Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

long shutter speeds

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
August 5, 2005 3:07:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Say if a picture has a 15 second shutter speed, is the image taken at the
beginning of the 15 seconds or at the end?

More about : long shutter speeds

Anonymous
August 5, 2005 3:07:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Assuming you're not being funny, it's taken for the whole 15 seconds.
T-0: shutter opens, light comes in and hits film or sensor. T+15:
shutter closes, exposure is complete.
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 3:07:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 23:07:36 +0100, in rec.photo.digital "Beck"
<my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote:

>Say if a picture has a 15 second shutter speed, is the image taken at the
>beginning of the 15 seconds or at the end?

Yes, and in between.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Related resources
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 3:07:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 23:07:36 +0100, Beck wrote:

> Say if a picture has a 15 second shutter speed, is the image taken at the
> beginning of the 15 seconds or at the end?

Think about it. If you stay out in the sun for two hours to
develop a 'tan', did the sunlight that produced the tan come at the
beginning or the end of the two hour period? <g>

Same thing with cameras. It's because the entire time is used to
provide light for the image that the subject has to be as stationary
as possible while the shutter is open, or the image will be blurred.
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 3:07:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Beck asks ...
>
>if I took a 10 second shutter picture on moving cars to get
>that long headlight effect how does it manage
>to picture the cars as the cars would be gone in 10 seconds.

What happens is the car lights will record as streaks but the darker
bodies of the cars will not record, or if they do, as dark blurs.

Here are a couple of shots I took recently in a forest with contrasty
light, the lightest areas are specular highlights reflecting off leaves
.... I think these were 1/4 and 1/2 sec and I moved the camera while the
shutter was open ...
http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/forest_2_detail...
http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/forest_1.jpg

Try it, experiment, with digital it's free and you get instant feedback
to see if you need to modify the shutter speed, so don't be afraid to
give it a go. My wife took several really nice impressionistic pics
out the car window a couple days ago by just shooting at long shutter
speeds when she saw colors that might look good blended together.

Bill
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 3:07:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Hilton wrote:
>> Beck asks ...
>>
>> if I took a 10 second shutter picture on moving cars to get
>> that long headlight effect how does it manage
>> to picture the cars as the cars would be gone in 10 seconds.
>
> What happens is the car lights will record as streaks but the darker
> bodies of the cars will not record, or if they do, as dark blurs.
>
> Here are a couple of shots I took recently in a forest with
> contrasty
> light, the lightest areas are specular highlights reflecting off
> leaves ... I think these were 1/4 and 1/2 sec and I moved the camera
> while the shutter was open ...
> http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/forest_2_detail...
> http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/forest_1.jpg
>
> Try it, experiment, with digital it's free and you get instant
> feedback to see if you need to modify the shutter speed, so don't be
> afraid to give it a go. My wife took several really nice
> impressionistic pics out the car window a couple days ago by just
> shooting at long shutter speeds when she saw colors that might look
> good blended together.
>

Ahemty-some years ago I was practicing to photograph a night road-race
at Riverside International Raceway. My daughter drove her Satellite
back and forth on a road, and I experimented with shutter-speeds and
flash. I ended up with about twenty tries on color print film, and had
a pretty good idea how to proceed. What happened? My support system
broke down and I missed the race entirely. But I was ready. This is
the only shot I kept, if I recall correctly:
http://home.san.rr.com/fsheff/pictures/sateli0s.jpg

Looks as if the car is flying backwards. Pan-moving the camera the
opposite direction, but not too much, left the light streaks on the
car's body, attractive in its own way.

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 3:35:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ed Ruf" <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:o r55f15for1b20qgqph9a2e2a12mj1hb9d@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 23:07:36 +0100, in rec.photo.digital "Beck"
> <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Say if a picture has a 15 second shutter speed, is the image taken at the
>>beginning of the 15 seconds or at the end?
>
> Yes, and in between.
> ----------
> Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
> See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
> http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...

