Beginner Why is this so blurry?

A

aa6972

Messages
4
Name
Alex
Edit My Images
No
Hi! I am wondering if someone can explain why this photo is so blurry and what I should have done please... I used a LED continuous light and I also use timer to avoid motion blur, the focus is set on infinity. I would appreciate any help. Thank you


ISO100, 12mm, f/11, 3s
 
Last edited:
Standing still for 3 seconds is tricky. Minor movement will show blur
 
3Sec @ f/11 ISO 100 would be the issue.

You also want to focus on the subject in a situation like this, rather then relying on manual.

Edit: Sorry, I didn't notice that you'd included the details. I got the EXIF from the image itself.

Either up the ISO and increase the aperture to get a shorter shutter speed or use flash to capture the subject and then let the ambient fill in the background.
 
Last edited:
For what it's worth if that's a 3 second exposure I think you've done a pretty good job.

Next time up the ISO for night photography, choose a slightly lower F stop and focus on the girl.

Maybe try different f stops until you get a shot that isn't blurred and everything you want is in focus.
 
Why would you use infinity focus here? There is no real need for deep depth of field; and it only assures "acceptable focus," not actual/critical focus... you would definitely do better by focusing on the subject in this situation.

But I do agree with the others; your main issue is the model trying to hold completely still for 3 seconds... that's just too long for most. You can see a double exposure type of effect along her left arm (area of largest movement); also along her right arm/collar.

A more realistic, and potentially easier, answer is to combine two exposures; a faster one with higher SS for the model, and a long exposure for blurring the wheel in the BG. Then you could have optimized the SS for each exposure rather than trying to find a compromise that didn't quite work. Another option would be to use flash for the model rather than a constant light source... then the speed of the flash burst would act as the SS for the model's exposure (about 1/200 minimum) regardless of the required BG exposure duration.
 
I agree with Phil V, use a flash on 2nd curtain sync.
Always expose for the ambient light first, i.e the fair ground and the flash will expose the model. You will have to play around with flash distance and power. Best use a 3rd person as a mobile flash / light stand.
Though for a 3 second exposure you have done pretty well !
 
@Tysonator
Nothing in that image needs 2nd curtain sync - just in case others think it might.

2nd curtain is only ever required where you need to capture an object at the end of a 'trail' of movement. Often people believe that it's required to 'stamp' a flash image on top of the ambient, this isn't true, only the difference in exposure is required to bring the flash image to the fore.

I mention this because 1st curtain makes the 'photography' easier, I want to press the shutter when I see the best expression (on a still subject) or to freeze the shape of a moving subject in exactly the right place.
 
Don't forget that with flash you can set the shutter speed lower than the max sync speed to help in balancing subject and background. Also most DSLR's will have Flash Exposure Control to make setting the the most suitable flash power super easy
 
damianmkv said:
Standing still for 3 seconds is tricky. Minor movement will show blur
Click to expand...
I read one time about the old portraits from the 1800's. Everyone looked so stiff. Read that is was because the shutter's were so slow that people really had to work at being still. Don't know if thats true or not but made sense to me.
 
GreenNinja67 said:
For what it's worth if that's a 3 second exposure I think you've done a pretty good job.

Next time up the ISO for night photography, choose a slightly lower F stop and focus on the girl.

Maybe try different f stops until you get a shot that isn't blurred and everything you want is in focus.
Click to expand...
Old guy that used to write for one of the photo magazines was talking about wide aperature lens's one time and mentioned something that made sense to me. He said forget the wide aperature lens and put some light on the subject as in use a flash. Always seemed a good idea, wish I had though of it! It seem's to me that a lot of people go with really wide aperature lens's just to avoid using a flash. I'm sure there's a place for it but a wide aperature at a slow shutter is a formular for failure I'd think!
 
Don Fischer said:
I read one time about the old portraits from the 1800's. Everyone looked so stiff. Read that is was because the shutter's were so slow that people really had to work at being still. Don't know if thats true or not but made sense to me.
Click to expand...

Why are you digging up fossilised threads? The poster hasn't been back since 2021.
 
Don Fischer said:
Old guy that used to write for one of the photo magazines was talking about wide aperature lens's one time and mentioned something that made sense to me. He said forget the wide aperature lens and put some light on the subject as in use a flash. Always seemed a good idea, wish I had though of it! It seem's to me that a lot of people go with really wide aperature lens's just to avoid using a flash. I'm sure there's a place for it but a wide aperature at a slow shutter is a formular for failure I'd think!
Click to expand...
Weird thread revival.

From a photography perspective though (ie the subjective quality of the picture), just adding light creates a completely different image to the one the photographers eye is seeing.

So - there’s nothing wrong with adding light, but it should be done for creative reasons rather than making the exposure ‘correct’. Therefore doing flash well requires a completely different skill set (and one most photographers are scared of).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top