you open the shutter. HTH, ~Ray
    Ray Paseur, Jul 18, 2007
    #3
  4. Desert Dweller

    ASAAR Guest

    On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:25:51 -0700, Desert Dweller wrote:

    > Say it's a bright sunny day and you see a stream. You want to take a
    > creative exposure of the stream such that is shows motion. You clamp
    > down the aperture as much as possible and set the shutter speed to 4
    > seconds.


    Maybe if it's a stream of a slow lava flow. Four seconds seems
    far too long for even a slowly moving stream of water. Try several
    different shutter speeds to see which gets the best effect.


    > Your light meter shows you are way overexposed. You set the ISO as slow
    > as possible, to say ISO50. Still your light meter shows you are overexposed.
    >
    > What do you do in this situation to get the correct exposure? Is this
    > where the ND filters I've been reading about come into play? Or do you
    > need some sort of solar eclipse filter to get the shot?


    Do you have a digital camera yet, or is the mention of a light
    meter just hypothetical, to help pose your question? Yes, ND
    filters can help, as can two other methods. You can wait for
    sunrise or sunset, when there will be much less light. This may
    even help produce better pictures, as there won't be bright sunlight
    to create harsh shadows, and many photographers prefer shooting when
    the sun is low in the sky. You could also wait longer until a solar
    eclipse occurs, but then you may not want shots of the stream. :)
    ASAAR, Jul 18, 2007
    #4
  5. Desert Dweller

    C J Campbell Guest

    On 2007-07-18 00:25:51 -0700, Desert Dweller <> said:

    > Say it's a bright sunny day and you see a stream. You want to take a
    > creative exposure of the stream such that is shows motion. You clamp
    > down the aperture as much as possible and set the shutter speed to 4
    > seconds.


    Try 1/8 second. The water will look almost exactly the same as at 4 seconds.

    >
    > Your light meter shows you are way overexposed. You set the ISO as slow
    > as possible, to say ISO50. Still your light meter shows you are overexposed.
    >
    > What do you do in this situation to get the correct exposure? Is this
    > where the ND filters I've been reading about come into play? Or do you
    > need some sort of solar eclipse filter to get the shot?


    Neutral density filters will work, or you could wait for twilight.
    --
    Waddling Eagle
    World Famous Flight Instructor
    C J Campbell, Jul 18, 2007
    #5
  6. Desert Dweller

    C J Campbell Guest

    On 2007-07-18 00:40:45 -0700, Gladiator <> said:

    > On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:25:51 -0700, Desert Dweller
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Say it's a bright sunny day and you see a stream. You want to take a
    >> creative exposure of the stream such that is shows motion.

    >
    > What's creative about that? Every tom, dick and harry has emulated
    > that shot. To be creative you have to be original.


    You are right. The shot is not creative at all and has become trite.
    You almost want to slap someone who takes yet another flowing stream,
    or a bee on a flower, or a mountain reflected in a lake at sunset, etc.
    Trite as they are, however, you can learn a great deal by attempting to
    'reverse engineer' a picture. The OP will not become creative until he
    learns the techniques he wants to know. Let him practice on the stream,
    taking the same tired old picture that everybody else does. Then, when
    he has polished his skills, he will seek for a vision of his own. Maybe.

    --
    Waddling Eagle
    World Famous Flight Instructor
    C J Campbell, Jul 18, 2007
    #6
  7. Desert Dweller

    Gladiator Guest

    On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 07:40:46 -0700, C J Campbell
    <> wrote:


    >You are right. The shot is not creative at all and has become trite.
    >You almost want to slap someone who takes yet another flowing stream,
    >or a bee on a flower, or a mountain reflected in a lake at sunset, etc.
    >Trite as they are, however, you can learn a great deal by attempting to
    >'reverse engineer' a picture. The OP will not become creative until he
    >learns the techniques he wants to know. Let him practice on the stream,
    >taking the same tired old picture that everybody else does. Then, when
    >he has polished his skills, he will seek for a vision of his own. Maybe.


    OK, I can agree with that. Trying to emulate Ansel Adams is how I got
    my feet wet too.
    Gladiator, Jul 18, 2007
    #7
  8. Desert Dweller

    ASAAR Guest

    On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:09:13 GMT, Gladiator wrote:

    >> You are right. The shot is not creative at all and has become trite.
    >> You almost want to slap someone who takes yet another flowing stream,
    >> or a bee on a flower, or a mountain reflected in a lake at sunset, etc.
    >> Trite as they are, however, you can learn a great deal by attempting to
    >> 'reverse engineer' a picture. The OP will not become creative until he
    >> learns the techniques he wants to know. Let him practice on the stream,
    >> taking the same tired old picture that everybody else does. Then, when
    >> he has polished his skills, he will seek for a vision of his own. Maybe.