Do digital sensors suffer from the digital equivalent of film reciprocity
failure?
August 5, 2005 3:39:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The image is formed during the entire time the shutter is open.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Beck" <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote in message
news:3lfhtiF12ktnrU1@individual.net...
> Say if a picture has a 15 second shutter speed, is the image taken at the
> beginning of the 15 seconds or at the end?
>
>
August 5, 2005 5:01:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

BD wrote:
> Assuming you're not being funny, it's taken for the whole 15 seconds.
> T-0: shutter opens, light comes in and hits film or sensor. T+15:
> shutter closes, exposure is complete.

Sorry I wasn't being funny, just an untalented newbie ;-)
I thought that maybe it took a shot at the start and then spent the next 15
seconds dealing with the correct exposure or something like that.
August 5, 2005 5:03:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tony wrote:
> The image is formed during the entire time the shutter is open.

Okay so onto the next stupid question, Say if I took a 10 second shutter
picture on moving cars to get that long headlight effect how does it manage
to picture the cars as the cars would be gone in 10 seconds.
I know these must seem really silly questions to you all, but I am trying to
gain an understanding of shutter speeds and their effect on the picture.
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 5:03:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Beck wrote:
> Tony wrote:
>
>>The image is formed during the entire time the shutter is open.
>
>
> Okay so onto the next stupid question, Say if I took a 10 second shutter
> picture on moving cars to get that long headlight effect how does it manage
> to picture the cars as the cars would be gone in 10 seconds.
> I know these must seem really silly questions to you all, but I am trying to
> gain an understanding of shutter speeds and their effect on the picture.
>

Not it is to think and post. For you but to shoot and think, do. Again
then do four hundred times.

--
yoda
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 5:04:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 01:03:34 +0100, "Beck"
<my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote:

>Tony wrote:
>> The image is formed during the entire time the shutter is open.
>
>Okay so onto the next stupid question, Say if I took a 10 second shutter
>picture on moving cars to get that long headlight effect how does it manage
>to picture the cars as the cars would be gone in 10 seconds.
>I know these must seem really silly questions to you all, but I am trying to
>gain an understanding of shutter speeds and their effect on the picture.
>

Get thee to a Library and read some basic photography books.


*********************************************************

"It looked like the sort of book described in library
catalogues as "slightly foxed", although it would be
more honest to admit that it looked as though it had
been badgered, wolved and possibly beared as well."

_Light Fantastic_
Terry Pratchett
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 5:04:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John A. Stovall wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 01:03:34 +0100, "Beck"
> <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>Tony wrote:
>>
>>>The image is formed during the entire time the shutter is open.
>>
>>Okay so onto the next stupid question, Say if I took a 10 second shutter
>>picture on moving cars to get that long headlight effect how does it manage
>>to picture the cars as the cars would be gone in 10 seconds.
>>I know these must seem really silly questions to you all, but I am trying to
>>gain an understanding of shutter speeds and their effect on the picture.
>>
>
>
> Get thee to a Library and read some basic photography books.
>
Mr. Stovall and I made opposite suggestions at the same moment, but
mine, in a effort to be entertaining to Star Wars fans, was semi-opaque.

I am suggesting you simply do what you ask, observe the results, and
then ask more questions....and read some books, search the web, etc. as
others have suggested.

Best of luck!

--

John McWilliams
August 5, 2005 5:04:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 23:07:36 +0100, Beck wrote:
>
>> Say if a picture has a 15 second shutter speed, is the image taken
>> at the beginning of the 15 seconds or at the end?
>
> Think about it. If you stay out in the sun for two hours to
> develop a 'tan', did the sunlight that produced the tan come at the
> beginning or the end of the two hour period? <g>
>
> Same thing with cameras. It's because the entire time is used to
> provide light for the image that the subject has to be as stationary
> as possible while the shutter is open, or the image will be blurred.

