Simulated Long Exp of Slater Bridge

[DG Phototraining]

Its not that I'm against full NDs at all, its just that I'm all for saving my money

Hence I've started using the really easy Photoshop trick of creating a 'long-exposure' shot. Aside from being cheaper & easier, its also more flexible as you can decide on the actual length you want back at home, and you can shoot wide open on a sunny day if the circumstance calls for it and still get an apparent exposure as long as you'd like. There are other reasons I like it too, but that'll do for now

The actual exposure per shot here was at 1/500th sec, which is why I could keep the foreground sharp (or anywhere else) if wanted, which can be useful for more creative shots too



Dave

 

[GlennW]

Having the water and the sky at different speeds looks weird to me here.

 

[taxboy]

I'm probably being dense but can anyone explain why the clouds show movement but the water is still sharp rather than milky as with a "traditional" long exposure

 

[jakeblu]

I'm probably being dense but can anyone explain why the clouds show movement but the water is still sharp rather than milky as with a "traditional" long exposure

I wondered that too, but if you read @DG Phototraining comment, I think he considers it creative Sorry Dave.

 

[DG Phototraining]

I wondered that too, but if you read @DG Phototraining comment, I think he considers it creative Sorry Dave.

You know I've posted this elsewhere and over 100 people 'Liked' or 'Loved' it before 1 person noticed that

Just a little ruse I threw in lol - but it is only the small bit of water bottom middle that's not blurred, the rest is

Dave

 

[Mr Bump]

I quite like that but as a 10 stop lover would like to see the same shot at 60secs

 

[DG Phototraining]

I quite like that but as a 10 stop lover would like to see the same shot at 60secs

Even when I had a 10-stopper I rarely managed to get to a minute, and nearer dusk when I could I still didn't do over a minute

I do accept though that if you're a 4+-min lover taking up to 240 shots would be overkill

Dave

 

[justinminns]

IAside from being cheaper & easier...

Cheaper definitely but easier than just taking a single shot with a filter??

To be fair, the technique looks effective but I prefer to do it in camera where possible... I spend enough time in front of the computer already!

 

[DG Phototraining]

Cheaper definitely but easier than just taking a single shot with a filter??

To be fair, the technique looks effective but I prefer to do it in camera where possible... I spend enough time in front of the computer already!

Of course its easier, no filter to attach, drop, scream at the financial loss lol, and no trying to figure out how many more stops to add; also no worrying about a bit of wind blowing the tripod, no need for a cable release...

Ok so its easier & quicker by seconds or at most a minute, but back on the computer its only a few seconds to blend too, and like I said you can do this as a minute, several minutes if you like, blend the lot, decide its too much blur and reduce it; you can't do that if you use an ND

There are of course advantages to doing it either way, but for overall ease, added creativity especially with such as shallow DoF on sunny days, and the fact there's no real cost its a winner for me

Dave

 

[SFTPhotography]

The water could be made milky too - and the bonus - no blurred branches etc in the shot (pet hate of mine).

 

[DG Phototraining]

The water could be made milky too - and the bonus - no blurred branches etc in the shot (pet hate of mine).

Fast flowing/bubbly water tends to show the specular highlights and hence not be 'milky' in the usual way, though you could separately blur it if you really wanted; and yes, its dead easy to have trees sharp against a blurry sky

Dave

 

[NeilA1975]

Horses for courses.
For me much easier with less faffing to take a single shot with a filter attached and as Justin says, less time in front of a computer.
Still if you like it then good for you.

 

[dancook]

This is something I could get behind, I don’t want to spend money on filters for the rare occasions I might want to use them.

 

[DG Phototraining]

This is something I could get behind, I don’t want to spend money on filters for the rare occasions I might want to use them.

Yup exactly - as for the 'faff' in front of a computer, well that's either ignorance of how little needs to be done or just BS - its like 5-6 clicks and a few seconds later the computer has generated the merged file; if its too blurred, do it again but select fewer images - and its also that flexibility which makes it a great technique

I can guarantee it takes longer to set up with an ND that it does at the computer (and yes I've had NDs in the past so I do know how it works)

Added to which, just how many full NDs would it take to shoot at f1.8 on a sunny day and aim for a 1-2mins exposure !!! lol

That said - if you shoot a lot of water, streams etc. and especially if you like 4mins or more exposures for those ultra minimalist seascapes, I'd probably still go with the ND filter; buying one though, ouch

Dave

 

[swanseamale47]

Which system are you using, the radial blur or something else?

