Long exposure photography

[pcpaulh]

2 months on...

I understand the concept of using my camera manually now and have been giving it a good go. It's great how just just changiing one thihng can completly change your picture.

Ok theres been thousands of images probably exactly the same but I couldn't resist having a quick try at the long exposure lark today. Nothing exciting but quite good fun.

Not long exposure or from my camera, I took it a few months ago on my Dads although was pretty chuffed with it.

 

[Evan the Welsh Windbag]

Nice doggie pic. Who is it has done such a damn fine job of cleaning his teeth ? not a touch of plaque anywhere.... My Dachshund used to lacerate my fingers or cost a couple hundred quid at the vets to get half as good dentition.

Damn good example of the old limited depth of focus and artistic background blur through use of what.... Macro and / or wide aperture ?

Amongst the plethora of all these wonderful modern bits and pieces the best pics I have ever taken were and are with my Dad's old 1960 Voigtlander. Lenses assembled, allegedly, from the left over and un-used stockpile of lenses intended for Luftwaffe bomb sights. Though I have heard the same about most german post war makes, so its probably apocryphal.

The great thing being that it is a really really damn good lens assembly (and the lens is <u>everything</u>, don't let anyone ever tell you anything different) + all manually in your control as the default position. Rather than the opposite these days, everything automatic upfront a pain to disengage all the interlocks / restore unfettered manual.

You could do worse than buy an old 1950's type manual everything camera to play with - costs almost nowt on fleabay these days, all that fine engineering obsolete cos of digital *sigh* - just don't get sucked into the cult balls of Lomography and the like....

PS. Does anyone else remember a short lived magazine called 'The Image' towards the end of the 70's / early 80's ? Published some of the best photographs I have ever seen, a couple of which continue to haunt my visual memory.

 

[Ron 'The Hat' Clay (ACA)]

"The lens is everything".

That statement might have been true a few years ago but these days, modern digi cameras and Photoshop can actually correct most minor lens faults.

I well remember the hours I used to spend in the dark room, taking test strips, dodging and burning etc.But would I wish to do it again - never!!

No - even an old fart like myself will admit that modern digital photography is best. Gone are the days of those horrid chemicals that went down the drain. And the hours spent in the bathroom with those orangesafelights that made you see funny colours for hours afterwards.

And talk about creativity! Photoshop is an enormously creative tool that takes a hell of a lot of skill to use.

Modern photography should be welcomed with both hands and film photography consigned to the dark memories of the past.

 

[Wolfman Woody]

CHristian, you should join ThinkCamera and post that pic of the dog.

Unusual and brilliant!

Nose, teeth and whiskers all in spot-on focus.

 

[The Monk]

yes the lens is the main think people get blinded by the megapixel thing, although they do improve qualifty if you dont have a decent lens you are wasting your time

 

[DZ]

Credit where its due- the pic at the start of this thread was taken by Mark O'Neil - see the link- he's done some fantastic river work plus other stuff

http://barbelfishingworld.yuku.com/topic/1889?page=1

 

[MarkTheSpark]

<blockquote class=quoteheader>Ron 'The Hat' Clay (ACA) wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote>

"The lens is everything".

That statement might have been true a few years ago but these days, modern digi cameras and Photoshop can actually correct most minor lens faults.

I well remember the hours I used to spend in the dark room, taking test strips, dodging and burning etc.But would I wish to do it again - never!!

No - even an old fart like myself will admit that modern digital photography is best. Gone are the days of those horrid chemicals that went down the drain. And the hours spent in the bathroom with those orangesafelights that made you see funny colours for hours afterwards.

And talk about creativity! Photoshop is an enormously creative tool that takes a hell of a lot of skill to use.

Modern photography should be welcomed with both hands and film photography consigned to the dark memories of the past.</blockquote>

Sorry Ron, but I have to disgree with you on many levels. No software on earth will sharpen an unsharp image - it can fudge the image and do something which looks sharp, but if that information wasn't recorded in the original image, it's not there.