Thankyou. So what situations would I want to use a long (say 10 second)
shutter speed for?
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 5:04:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 01:04:25 +0100, "Beck"
<my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote:

>ASAAR wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 23:07:36 +0100, Beck wrote:
>>
>>> Say if a picture has a 15 second shutter speed, is the image taken
>>> at the beginning of the 15 seconds or at the end?
>>
>> Think about it. If you stay out in the sun for two hours to
>> develop a 'tan', did the sunlight that produced the tan come at the
>> beginning or the end of the two hour period? <g>
>>
>> Same thing with cameras. It's because the entire time is used to
>> provide light for the image that the subject has to be as stationary
>> as possible while the shutter is open, or the image will be blurred.
>
>Thankyou. So what situations would I want to use a long (say 10 second)
>shutter speed for?
>
I think you are definitely ready to buy a book on basic photography.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 5:04:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Beck wrote:
>
> ASAAR wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 23:07:36 +0100, Beck wrote:
> >
> >> Say if a picture has a 15 second shutter speed, is the image taken
> >> at the beginning of the 15 seconds or at the end?
> >
> > Think about it. If you stay out in the sun for two hours to
> > develop a 'tan', did the sunlight that produced the tan come at the
> > beginning or the end of the two hour period? <g>
> >
> > Same thing with cameras. It's because the entire time is used to
> > provide light for the image that the subject has to be as stationary
> > as possible while the shutter is open, or the image will be blurred.
>
> Thankyou. So what situations would I want to use a long (say 10 second)
> shutter speed for?

I'm no genius at this stuff as I've just started myself but I've put
four night shots on my msn group for you to look at

http://groups.msn.com/OtherSides/night.msnw

All taken roughly from the same place way after midnight and using the
light at the other side of the river to focus... camera on a tripod.
The first shot had just 1.2 seconds exposure and is quite hard to make
out details, but the river looks almost natural. Second shot was for 3
seconds at a slightly different position and you'll see there's a lot
more light and the water has a smoother look. The third is the same
shot almost but on 8 seconds, much more light coming in and the water
has taken on an almost glassy appearance. The fourth was just for fun
as I'm so new to this. I took the pic as a tug came through the frame.
It's a five second exposure and you can see the effect of that length
had on the tug, but it was fun.

problem is if your cam, like mine, isn't really up to it you may find
a lot of noise in your longer exposures.
--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 5:04:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 01:04:25 +0100, Beck wrote:

>> Same thing with cameras. It's because the entire time is used to
>> provide light for the image that the subject has to be as stationary
>> as possible while the shutter is open, or the image will be blurred.
>
> Thankyou. So what situations would I want to use a long (say 10 second)
> shutter speed for?

Well, first note that long exposures aren't even possible with
many P&S cameras, since the slowest shutter speeds are commonly in
the 4 to 8 second range. One such would be to close the aperture
(to minimize the light reaching the sensor on a fairly dark night)
and take a very long exposure hoping to catch lightning flashes,
meteor trails, fireworks, etc. Digital cameras that allow very
long exposures usually have a noise reduction (aka dark frame
subtraction) feature, but that's another topic . . . :) 

You could also use a very long exposure if you actually *want* the
movement of the subject to stand out in stark contrast to the
motionless background. Think of pictures of a highway, where you
don't really see much of the vehicles, but you see the long, bright
lines created by their headlights, taillights and brake lights. If
there's too much available light to permit very long exposures, you
could reduce the light reaching the sensor by using a neutral
density filter. This might be useful when trying to take blurred
shots of 'pedestrian' traffic during the daytime.
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 5:12:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 23:35:53 GMT, "JasWms" <Jaswill00@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>"Ed Ruf" <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:o r55f15for1b20qgqph9a2e2a12mj1hb9d@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 23:07:36 +0100, in rec.photo.digital "Beck"
>> <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Say if a picture has a 15 second shutter speed, is the image taken at the
>>>beginning of the 15 seconds or at the end?
>>
>> Yes, and in between.
>> ----------
>> Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
>> See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
>> http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
>
>Do digital sensors suffer from the digital equivalent of film reciprocity
>failure?
>

http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/astro/pages_e/03_e.html

http://www.schoolofphotography.com/night/night2.html#rl...

No.


*********************************************************

"It looked like the sort of book described in library
catalogues as "slightly foxed", although it would be
more honest to admit that it looked as though it had
been badgered, wolved and possibly beared as well."