 

[LotusExige]

Which system are you using, the radial blur or something else?

I presume it will be multiple files of similar exposures and then stacked together as a smart object with a "mean" blend mode.

So so easy to do. And really effective. Plus you can decide how "long" the exposure is.

Definitely quicker than using filters in the field I think.

 

[swanseamale47]

I presume it will be multiple files of similar exposures and then stacked together as a smart object with a "mean" blend mode.

So so easy to do. And really effective. Plus you can decide how "long" the exposure is.

Definitely quicker than using filters in the field I think.

Ahhh I hadn't thought of that way, the old way was using radial blur but stacking is easier.

 

[LotusExige]

Ahhh I hadn't thought of that way, the old way was using radial blur but stacking is easier.

It's a really useful technique that isn't discussed very often it seems. It's also fun adding extra layers to the stack and watching the length of the exposure increase.

 

[gad-westy]

Sorry if I've missed this but just want to see if I have my head around this technique. It does seem like a good option to have in the tool bag.

If I was going to use a conventional 10 stop filter and my scene would need 1/30 'unfiltered' so with the 10 stop filter on, I'd use 30 seconds.

To replicate that, are we saying that we shoot continuous 1/30 shots for 30 seconds? i.e. 900 of them? Although, actually I'm not sure any camera can do that yet so I guess that then leads to the question of what do you do about the inevitable gaps between frames? I guess, water probably sorts itself out, but can you not end with gaps in the clouds etc?

 

[LotusExige]

Sorry if I've missed this but just want to see if I have my head around this technique. It does seem like a good option to have in the tool bag.

If I was going to use a conventional 10 stop filter and my scene would need 1/30 'unfiltered' so with the 10 stop filter on, I'd use 30 seconds.

To replicate that, are we saying that we shoot continuous 1/30 shots for 30 seconds? i.e. 900 of them? Although, actually I'm not sure any camera can do that yet so I guess that then leads to the question of what do you do about the inevitable gaps between frames? I guess, water probably sorts itself out, but can you not end with gaps in the clouds etc?

Hi Graham, I don't want to tread on Dave's toes here but I can comment a bit from personal experience.

Almost all of my landscape shooting is in low light so shutter speeds tend to be a little longer to begin with. Usually I don't need that many frames to get the effect I want. I've never done the maths but when I've tried this method it always seems that it takes fewer frames than I think. Usually I'd take around 10 and not need them all.

That said, with a fast shutter speed in bright light then the nature of what you're doing means you'd need many more frames as you suggested.

I've tried it with both water and clouds and it has always worked equally well for me. As long as there aren't big delays between frames I've never had an issue with gaps. Of course not every instance will be the same.

It's also an absolutely incredible method of almost completely removing noise.

I'd say have a go and see how you get on. Always fun to try something new right?

 

[gad-westy]

Hi Graham, I don't want to tread on Dave's toes here but I can comment a bit from personal experience.

Almost all of my landscape shooting is in low light so shutter speeds tend to be a little longer to begin with. Usually I don't need that many frames to get the effect I want. I've never done the maths but when I've tried this method it always seems that it takes fewer frames than I think. Usually I'd take around 10 and not need them all.

That said, with a fast shutter speed in bright light then the nature of what you're doing means you'd need many more frames as you suggested.

I've tried it with both water and clouds and it has always worked equally well for me. As long as there aren't big delays between frames I've never had an issue with gaps. Of course not every instance will be the same.

It's also an absolutely incredible method of almost completely removing noise.

I'd say have a go and see how you get on. Always fun to try something new right?

Cheers. I suppose I was applying the same logic as star trails to this where if you leave a gap between exposures, you'll see it. But I guess that is quite unusal in the that you're just seeing points of light. A big blob of clouds or water I guess sorts itself more easily. I was thrown by the talk of deciding how long an exposure you want but I guess in reality what is meant by that is the time elapsed between the first and last image. There will be gaps between but probably won't matter.

By the way, off topic, I assume you have an Exige? I have a supercharged S2. Fabulous little things!

 

[LotusExige]

Cheers. I suppose I was applying the same logic as star trails to this where if you leave a gap between exposures, you'll see it. But I guess that is quite unusal in the that you're just seeing points of light. A big blob of clouds or water I guess sorts itself more easily. I was thrown by the talk of deciding how long an exposure you want but I guess in reality what is meant by that is the time elapsed between the first and last image. There will be gaps between but probably won't matter.

By the way, off topic, I assume you have an Exige? I have a supercharged S2. Fabulous little things!

