Beginner Long exposure shots in daylight

Barry L.

Barry L.

Messages
309
Name
Barry
Edit My Images
Yes
As per title. I have tried long exposure shots of waterfalls and seascapes but every time I get no picture as to much light is getting into the camera and just a blank white screen appears. The Camera is a Panasonic Lumix FZ-200

Many thanks for any advice.
 
How long an exposure are you trying to take ? Good waterfall shots in broad daylight can be achieved with a relatively short exposure if using a small aperture.
 
You need a longish shutter speed and to get that in daylight you'll possibly need a ND filter.

To see if you need one or not select the smallest aperture possible (the biggest f number, something like f16, f32 or whatever your camera can do) and make sure the ISO is set to the lowest possible (50? 100?) Once you've set the aperture and the ISO check the shutter speed and if it's still too fast to get the effect you want you'll need a ND filter.

Oh, and if your shutter speed is into seconds you're probably going to need a tripod or to place your camera on a rock or something.
 
Last edited:
Most people use aperture priority, set the aperture to the highest number and if thats not enough, you'll probably need a neutral density filter (sunglasses for the camera) Some cameras have a built in neutral density, not sure if your model has that feature or how strong it is.
 
Barry L. said:
Enough time to get a nice silky effect in the water
Click to expand...
That also depends on how fast the water is flowing, but somewhere in the region of ½ a second to 2 seconds should work. There again it also depends on how silky you want the silky water to be.
 
Barry L. said:
Enough time to get a nice silky effect in the water
Click to expand...

I know it personal choice but silky water when it comes to rivers and waterfalls seldom looks nice.

Something like 0.3s to 0.5s is plenty to show the movement in the water while retaining some texture and interest in the water.

This image was 0.4 seconds.

Sychryd Waterfall Portrait by Elliott Coleman, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Craikeybaby said:
That really depends on the available light - f8 on a bright sunny day will not produce the same shutter speed, which controls how the water appears, as f8 on an overcast day.
Click to expand...

It also effects the depth of field so not really suitable if you need more depth of field than f8 can provide.
 
i shot this in the day time with no ND filters, hand held, so could not get too long an exposure 0.5 seconds@ f22, if i had taken my tripod with me i might have been able to stretch it out a bit longer again with no ND filter, not sharp especially if you zoom in but worth a try


waterfall3.jpg
 
Little tip, if you want to get into long exposure photography, you can pick up cheap ND 10 stop filters on ebay and Amazon for around £15 and a lot are actually rather good, I would recommend buying one to see if you enjoy long exposure photography before shelling out on a decent filter.

This was taken with a £10 XCSource 10 stop.

Rydal Grot by Adam P, on Flickr
 
As many say, don't really need a big stopper type of filter - I have one and use it on a good number of images for the effect it gives, but - using low ISO moderate to high F stop and circa 1/2 sec with camera on a tripod and a remote release gives a nice effect without costing for a filter - this was ISO 64, 1/2 sec at F11 a small river valley in S. France under woodland giving dappled light also helps create a 'feel' rather than open sun.

waterfall-sm.jpg
 
I have had a cheap set of Neewer ND filters (ND2, ND4 & ND8) for ever and in a slow hour this morning had a play with them just to see the effect they'd give with a portion of sky and greenery (my back garden). I understand that their job is restrict the amount of light hitting the sensor to allow a slower shutter speed. There was no significant breeze and little plant movement, no water falls or running water, I understand that some landscape togs use them and wanted to find out why.

Tripod mounted with a distant manual focus and fully manual, I took a base line snap at 100 ISO, f11 and adjusted the shutter to give a correctly exposed image. Then added +2, +4, (2+4) +6, +8, (2+8) +10, (4+8) +12, (2+4+8) +14 and adjusted the shutter slower at each step to give a correctly exposed image.

Apart from a significant purple cast that I can correct using custom white balance I'm struggling to much of a difference between any of the images produced. What should I expect to see when I use them? Would I see a difference at f22 other than difference with depth of field?

Afternote: Before I did this I think I was expecting some sort of eureka moment. After a minute to think I guess I should expect to see depth of field, especially at f22, and better exposure at f22.
 
Last edited:
You should have been able to see more movement in either clouds or leaves with the longer shutter speeds, but it really depends on how much they were moving.
 
Tulipone said:
I have had a cheap set of Neewer ND filters (ND2, ND4 & ND8) for ever and in a slow hour this morning had a play with them just to see the effect they'd give with a portion of sky and greenery (my back garden). I understand that their job is restrict the amount of light hitting the sensor to allow a slower shutter speed. There was no significant breeze and little plant movement, no water falls or running water, I understand that some landscape togs use them and wanted to find out why.

Tripod mounted with a distant manual focus and fully manual, I took a base line snap at 100 ISO, f11 and adjusted the shutter to give a correctly exposed image. Then added +2, +4, (2+4) +6, +8, (2+8) +10, (4+8) +12, (2+4+8) +14 and adjusted the shutter slower at each step to give a correctly exposed image.

Apart from a significant purple cast that I can correct using custom white balance I'm struggling to much of a difference between any of the images produced. What should I expect to see when I use them? Would I see a difference at f22 other than difference with depth of field?