_Light Fantastic_
Terry Pratchett
August 5, 2005 5:22:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 01:04:25 +0100, "Beck"
> <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote:
>
>> ASAAR wrote:
>>> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 23:07:36 +0100, Beck wrote:
>>>
>>>> Say if a picture has a 15 second shutter speed, is the image taken
>>>> at the beginning of the 15 seconds or at the end?
>>>
>>> Think about it. If you stay out in the sun for two hours to
>>> develop a 'tan', did the sunlight that produced the tan come at the
>>> beginning or the end of the two hour period? <g>
>>>
>>> Same thing with cameras. It's because the entire time is used to
>>> provide light for the image that the subject has to be as stationary
>>> as possible while the shutter is open, or the image will be blurred.
>>
>> Thankyou. So what situations would I want to use a long (say 10
>> second) shutter speed for?
>>
> I think you are definitely ready to buy a book on basic photography.

I have two, they just do not mention long shutter speeds.
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 5:22:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 01:22:47 +0100, "Beck"
<my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote:

>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 01:04:25 +0100, "Beck"
>> <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> ASAAR wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 23:07:36 +0100, Beck wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Say if a picture has a 15 second shutter speed, is the image taken
>>>>> at the beginning of the 15 seconds or at the end?
>>>>
>>>> Think about it. If you stay out in the sun for two hours to
>>>> develop a 'tan', did the sunlight that produced the tan come at the
>>>> beginning or the end of the two hour period? <g>
>>>>
>>>> Same thing with cameras. It's because the entire time is used to
>>>> provide light for the image that the subject has to be as stationary
>>>> as possible while the shutter is open, or the image will be blurred.
>>>
>>> Thankyou. So what situations would I want to use a long (say 10
>>> second) shutter speed for?
>>>
>> I think you are definitely ready to buy a book on basic photography.
>
>I have two, they just do not mention long shutter speeds.
>
All you're doing is extending the shutter open time; the same rules
apply whether the shutter is open 1/1000 seconds, or 10 seconds. The
sensor sees what is before it.
As to why you would want a 10 second shutter opening, it would
obviously be because that's how much time it would take for proper
exposure at the aperture you're using.
Think about that: what would require a 10 second shutter time? Maybe a
very low light situation?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 5:22:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In news:3lfpr3F129jlpU1@individual.net "Beck"
<my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote:

> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>
>> I think you are definitely ready to buy a book on basic photography.
>
> I have two, they just do not mention long shutter speeds.

But surely they must mention something about the relationships among
shutter speed, aperture and exposure.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com
August 5, 2005 5:42:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bert Hyman wrote:
> In news:3lfpr3F129jlpU1@individual.net "Beck"
> <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>>
>>> I think you are definitely ready to buy a book on basic photography.
>>
>> I have two, they just do not mention long shutter speeds.
>
> But surely they must mention something about the relationships among
> shutter speed, aperture and exposure.

They do go into the relationship between the shutter and the aperture but
not for very long shutter speeds.
Like for example to freeze the action of flowing water would be a fast
shutter speed or to capture the expression of movement it would be a slow
shutter speed but it doesn't say what speeds. So if for example the
difference in speeds could be 1/60 of a second or 1/1000 of a second that
would be understandable, but I don't know about much longer speeds like 10
or 15 seconds.
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 5:42:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Beck wrote:
> Bert Hyman wrote:
>
>>In news:3lfpr3F129jlpU1@individual.net "Beck"
>><my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote:

>>>Bill Funk wrote:
>>>
>>>>I think you are definitely ready to buy a book on basic photography.
>>>
>>>I have two, they just do not mention long shutter speeds.
>>
>>But surely they must mention something about the relationships among
>>shutter speed, aperture and exposure.

> They do go into the relationship between the shutter and the aperture but
> not for very long shutter speeds.
> Like for example to freeze the action of flowing water would be a fast
> shutter speed or to capture the expression of movement it would be a slow
> shutter speed but it doesn't say what speeds. So if for example the
> difference in speeds could be 1/60 of a second or 1/1000 of a second that
> would be understandable, but I don't know about much longer speeds like 10
> or 15 seconds.