Secondly, digital is indeed impressive; it's what I use all the time. But the clue is in the name; it's digital, and as such every image has a finite limit beyond which it cannot be pushed. Take my D200; a frame is 3800-odd pixels wide, so on standard 300dpi print media, will got to a foot or so wide. That's it. You can manufacture more pixels from the ones you've got to make it wider, but it won't get better.

Film is analogue, limited only by the grain structure of the film. In recent years, slide film got truly impressive, and it was quite reasonable to expect to blow a 50 ISO picture three feet wide without being able to see the grain.

My mate (the formerly well-known angler Tony Lovell) wins the local camera club prizes most years. Guess what? All his pictures are shot on film.

With total digital obsession, we are definitely throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

 

[MarkTheSpark]

Sorry, Christian, Ron and I have hijacked your thread. Your pics are great, the dog one brilliant. Stick at it.

This one is a bit average, but I thought you might like to see it nonetheless/members/images/8922/Gallery/peterborough.jpg

 

[pcpaulh]

Cheers Mark, don't worry about hijacking it, makes good reading.

One question though, HDR? Does it just consist of taking one under exposed, one normal and one over exposed shot and layering them all onto each other?

I'm guessing it isn't quite that simple just wondering if I have the basic idea right.

 

[Ron 'The Hat' Clay (ACA)]

I thought I might get a few comments from people who still maintain that film is best, and I did.

I understand the thinking behind Mark's comments and the analogue nature of film. However when you start taking pictures in RAW with upwards of 10 megapixels,I reach a point whereI wonder if any better in terms of megapixels is really worth worrying about.

I was testing a new lens this afternoon to check on it's performance. It is a 55-200 mm f/4-5.6 Nikkor VR zoom and to tell the truth the resolution is more than good enough for me. I mounted my D300 camera on a tripod and took a series of photographs of brick walls and windows at the topand bottom ends of the focal length, at a variety of shutter speeds, apertures and ISO settings between 50 and 6400.

Without going into too much detail, this lens is good enough for me and in Nikon terms it's a cheapy.

I very much doubt that my own eyes would be capable of telling the difference between ISO 50 film and an ISO 50 rated 10 + megapixel digital camera.

 

[Frothey]

christian - you can do it withthree images, but its better to take6 or 7. change the exposure time, not the aperture as that will alter the depth of field

 

[The Monk]

<blockquote class=quoteheader>MarkTheSpark wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote><blockquote class=quoteheader>Ron 'The Hat' Clay (ACA) wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote>

"The lens is everything".

That statement might have been true a few years ago but these days, modern digi cameras and Photoshop can actually correct most minor lens faults.

I well remember the hours I used to spend in the dark room, taking test strips, dodging and burning etc.But would I wish to do it again - never!!

No - even an old fart like myself will admit that modern digital photography is best. Gone are the days of those horrid chemicals that went down the drain. And the hours spent in the bathroom with those orangesafelights that made you see funny colours for hours afterwards.

And talk about creativity! Photoshop is an enormously creative tool that takes a hell of a lot of skill to use.

Modern photography should be welcomed with both hands and film photography consigned to the dark memories of the past.</blockquote>

Sorry Ron, but I have to disgree with you on many levels. No software on earth will sharpen an unsharp image - it can fudge the image and do something which looks sharp, but if that information wasn't recorded in the original image, it's not there.

Secondly, digital is indeed impressive; it's what I use all the time. But the clue is in the name; it's digital, and as such every image has a finite limit beyond which it cannot be pushed. Take my D200; a frame is 3800-odd pixels wide, so on standard 300dpi print media, will got to a foot or so wide. That's it. You can manufacture more pixels from the ones you've got to make it wider, but it won't get better.

Film is analogue, limited only by the grain structure of the film. In recent years, slide film got truly impressive, and it was quite reasonable to expect to blow a 50 ISO picture three feet wide without being able to see the grain.

My mate (the formerly well-known angler Tony Lovell) wins the local camera club prizes most years. Guess what? All his pictures are shot on film.

With total digital obsession, we are definitely throwing the baby out with the bathwater...</blockquote>
yes totally agree Mark, anyomne want to buy a Nikon F5 for £599.00

 

[MarkTheSpark]

Haven't you sold that thing yet? Swap you for an F90X Pro....