Never tried astro but hope to this year. Although my camera is a star eater so it won't be great!

In my experience, it just really works well and I've never had an issue with it not looking like a normal long exposure, however it's only been a handful of times that I've tried but I'm a complete novice so if I can make it work...

Of course I'm sure you could force the issue with long gaps between frames. And yeah, exactly, the time elapsed between the first and last is key However, as I said, it always seems like you can get away with some gaps. When I've done it, it has always been a very unscientific just keep pressing the shutter until i think I've got enough method. It has always worked really well.

Now, the next bit of your comment... Well hello! Which colour and spec? Bit of a Lotus nut here. I started with a nice but OTT modified Starlight Black S2 Elise with a Type R, then a bone stock Graphite Grey Exige 190 and now I'm in a Carbon Grey V6. Boring colour choices I know! Wanted a 211 soooooo badly but it's just not practical living in London. Working on moving though...



@DG Phototraining apologies for the slight thread derailment!

 

[DG Phototraining]

All treading is allowed @LotusExige , I have strong boots That said, you've only helped the thread so thanks for that

@gad-westy I've never taken photos less than 1 second apart, and often 2 seconds; so a 30 sec 'exposure' is 30 shots, whereas a minute one is (for me) still usually 30 as well. The further away something is that you want blurring the longer the gaps can be, hence clouds never show gaping in my experience, but a babbling brook up close does, its just that is appears more as zillions of specular highlights rather than a line of blurred ones. Its not 'bad' for water but it is a bit different looking, and happily I like it

@swanseamale47 its just a stack and mean blur - here's how I use it in Photoshop (I know you'll know but... you edited the full string of shots in Lightroom first using 'sync' so they are all the same, and shoot on a tripod so the computer doesn't spend an hour aligning them !!!)

In Photoshop...

File -> Scripts -> Load files into stack

Browse -> select all the photos you want to stack

Click - Create smart object after loading layers

And once stacked...

Layer -> Smart Objects -> Stack mode -> Mean

And that's it

If such as the clouds look too blurred you can go back and select fewer photos to shorten the effective 'exposure' length - simples

Dave

 

[LotusExige]

@DG Phototraining thanks Dave!

The bit about distance and gaps makes sense, thanks for that explanation. I've never tried it with anything close up. Next time I'm near some water I'll have a go.

As for this:

"File -> Scripts -> Load files into stack"

THANK YOU!!! I did NOT know that! Embarrassingly I'd been loading them all as individual files and duplicating them into layers in one. As I said, novice...

 

[DG Phototraining]

@DG Phototraining thanks Dave!

The bit about distance and gaps makes sense, thanks for that explanation. I've never tried it with anything close up. Next time I'm near some water I'll have a go.

As for this:

"File -> Scripts -> Load files into stack"

THANK YOU!!! I did NOT know that! Embarrassingly I'd been loading them all as individual files and duplicating them into layers in one. As I said, novice...

FK ME !!! That must have taken a while

EDIT - I just had a rush of memories of all the long winded or daft ways I used to do stuff before I came across (usually told) the easy ways lol - no embarrassment needed

Dave

 

[LotusExige]

FK ME !!! That must have taken a while

EDIT - I just had a rush of memories of all the long winded or daft ways I used to do stuff before I came across (usually told) the easy ways lol - no embarrassment needed

Dave

EXACTLY! And I pretty much always bracket too so there is an element of that in almost every shot.

Every day is a school day!

 

[swanseamale47]

FK ME !!! That must have taken a while

EDIT - I just had a rush of memories of all the long winded or daft ways I used to do stuff before I came across (usually told) the easy ways lol - no embarrassment needed

Dave

Photoshop doesn't help. Theres usually about six different ways of getting the same result (more or less).

 

[gad-westy]

Never tried astro but hope to this year. Although my camera is a star eater so it won't be great!

In my experience, it just really works well and I've never had an issue with it not looking like a normal long exposure, however it's only been a handful of times that I've tried but I'm a complete novice so if I can make it work...

Of course I'm sure you could force the issue with long gaps between frames. And yeah, exactly, the time elapsed between the first and last is key However, as I said, it always seems like you can get away with some gaps. When I've done it, it has always been a very unscientific just keep pressing the shutter until i think I've got enough method. It has always worked really well.