What do you need to know about 10 or 15 seconds that you don't already
know about 1/60 or 1/1000? A longer shutter time means more light to
the sensor and more opportunity for motion blur. There is nothing
mysterious about it.

You can't break your camera by playing with it. (Well, maybe you can,
but I've never broken mine that way. :-)) Try a 10 second exposure
of a scene with indoor lighting and see what you get. Now try the same
scene at 1/1000. How do the two images differ? Why do they differ?
How do the colors look? Does fiddling with the white balance change
how the colors look?

Paul Allen
August 5, 2005 5:56:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Funk wrote:
> All you're doing is extending the shutter open time; the same rules
> apply whether the shutter is open 1/1000 seconds, or 10 seconds. The
> sensor sees what is before it.
> As to why you would want a 10 second shutter opening, it would
> obviously be because that's how much time it would take for proper
> exposure at the aperture you're using.
> Think about that: what would require a 10 second shutter time? Maybe a
> very low light situation?

London Skyline maybe? Although it might need an extra 5 minutes just to get
through the smog ;-)
August 5, 2005 8:25:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You mean like this ===
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/gallery2/wcpe/wcpe01/wcpe...

The lights are going to be many times brighter than the body of the car so
the body will not record unless it stays in one place (in relationship to
the camera) for a fair amount of the exposure.
Here is one where the cars did stay in pretty much the same relative
position to the camera throughout a long exposure, but since all the cars
(including the one with the camera) are moving, the ground and sky are
blurred.
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/tvag/tvag03/tvag0303.html

And in the opening shot for my site I have a long exposure that includes a
bus moving away from the camera, a car moving toward it and the moon.
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/menu/gallery0.html


--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Beck" <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote in message
news:3lfon2F12a2vdU1@individual.net...
> Tony wrote:
> > The image is formed during the entire time the shutter is open.
>
> Okay so onto the next stupid question, Say if I took a 10 second shutter
> picture on moving cars to get that long headlight effect how does it
manage
> to picture the cars as the cars would be gone in 10 seconds.
> I know these must seem really silly questions to you all, but I am trying
to
> gain an understanding of shutter speeds and their effect on the picture.
>
>
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 9:44:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 04:25:24 GMT, in rec.photo.digital "Tony"
<tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote:

>And in the opening shot for my site I have a long exposure that includes a
>bus moving away from the camera, a car moving toward it and the moon.
>http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/menu/gallery0.html


FWIW, you have a link on the word Galleries itself
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/galleryone
that appears to be incorrect. My guess is it is a leftover from a previous
incarnation of the page.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 12:11:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Hilton <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:
: >Beck asks ...
: >
: >if I took a 10 second shutter picture on moving cars to get
: >that long headlight effect how does it manage
: >to picture the cars as the cars would be gone in 10 seconds.

: What happens is the car lights will record as streaks but the darker
: bodies of the cars will not record, or if they do, as dark blurs.

One way to fix this (if the car body needs to be seen) is to put a flash
near the cars and trigger it remotely. One other way to do this is to put
a strobe light set on a very slow speed. As long as the strobe flash rate
is longer than the shutter speed you will get only one flash per exposure.
The car bodys in the immediate range of the strobe will be frozen in that
location, while the long exposure will give the streaky lights from the
moving vehicles. On the other hand, if you set the flash rate faster than
the shutter speed you would get a headlight streak and a series of images
of the car body. This is one way to get those multi exposure images that
show an entire movement in one image (most often used with a golf swing or
other athletic motion).

One caution, be sure to either find a way to give the drivers prior notice
that light flashes will be happening or place the strobe far enough away
that the sudden bright flash will not overly disturb the drivers. You
really don't want to cause a multiple car pileup, even if it would be an
incredible photo. The jail time and court judgements just wouldn't be
worth it. :) 

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 12:32:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Allen <"paul dot l dot allen at comcast dot net"> wrote:

: What do you need to know about 10 or 15 seconds that you don't already
: know about 1/60 or 1/1000? A longer shutter time means more light to
: the sensor and more opportunity for motion blur. There is nothing
: mysterious about it.

