How did I do this?

A

add1ct3dd

Messages
126
Edit My Images
No
So, tonight I thought to give the light trails and stuff a go, and got one really good photo (the light trails aren't good but the overall colour is good), and wondered how it was so different to all my others?

Here's the picture in question:


First time with Light Trails! by matthew-evans, on Flickr

And here's how all the others turned out:


First time with Light Trails! by matthew-evans, on Flickr


The question I have is what made the difference in the amount of colour and awesome background that came out? I was shooting in Av mode for pure lazyness, and from what I can see in the EXIF only the F stop was changed, but surely this isn't what gave the awesome colours? Was it something to do with how the light shined into the camera or reflected off the trees etc?


These were all taken around an hour ago so it was pitch black unlike the sky shown, so I really don't understand where the vibrant colour came from :)

Any info appreciated!
 
You say you were shooting in AV mode and all that changed was the aperture.

I can't see your EXIF but when you changed the aperture in AV mode - what did the camera do with the resulting shutter speed and were you in charge of ISO or was this set to Auto ?

edit - Found some info - Flikr says TV mode not AV mode.....

Details in Flikr for Shot 1

Exposure 20
Aperture f/3.5
Focal Length 18 mm
ISO Speed 400
Exposure Program Shutter speed priority AE

Details in Flikr for Shot 2

Exposure 20
Aperture f/10.0
Focal Length 37 mm
ISO Speed 400
Exposure Program Shutter speed priority AE

Same shutter speed (if I read that 20 right ? ) and same ISO400.
Shorter focal length and wider aperture in shot 1
= Different exposures I guess

Only 4 mins betwen shots - did the available light change much ?
 
Last edited:
Nope available light was both extremely minimal!

I did zoom in then by the looks of it and then got a focus so that must have changed it somehow, I'll have to try again and see how I get on, but looking over those figures there's nothing that says this is why (at least to me)
 
But if the shutter speed was the same in both (exposure 20) a lot more light would have entered the camera in the first shot due to the larger aperture giving you a completely different exposure.

I'm just not sure if 'exposure 20' is your shutter speed or not as I'm not used to it being displayed that way in the exif.
 
You were shooting in Tv, not Av. The exposure in the second is three stops less than the first, hence less light and colour in the image.

/OK, just read Phil's edit where he already said that.

Shoot in manual for stuff like this. And the sky is never (very rarely) pitch black. ;)

If you'd stopped down the aperture as in the second shot, and lowered your ISO, you could've had the shutter open for nearly half an hour. That's a lot of time to run around drawing things with your torch. :)
 
I can't see the exif data on here or flickr but without dinners info and looking at the photo's I would assume that the exposure time on the top one was longer.

With the info, I agree with dinners that the apature is the key to more light in the shot.
 
They both have 20 second exposure, though the first one was F/3.5 and the second was F/10 so it would be down to this!

Guess I need to read up more, and more-fool me for shooting in that mode and not just setting it manually :) will try again tonight!
 
Last edited:
Well at least you know f3.5 / 20sec / ISO 400 gave you the exposure you liked.

You could go back to the smaller aperture but use a longer shutter speed to get the same exposure if you ever wanted a greater depth of focus.
 
Yep that too :) I'm very limited until my remote comes then I can go over 30 seconds no problem!
 
Well you've had the question answered (y) but it's great to see that your having a play with painting with light it can be a lot of fun (y) also consider some coloured gels to bring in some other lighting options for you (y)

Matt
MWHCVT
 
:) yep going to give it another go hopefully tomorrow, would have today but tiredness says otherwise! Plus I should get the remote timer/shutter thing tomorrow so that will make it a lot easier!
 
Also in the first image, the light from the torch head is clearly visible indicating the torch was pointing towards the camera more (which would alter your exposure settings as well) whilst in the second, only the reflected light on the ground is visible indicating the torch was pointing away from the camera.

Edit:- I wouldnt use f10 at night with those settings normally myself, f3.5 sounds more like it to me to get some detail in the sky and foreground
Keep playing though
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top