    >
    > OK, I can agree with that. Trying to emulate Ansel Adams is how I got
    > my feet wet too.


    How embarrassing. I hope there weren't any other photographers or
    bystanders nearby to witness your moment of weakness. :)
    ASAAR, Jul 18, 2007
    #8
  9. Desert Dweller

    John Sheehy Guest

    ASAAR <> wrote in news:nsts93dn2ekl0u7u7tgbjqslr3hrqibgu6@
    4ax.com:

    > How embarrassing. I hope there weren't any other photographers or
    > bystanders nearby to witness your moment of weakness. :)


    That can't be as embarrasing as putting a little 3-ounce P&S camera on a 7-
    section 6 foot tripod with hollow aluminum legs, and having the camera
    bounce around and the legs vibrate when you press the release button on the
    camera.

    Not that I've done that, but I've seen it far too often. These random
    strangers never seem to learn that you can hold a camera steadier than a
    joke tripod can, for short exposures.

    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    John Sheehy, Jul 19, 2007
    #9
  10. Desert Dweller

    ASAAR Guest

    On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:32:24 GMT, John Sheehy wrote:

    >> How embarrassing. I hope there weren't any other photographers or
    >> bystanders nearby to witness your moment of weakness. :)

    >
    > That can't be as embarrasing as putting a little 3-ounce P&S camera on a 7-
    > section 6 foot tripod with hollow aluminum legs, and having the camera
    > bounce around and the legs vibrate when you press the release button on the
    > camera.
    >
    > Not that I've done that, but I've seen it far too often. These random
    > strangers never seem to learn that you can hold a camera steadier than a
    > joke tripod can, for short exposures.


    It's hard to imagine how bad that would be, if you can actually
    notice tripod sway from a slight distance. Even with a decent
    Manfrotto CF tripod (not supporting a weight) I've had to pause
    briefly when slight breezes made a P&S camera's movement noticeable
    in the viewfinder.
    ASAAR, Jul 19, 2007
    #10
  11. Desert Dweller

    Guest

    On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 07:40:45 GMT, Gladiator <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:25:51 -0700, Desert Dweller
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>Say it's a bright sunny day and you see a stream. You want to take a
    >>creative exposure of the stream such that is shows motion.

    >
    >What's creative about that? Every tom, dick and harry has emulated
    >that shot. To be creative you have to be original.


    It may not be creative to you, but perhaps such a shot would be a
    significant accomplishment for someone who is new to digital
    photography. It's condescending responses like yours that discourage
    less-experienced photographers from asking questions in this group.

    I'm sure we all hope to approach your level of creativity and
    originality some day. Until then, why not help us with some
    constructive advice, rather than scorn.

    Craig

    "Nothing matters but the weekend, from a Tuesday point of view."
    , Jul 19, 2007
    #11
  12. Desert Dweller

    Guest

    On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 07:40:46 -0700, C J Campbell
    <> wrote:

    >On 2007-07-18 00:40:45 -0700, Gladiator <> said:
    >
    >> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:25:51 -0700, Desert Dweller
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Say it's a bright sunny day and you see a stream. You want to take a
    >>> creative exposure of the stream such that is shows motion.

    >>
    >> What's creative about that? Every tom, dick and harry has emulated
    >> that shot. To be creative you have to be original.

    >
    >You are right. The shot is not creative at all and has become trite.
    >You almost want to slap someone who takes yet another flowing stream,
    >or a bee on a flower, or a mountain reflected in a lake at sunset, etc.
    >Trite as they are, however, you can learn a great deal by attempting to
    >'reverse engineer' a picture. The OP will not become creative until he
    >learns the techniques he wants to know. Let him practice on the stream,
    >taking the same tired old picture that everybody else does. Then, when
    >he has polished his skills, he will seek for a vision of his own. Maybe.



    Another condescending response to a simple request for advice.

    Sad.

    Craig
    "Nothing matters but the weekend, from a Tuesday point of view."
    , Jul 19, 2007
    #12
  13. Desert Dweller

    Gladiator Guest

    On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:29:40 -0400, ASAAR <> wrote:


    >
    > How embarrassing. I hope there weren't any other photographers or
    >bystanders nearby to witness your moment of weakness. :)


    No, I made sure I was alone when taking photos of the tangled tree
    roots in B&W. I made sure I was alone when taking pics of the naked
    girls too.
    Gladiator, Jul 19, 2007
    #13
  14. Desert Dweller

    Gladiator Guest

    On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:43:13 -0500,
    wrote:


    >It may not be creative to you, but perhaps such a shot would be a
    >significant accomplishment for someone who is new to digital
    >photography. It's condescending responses like yours that discourage
    >less-experienced photographers from asking questions in this group.
    >
    >I'm sure we all hope to approach your level of creativity and
    >originality some day. Until then, why not help us with some
    >constructive advice, rather than scorn.
    >
    >Craig
    >
    >"Nothing matters but the weekend, from a Tuesday point of view."