: You can't break your camera by playing with it. (Well, maybe you can,
: but I've never broken mine that way. :-)) Try a 10 second exposure
: of a scene with indoor lighting and see what you get. Now try the same
: scene at 1/1000. How do the two images differ? Why do they differ?
: How do the colors look? Does fiddling with the white balance change
: how the colors look?

I agree with this statement. The best way to find what YOUR camera will do
in "non standard" situations is to experiment. Sometimes just by trying
something it will give you interresting ideas for future "keeper" images.
For example, go out at night in a dimly lit area and set your camera up on
a tripod and try a 30 sec exposure at various apertures. You may be
suprized at how bright the scene can become. Or try another exposure with
the shutter locked open (on "bulb") while you walk around infront of the
lens waiving a flashlight. Keep your body out of the way of the flashlight
and not being lit by it. The result will be glowing trails suspended in
the air.

One other use of extra long exposures is to remove moving objects. For
example, a long exposure of a building front with moving traffic infront
of it, will allow the moving objects (the cars) to blur out of existence.
Of course you will have to find a way to darken the incoming light to the
point that a long exposure durring the day won't become way over exposed.
But a series of ND filters can make this possible. :) 

One other "long exposure" trick I have seen is in extra dark situations.
One such demonstration I saw was an image taken in a cave. The camera was
set up and opened up, then the people wandered around the cave room using
hand held flashes to "paint with light" by flashing the flash guns at
various sections of the walls and around the various features. The result
was an image that looked as if there were several hundred spot lights in
the room while in reality it was two lights and an exposure of about 20
min (yes MIN). :) 

Many ideas may come your way from those who have experimented with extra
long exposures, the only way to know how to make them work with your
particular equipment and situations is to experiment. The more
experimenting you do the more of a feeling you will get for how to get the
image you want.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 1:18:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JasWms wrote:
> "Ed Ruf" <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:o r55f15for1b20qgqph9a2e2a12mj1hb9d@4ax.com...
>
>>On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 23:07:36 +0100, in rec.photo.digital "Beck"
>><my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Say if a picture has a 15 second shutter speed, is the image taken at the
>>>beginning of the 15 seconds or at the end?
>>
>>Yes, and in between.
>>----------
>>Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
>>See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
>>http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
>
>
> Do digital sensors suffer from the digital equivalent of film reciprocity
> failure?
>
>
To a very slight extent, so slight as to be virtually unnoticable and
only of theoretical importance. There is an increase in noise, however,
but the final exposure is extremely linear with time. This assumes the
well does not fill.
August 5, 2005 1:58:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Allen wrote:

> What do you need to know about 10 or 15 seconds that you don't already
> know about 1/60 or 1/1000? A longer shutter time means more light to
> the sensor and more opportunity for motion blur. There is nothing
> mysterious about it.
>
> You can't break your camera by playing with it. (Well, maybe you can,
> but I've never broken mine that way. :-)) Try a 10 second exposure
> of a scene with indoor lighting and see what you get. Now try the
> same scene at 1/1000. How do the two images differ? Why do they
> differ? How do the colors look? Does fiddling with the white balance
> change how the colors look?

So basically its all about motion blur? The longer the shutter speed the
blurrier the picture? Well if someone had explained that earlier it would
have made sense. I am not a pro and have read several books but it never
covered that aspect of picture taking.
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 1:58:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Beck <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote:

: So basically its all about motion blur? The longer the shutter speed
: the blurrier the picture? Well if someone had explained that earlier
: it would have made sense. I am not a pro and have read several books
: but it never covered that aspect of picture taking.

Yes and no. One application of long exposures is creating blur. Another is
to adjust for lower light conditions. The image is created by a a certain
quantity of photons of light energy striking a light sensitive element
(electronic or chemical) and then converting the reaction of that (and
many other) element(s) into regions of light and dark (or light and color
in a color image) on some form of display (photo paper, screen, printed
image, etc). So the longer the sensitive element is exposed to the light
source, the more photons that can interact with the element. In low light,
the longer the shutter speed the more potential for light gathering, and
the brighter the resulting image.