Afternote: Before I did this I think I was expecting some sort of eureka moment. After a minute to think I guess I should expect to see depth of field, especially at f22, and better exposure at f22.
Click to expand...
Craikeybaby said:
You should have been able to see more movement in either clouds or leaves with the longer shutter speeds, but it really depends on how much they were moving.
Click to expand...

ND2, ND4 and ND8 filters are only 1, 2 and 3 stops respectively, even stacking them all is only a 6 stop filter - a 10 stop filter is labelled either 10 stop, ND3.0, 1000x or ND1024
 
Thank you both. I did not know that the stops did not add in the way that I thought - actually I found the cast got worse as the filters were stacked so maybe the purchase of a better quality 10 stop makes sense. I have a feeling that the 2 & 4 are borderline pointless as I'd just alter the stop or exposure but it has been a useful exercise for me to see how it comes together.
 
You can blend multiple shorter exposures for the same effect. And it has several advantages over actual long exposures/ND filters. But it also does require editing time and suitable software.

expertphotography.com

How to Use Exposure Stacking for Daytime Long Exposures

Create stunning daytime long exposures with exposure stacking. Learn how to use this technique to create amazing photos.
expertphotography.com expertphotography.com
 
Tulipone said:
Thank you both. I did not know that the stops did not add in the way that I thought - actually I found the cast got worse as the filters were stacked so maybe the purchase of a better quality 10 stop makes sense. I have a feeling that the 2 & 4 are borderline pointless as I'd just alter the stop or exposure but it has been a useful exercise for me to see how it comes together.
Click to expand...
There you go, experimenting and learning something new is never a waste of time especially as you did not have to travel and you have not missed a one time only shot.
 
Yeah, I'm not sure how long I have had them with the intention of using them. The thread inspired me to dig them out and actually use them. I can see the use of a 10 stop when it is needed. Was an interesting thing to do and an opportunity to think.
 
Tulipone said:
I have had a cheap set of Neewer ND filters (
Click to expand...
Neewer isn't a manufacturer, they just re-brand under their own name, and they re-brand whatever they can buy for the least money, so (and especially with ND filters, which always degrade quality to some extent) it's a good brand to avoid.
Mr Perceptive said:
ND2, ND4 and ND8 filters are only 1, 2 and 3 stops respectively, even stacking them all is only a 6 stop filter - a 10 stop filter is labelled either 10 stop, ND3.0, 1000x or ND1024
Click to expand...
Stacking filters is a terrible idea and will always degrade quality a lot. It can be difficult to see through the viewfinder with a 10 stop filter, reducing the light transmission by 1000x, but it's the best option if you really want to slow the shutter speed dramatically.
Tulipone said:
Apart from a significant purple cast that I can correct using custom white balance I'm struggling to much of a difference between any of the images produced. What should I expect to see when I use them? Would I see a difference at f22 other than difference with depth of field?
Click to expand...

woof woof said:
You need a longish shutter speed and to get that in daylight you'll possibly need a ND filter.

To see if you need one or not select the smallest aperture possible (the biggest f number, something like f16, f32 or whatever your camera can do) and make sure the ISO is set to the lowest possible (50? 100?) Once you've set the aperture and the ISO check the shutter speed and if it's still too fast to get the effect you want you'll need a ND filter.

Oh, and if your shutter speed is into seconds you're probably going to need a tripod or to place your camera on a rock or something.
Click to expand...

With a full-frame camera diffraction limitation (which creates and overall loss of sharpness) will raise its ugly head, progressively, at a smaller f/number than f/16, so f/22 is a bad idea.
With a cropped frame camera the limit is f/11, and with 4/3rds or less, it will be f/8 or wider - worth bearing in mind.

With a distant subject, there are no obvious benefits from using a small f/number anyway, as depth of field will be more than adequate.
 
It was an interesting project for this morning.

I was supposed to be out at dawn for something else, got half way and decided that the rain was not going to let up and went home. The rain did slow for most of the morning but I’d have had a decent soaking.

Trouble is that I now need to get up stupid early again tomorrow to catch the light at dawn. Hopefully the rain eases long enough!
 
You can also get this effect by taking multiple normal exposures and blending as layers in photoshop.
 
Garry Edwards said:
...

Stacking filters is a terrible idea and will always degrade quality a lot. It can be difficult to see through the viewfinder with a 10 stop filter, reducing the light transmission by 1000x, but it's the best option if you really want to slow the shutter speed dramatically.

....
Click to expand...
(I assume Garry already knows this, the reply is for @Tulipone )

The usual process when using a 10 stop is to setup, compose and focus without the 10 stop in place. Meter the shot without the 10 stop, then put the 10 stop in place, increase the shutter speed by 10 stops, and take the shot.
Modern mirrorless cameras may be able to actually af and provide a visible image in the evf even with a 10 stop in place (it's not something I've tried) but it's likely to be easier to use the 'traditional' method even so.
 
@Fladrax. I have a mirrorless camera and adjusting the shutter with the filters in place worked well. I was expecting to use the method you described, hence the baseline, but always good to know. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top