Now, the next bit of your comment... Well hello! Which colour and spec? Bit of a Lotus nut here. I started with a nice but OTT modified Starlight Black S2 Elise with a Type R, then a bone stock Graphite Grey Exige 190 and now I'm in a Carbon Grey V6. Boring colour choices I know! Wanted a 211 soooooo badly but it's just not practical living in London. Working on moving though...



@DG Phototraining apologies for the slight thread derailment!

Brill thanks. I must look for an opportunity to try this.

Big Lotus fan too! Had an S1 111s for a while but the current steed is an 08 Exige S in red, relatively standard and sensible in terms of spec. It's been in hibernation for a while but might be getting an outing tomorrow. 2-11's look fun!

 

[gad-westy]

@gad-westy I've never taken photos less than 1 second apart, and often 2 seconds; so a 30 sec 'exposure' is 30 shots, whereas a minute one is (for me) still usually 30 as well. The further away something is that you want blurring the longer the gaps can be, hence clouds never show gaping in my experience, but a babbling brook up close does, its just that is appears more as zillions of specular highlights rather than a line of blurred ones. Its not 'bad' for water but it is a bit different looking, and happily I like it

Cheers. Think I need to give this a whirl for myself

 

[Tom Pinchenzo]

Hmm, I’ll definitely give this a try. I’m already thinking of selling my ND grad since I got my Nikon D610, which can handle most dynamic range (and has auto exp bracketing). If this works for me can sell my 10 stop too. And my filter holder. I’d nearly have enough money for a new lens! I wouldn’t miss rushing around with step up rings with numb hands in fading light....

 

[DG Phototraining]

Hmm, I’ll definitely give this a try. I’m already thinking of selling my ND grad since I got my Nikon D610, which can handle most dynamic range (and has auto exp bracketing). If this works for me can sell my 10 stop too. And my filter holder. I’d nearly have enough money for a new lens! I wouldn’t miss rushing around with step up rings with numb hands in fading light....

Its FAB with clouds but you do get speckles with such as fast-flowing streams along with the blur, I like it but I can imagine some won't

Being able to get blurred images on an f1.4 on a sunny day is cool though

Dave

 

[dslk]

I'm unsure what filter kits most of you have. I'm seeing a lot of 10 stops. I have a kit pack with 4 grads and 4 full ND's ; 2x to 16x.
I've never used just one filter for landscapes.
I've seen me use the 16xND+ 16x grad + 8x grad in the middle of the afternoon ; bright sunny day = 2 minutes. I'd have to go looking for it, as it's been a few years.

I find THIS about filters and long exposures : Just because you CAN exposure for 1min+, doesn't mean the shot always calls for it. Sometimes, just a few seconds works best.
I say this, but NEVER shoot anything faster than 1/2 second for landscapes.

I come from film so my approach is still purist. Minus the white balance correct from the filter tint. Something about doing a long exposure, during the day, that brings a feeling of accomplishment you just don't get in software.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I've never used just one filter for landscapes.

You should try, and try without.

I've seen me use the 16xND+ 16x grad + 8x grad in the middle of the afternoon ; bright sunny day = 2 minutes. I'd have to go looking for it, as it's been a few years.

I could imagine the untold level of image degradation through colour shift, vignetting and softening this may cause. I hope it was worth it for the artistic cause.

I say this, but NEVER shoot anything faster than 1/2 second for landscapes.

You should try that. My most profitable image is well over 1/100s, like many others.

my approach is still purist

glad you feel good about it.

 

[DG Phototraining]

I'm unsure what filter kits most of you have. I'm seeing a lot of 10 stops. I have a kit pack with 4 grads and 4 full ND's ; 2x to 16x.
I've never used just one filter for landscapes.
I've seen me use the 16xND+ 16x grad + 8x grad in the middle of the afternoon ; bright sunny day = 2 minutes. I'd have to go looking for it, as it's been a few years.

I find THIS about filters and long exposures : Just because you CAN exposure for 1min+, doesn't mean the shot always calls for it. Sometimes, just a few seconds works best.
I say this, but NEVER shoot anything faster than 1/2 second for landscapes.

I come from film so my approach is still purist. Minus the white balance correct from the filter tint. Something about doing a long exposure, during the day, that brings a feeling of accomplishment you just don't get in software.

Some bizarre comments in there as LongLens points out lol

I too come from film and hence I'm purist too

Except my form of pure means I don't use any of those silly grad filters, and now no NDs either, so I suffer no image degradation and I also don't spend hours in a darkroom trying to do something I can do in seconds/minutes in software - using software that gives me what I want and in a very short time gives me a great sense of accomplishment thanks

Horses for courses mate

Dave