    It wasn't scorn. It's called tongue-in-cheek. Next!
    Gladiator, Jul 19, 2007
    #14
  15. On Jul 18, 8:25 am, Desert Dweller <> wrote:
    > Say it's a bright sunny day and you see a stream. You want to take a
    > creative exposure of the stream such that is shows motion. You clamp
    > down the aperture as much as possible and set the shutter speed to 4
    > seconds.
    >
    > Your light meter shows you are way overexposed. You set the ISO as slow
    > as possible, to say ISO50. Still your light meter shows you are overexposed.
    >
    > What do you do in this situation to get the correct exposure? Is this
    > where the ND filters I've been reading about come into play? Or do you
    > need some sort of solar eclipse filter to get the shot?
    >
    > --
    > DD


    If you don't have neutral density filters, or you haven't taken them
    with you on your walk, try using your sunglasses. Green/grey RayBans
    gave me exposures of several seconds, and the camera (Fuji E900)
    managed to colour-balance pretty well.
    What really helps is a little tripod - I take an "UltraPod" and a
    polarizing filter, leaving the rest of the rucsack for waterproof
    clothes and sandwiches.
    Al, Cambridge, UK, Jul 19, 2007
    #15
  16. Desert Dweller

    Guest

    On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 02:35:52 GMT, Gladiator <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:43:13 -0500,
    >wrote:
    >
    >
    >>It may not be creative to you, but perhaps such a shot would be a
    >>significant accomplishment for someone who is new to digital
    >>photography. It's condescending responses like yours that discourage
    >>less-experienced photographers from asking questions in this group.
    >>
    >>I'm sure we all hope to approach your level of creativity and
    >>originality some day. Until then, why not help us with some
    >>constructive advice, rather than scorn.
    >>
    >>Craig
    >>
    >>"Nothing matters but the weekend, from a Tuesday point of view."

    >
    >It wasn't scorn. It's called tongue-in-cheek. Next!


    And the back-pedalling begins.

    Over to you.

    "Nothing matters but the weekend, from a Tuesday point of view."
    , Jul 19, 2007
    #16
  17. Desert Dweller

    SMS Guest

    John Sheehy wrote:
    > ASAAR <> wrote in news:nsts93dn2ekl0u7u7tgbjqslr3hrqibgu6@
    > 4ax.com:
    >
    >> How embarrassing. I hope there weren't any other photographers or
    >> bystanders nearby to witness your moment of weakness. :)

    >
    > That can't be as embarrasing as putting a little 3-ounce P&S camera on a 7-
    > section 6 foot tripod with hollow aluminum legs, and having the camera
    > bounce around and the legs vibrate when you press the release button on the
    > camera.


    When I use a P&S on a tripod I use the self-timer to avoid this problem.

    > Not that I've done that, but I've seen it far too often. These random
    > strangers never seem to learn that you can hold a camera steadier than a
    > joke tripod can, for short exposures.


    It's often the case that the reason for the tripod is so the shooter can
    be in the photo themselves.
    SMS, Jul 19, 2007
    #17
  18. On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:25:51 -0700, Desert Dweller <> wrote:

    >Say it's a bright sunny day and you see a stream. You want to take a
    >creative exposure of the stream such that is shows motion. You clamp
    >down the aperture as much as possible and set the shutter speed to 4
    >seconds.
    >
    >Your light meter shows you are way overexposed. You set the ISO as slow
    >as possible, to say ISO50. Still your light meter shows you are overexposed.
    >
    >What do you do in this situation to get the correct exposure? Is this
    >where the ND filters I've been reading about come into play? Or do you
    >need some sort of solar eclipse filter to get the shot?


    Your best bet is to get two inexpensive linear polarizers, or one cheap linear
    one to go with the one you probably already own. Adorama sells a $12 "Adorama"
    brand LP filter, but it's actually a Tiffen. It has poor polarizing quality but
    you don't need the best for this. All Tiffen polarizers are poor quality, even
    their $80 circular polarizers are no better than this $12 one.

