Let's see your Long Exposure shots
- Thread starter xtm
- Start date
xtm
Active member
Lego&Jacub
New member
Love all the photos!! One day I'll have to give this a try... maybe once we get some nice weather back again.
xtm
Active member
I know, but there was just too much light!
oops, I just realized that some of your shots were of Yosemite. Man I really need to go back.
Last edited:
XSharkboyX
Wishin' I Was Fishin'
Some really GREAT shots here!
A long exposure has the same file size as a short one.
The problem is doing HDR on subjects that are moving. It can still be done via manual blending but most HDR applications wouldn't give very good results.
andrewkw
Active member
Not really what you guys have in mind but :
This is about 3 hours of exposure time, broken down into 8 minute sub frames, stacked together to make a single photo.
This was my first and still only attempt at imaging something over 2 nights. There is 6-7 HOURS of exposure time with 5 minute sub frames stacked together. This is the galaxy M81 (Bode's Galaxy) a spiral galaxy about 12 million light-years away in the constellation Ursa Major.
My photos are noisy due to the fact I live in a heavily light polluted area. I have a filter directly over my camera's sensor to block most light pollution but its no comparison to a dark sky. I simply couldn't do most of the wonderful night shots posted here. My camera also has the IR filter removed to make it more sensitive to the red colour spectrum.
This is about 3 hours of exposure time, broken down into 8 minute sub frames, stacked together to make a single photo.
This was my first and still only attempt at imaging something over 2 nights. There is 6-7 HOURS of exposure time with 5 minute sub frames stacked together. This is the galaxy M81 (Bode's Galaxy) a spiral galaxy about 12 million light-years away in the constellation Ursa Major.
My photos are noisy due to the fact I live in a heavily light polluted area. I have a filter directly over my camera's sensor to block most light pollution but its no comparison to a dark sky. I simply couldn't do most of the wonderful night shots posted here. My camera also has the IR filter removed to make it more sensitive to the red colour spectrum.
I'll throw two in. The first is from my visit to Vietnam last year, in a place called Cat Ba. It is a 16 second exposure.
This next one is a goof off photo taken at a friend's kiln firing. He is a potter. The "ghost" in the photo is a mutual friend who had been suckered into feeding the kiln large logs all night, in return for beer. 8 second exposure, both shots on a tripod.
This next one is a goof off photo taken at a friend's kiln firing. He is a potter. The "ghost" in the photo is a mutual friend who had been suckered into feeding the kiln large logs all night, in return for beer. 8 second exposure, both shots on a tripod.
Brett9917
New member
Really? I was always under the impression that long exposure shots were larger files because of the amount of data it has to collect for the time the shutter is open... hmm
Beer, you can sucker just about anyone into anything in return for that nectar! :hmm3:
IPT
Active member
It's not that it collects more data, just that it takes a longer time to collect it. In fact, and I will stand corrected if I am wrong, some daytime images are likely larger files. In a night time shot there is lots of black, often blank areas. Compare that to the details that need to be stored in an image of say fall folliage, or an intricate ice crystal. It will take a lot more information to "map" the detailed image.
IPT
Active member
doug - hope you get some good shots! Clouds are moving in here 
.
XTM - I like 2 and three. Especially the warm glow on the stairs in 2 and the water by the rocks on 3.
MAL - thanks - yeah, that was near full eclipse. The city shot is not HDR. it was actually taken with a MF camera many years ago - before most if any of us were even using PS. It was taken using Fuji Velvia film. That film was known for it's rich color saturation but tended to be pretty contrasty. That is probably part of what added the "punch" to images taken with that film.
. XTM - I like 2 and three. Especially the warm glow on the stairs in 2 and the water by the rocks on 3.
MAL - thanks - yeah, that was near full eclipse. The city shot is not HDR. it was actually taken with a MF camera many years ago - before most if any of us were even using PS. It was taken using Fuji Velvia film. That film was known for it's rich color saturation but tended to be pretty contrasty. That is probably part of what added the "punch" to images taken with that film.
Similar threads
