Calling all long exposure people!

I am trying to tackle long exposure and it is kicking my butt! I went out and messed around and well came back with pics that need to be trashed. . What are some tips in making LE pictures turn out? Thanks!!


There are going to be a lot of "why in the world did you do xyz" ha! IDK why I did that is why I am asking you

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/RKDb​if

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/RKDc​5A

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/T3c6​9a

I fail to see anything wrong with the long exposure aspect of your image.
There are other problems...such as DOF. Your near stones are OOF...why?

chauncey wrote in post #18304049
I fail to see anything wrong with the long exposure aspect of your image.
There are other problems...such as DOF. Your near stones are OOF...why?

IDK why it is OOF? When I did the test shot...AV,F11,set focal point, changed to Manual, put filter on, took picture. I read to do it that way.

Jessi, Like Chauncy, I also don't see anything wrong with your exposure in the first image. There are other issues with the image that make it a less desireable image. Like a lack of an interesting subject and high contrast between your lights and darks, but that may not have been the reason for this image (I can assume since you are trying out a new technique).

Long exposures in art photography are typically done to play with the effect of time, as you show here. Unlike conventional images, that aspect plays a strong part in the composition but is never the main subject. You still need a strong composition to your image. That may be one reason why you are unsatisfied with your images.

Then there is the technical aspect of the technique. Choosing the right time of day (or night) is still important to making a great image. High contrast shadows on a subject is hardly ever appealing, no matter what shooting technique you are using. Long exposure techniques won't solve that problem and likely exacerbates the problem.

As for the DoF issue, that is a result of basic light physics. When dealing with apertures, we know that the larger the opening the more light comes in at once. The more light the more scatter resulting in more blur outside the focal field. In long exposures, even with a closed up aperture, the fact that the shutter is open longer will allow the sensor to capture more of the light scatter than in a regular exposure. This will result in a slight (depending on length of time) shift of DoF.

Two obvious solution to your issue above is to pick a time of day where the exposure range is within your camera's ability and then pick a subject matter/composition that will make people say, "wow". Once you have that, adding a long exposure will make for a truly stunning image.

Just my two bits. Best of luck.

mamaof2 wrote in post #18304057
IDK why it is OOF? When I did the test shot...AV,F11,set focal point, changed to Manual, put filter on, took picture. I read to do it that way.

But the three images that you have posted were all shot at f5.6

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php

You may want to start 1 thread to ask your questions. Otherwise, the discussions kinda get bifurcated.

As I mentioned in your other thread, you need to shoot with a smaller aperture and a shorter FL or both. If 55mm is your shortest FL, then you need to step way back. If you want things that are just a few feet from you, as well as things that are say several hundred feet away from you, or even up to the horizon, to be in focus, you'll need a wide angle lens or go to F/18 or something like that. This is where a DOF calculator comes in handy.

And a wide angle lens. There is a 10-18 STM on sale at the Canon refurb sale for 200 bucks. It's a very good lens and of you like landscapes, I would strongly urge you to pick one up.

-Duck- wrote in post #18304117
Then there is the technical aspect of the technique. Choosing the right time of day (or night) is still important to making a great image. High contrast shadows on a subject is hardly ever appealing, no matter what shooting technique you are using. Long exposure techniques won't solve that problem and likely exacerbates the problem...
Two obvious solution to your issue above is to pick a time of day where the exposure range is within your camera's ability and then pick a subject matter/composition that will make people say, "wow". Once you have that, adding a long exposure will make for a truly stunning image.

Very early in the morning, & very late in the evening will help to solve your contrast problem, + the colors of the light will be more interesting. (But not so much in B&W.)

I feel like the typical uses for long exposure are to show motion, or to sometimes flatten out rough water...but i think the shot without long exposure needs to be interesting before adding the filter...this looks like just a shot of a couple rocks...

john crossley wrote in post #18304142
But the three images that you have posted were all shot at f5.6

Forget about AV: Manual in perpetuity.

The camera was probably left set to f/5.6 in manual mode, and used that when you switched from the semi-auto mode. Values set in different modes do not carry over to others.

Focus a third of the way into the frame and you should be OK. Even better, use f/16: the diffraction monster only goes after the pixel peepers. And using a smaller aperture will add to your exposure time, which in this case is what you want.

*Do not go to f/22, however. Diffraction does shew even to normal viewers at such aperture.

My recommendation is to put the long expsosure stuff on the shelf for a bit. Play around with your aperture, FL and focusing distance and figure out how to get all your points of interest in focus, from the closest object of interest to the farthest. One tip - if you have to choose, get the closest object in focus, even if that means the distant stuff isn't (ideally, both will be in focus of course). The eye is drawn to OOF objects close in, but tends to ignore OOF objects far away.

Once you get the regular exposure shots down pat, then add the long exposure element.

DreDaze wrote in post #18304199
I feel like the typical uses for long exposure are to show motion, or to sometimes flatten out rough water...but i think the shot without long exposure needs to be interesting before adding the filter...this looks like just a shot of a couple rocks...

I went out just to mess around with LE, I know it is not an exciting picture but it was just to play around with. This also was moving/splashing water..it was located on the Mississippi River.

I want to thank you all for taking the time to post! I am reading through them all and will learn from each of you. Thanks again!