    When polarizers are stacked and crossed at 90-degrees to each other they will
    darken to almost black, becoming a variable ND filter. The higher the quality of
    polarizers the nearer to black they will become. If stacking a linear with
    circular polarizer then make sure the linear polarizer is the one on top / out
    front. There is sometimes a blue or purplish tint when polarizers are fully
    crossed to one another but the camera's auto-white-balance can usually
    compensate for that easily. Rarely do you need to cross them that close to
    90-degrees to filter out that much light where the color-shift will become an
    issue. When using 2 crossed polarizers you can dial-in the exact amount of light
    that you want for the exact shutter speed that you want. No need to stack 2 or
    more ND filters to only get close to light level you want. You have to remember
    that you are working with polarizers which are usually used to filter out
    unwanted reflections on surfaces or darken areas of the sky. If there are some
    reflections that you wanted to keep in the image after you have "dialed-in" your
    desired light level be sure to rotate the stack of 2 as one whole unit to bring
    the reflections back.

    A true solar filter will be much too dark to use for this purpose, but with an
    ultra-zoom camera it's always nice to keep one handy for those rare times you'll
    hear of some unusual sunspot activity and you want to record it. You can make a
    perfectly adequate solar-filter from a double or triple layer of aluminized
    mylar from a "space-blanket" / "emergency blanket" that they sell in most any
    discount or dollar-store and using an old UV or Daylight filter. Just inspect
    the aluminized mylar against full sunlight and use those areas where the
    aluminizing is the darkest, most homogenous (evenly applied), and with no
    pin-holes of light coming through. Then cut 2 to 3 squares of the mylar material
    larger than your filter. Remove the retaining-ring and glass, place the mylar
    layers over the filter-holder ring, put the glass down on that to sandwich the
    mylar between filter-holder and glass, then trim the mylar to the glass edge.
    Replace the retaining ring. Start with 3 layers. If your resulting shutter
    speeds are too slow then use 2 layers. 1 layer is not usually not good enough
    and could be dangerous to your camera (or eyesight when used for direct
    viewing). Don't listen to the hype from those telling you that using a
    space-blanket / emergency-blanket for this isn't safe. It's perfectly safe when
    you use 2 or more layers. The rumors to the contrary were started by people who
    were trying to sell highly-over-priced telescope filters made from the exact
    same (but better quality) material. They inspected the space-blanket material
    for you is all, then charged you an arm and a leg for what you could do on your
    own.

    I happen to use a solar-filter that I made from relatively inexpensive
    telescope-quality "Baader" filter material. (Find it on the net.) The aluminized
    mylar filters cause more light-scatter, resulting in lower-contrast images. I
    also made solar-filters for my binoculars from what I had left over. It's a
    choice between going through the hassle of ordering some of this Baader
    material, or picking up a $1 emergency-blanket in the camping section of any
    variety or discount store. Remembering that the mylar method won't provide as
    crisp an image, but good enough. Aluminized mylar is, after-all, what
    astronomers were using until the Baader material came along. If it was good
    enough for them it's most certainly good enough for your occasional photos of
    sunspots with just camera, without an 1/8th-wave-perfect optics telescope
    attached.
    Fed-Up-With-Corel, Jul 19, 2007
    #18
  19. Desert Dweller

    John Sheehy Guest

    ASAAR <> wrote in
    news::

    > It's hard to imagine how bad that would be, if you can actually
    > notice tripod sway from a slight distance.


    Well, it's the oscillation I've seen, more than anything else. Some of the
    tripods they sell are pretty sad.

    You can see, too, when someone doesn't know how to supply minimal force
    when pressing he button, with no counterforce from opposing fingers.



    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    John Sheehy, Jul 20, 2007
    #19
  20. Desert Dweller

    Gladiator Guest

    On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:12:13 -0500,
    wrote:


    >And the back-pedalling begins.
    >
    >Over to you.


    If it was scorn I would have said something along the lines of this,
    "What kind of dumbass wants to take photos of a boring stream? What
    are you, some kind of new age freak?".
    Gladiator, Jul 20, 2007
    #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. =?Utf-8?B?VGlwcHk=?=

    Simulation questions...how much is too much?

    =?Utf-8?B?VGlwcHk=?=, Apr 16, 2005, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    523
    =?Utf-8?B?VGlwcHk=?=
    Apr 16, 2005
  2. adcl

    paranoia... much too much

    adcl, Nov 8, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    828
  3. PowerPost2000

    CPU Heat--how much is too much?

    PowerPost2000, Dec 21, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,301
    William Poaster
    Dec 22, 2003
  4. Rich

    How much image manipulation is too much?

    Rich, Mar 9, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    30
    Views:
    963
    cjcampbell
    Mar 19, 2006
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Too Much Talent + Too Much Demand = ?

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 18, 2011, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    362
    Enkidu
    Feb 18, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page