Another use of longer shutter speeds is to allow or create motion blur to
one extent or other. And the reverse is also true. To reduce motion blur
you would shorten the shutter speed. The same image may evoke very
different emotional responses depending on the use of motion blur. A
waterfall with motion stopping shutter speeds will look very different
than the same image taken with a longer shutter speed.

There are also other creative uses of long shutter, but these are the most
frequent used. So saying that it is all about motion blur is partly right.
:) 

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 1:58:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <3lgo2oF12f329U1@individual.net>,
Beck <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote:
>
>So basically its all about motion blur? The longer the shutter speed the
>blurrier the picture?

Only if your subject/camera is moving.

I've done a 45 minute exposure - most objects in it were not blurred at all,
except for the stars, which drew nice little arcs around Polaris.
August 5, 2005 2:00:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Hilton wrote:
>> Beck asks ...
>>
>> if I took a 10 second shutter picture on moving cars to get
>> that long headlight effect how does it manage
>> to picture the cars as the cars would be gone in 10 seconds.
>
> What happens is the car lights will record as streaks but the darker
> bodies of the cars will not record, or if they do, as dark blurs.
>
> Here are a couple of shots I took recently in a forest with contrasty
> light, the lightest areas are specular highlights reflecting off
> leaves ... I think these were 1/4 and 1/2 sec and I moved the camera
> while the shutter was open ...
> http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/forest_2_detail...
> http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/forest_1.jpg
>
> Try it, experiment, with digital it's free and you get instant
> feedback to see if you need to modify the shutter speed, so don't be
> afraid to give it a go. My wife took several really nice
> impressionistic pics out the car window a couple days ago by just
> shooting at long shutter speeds when she saw colors that might look
> good blended together.

Interesting pictures. Actually at first I thought it was a waterfall :-)
August 5, 2005 2:03:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Heslop wrote:

> I'm no genius at this stuff as I've just started myself but I've put
> four night shots on my msn group for you to look at
>
> http://groups.msn.com/OtherSides/night.msnw
>
> All taken roughly from the same place way after midnight and using the
> light at the other side of the river to focus... camera on a tripod.
> The first shot had just 1.2 seconds exposure and is quite hard to make
> out details, but the river looks almost natural. Second shot was for 3
> seconds at a slightly different position and you'll see there's a lot
> more light and the water has a smoother look. The third is the same
> shot almost but on 8 seconds, much more light coming in and the water
> has taken on an almost glassy appearance. The fourth was just for fun
> as I'm so new to this. I took the pic as a tug came through the frame.
> It's a five second exposure and you can see the effect of that length
> had on the tug, but it was fun.
>
> problem is if your cam, like mine, isn't really up to it you may find
> a lot of noise in your longer exposures.

I think I prefer picture 4 best, I like the shimmer in the water.
Gonna give some a try later, I have a tripod so thta should avoid the shake.

p.s. how is GTA?
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 2:07:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Beck wrote:
>

> > problem is if your cam, like mine, isn't really up to it you may find
> > a lot of noise in your longer exposures.
>
> I think I prefer picture 4 best, I like the shimmer in the water.
> Gonna give some a try later, I have a tripod so thta should avoid the shake.
>
Well worth a go and with a tripod you can relax a lot and just
experiment

> p.s. how is GTA?

:o ) Still murderous
--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
August 5, 2005 2:08:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:

> Well, first note that long exposures aren't even possible with
> many P&S cameras, since the slowest shutter speeds are commonly in
> the 4 to 8 second range. One such would be to close the aperture
> (to minimize the light reaching the sensor on a fairly dark night)
> and take a very long exposure hoping to catch lightning flashes,
> meteor trails, fireworks, etc. Digital cameras that allow very
> long exposures usually have a noise reduction (aka dark frame
> subtraction) feature, but that's another topic . . . :) 

Hi Asaar, according to my camera manual it will take 15 second shots.

> You could also use a very long exposure if you actually *want* the
> movement of the subject to stand out in stark contrast to the
> motionless background. Think of pictures of a highway, where you
> don't really see much of the vehicles, but you see the long, bright
> lines created by their headlights, taillights and brake lights. If
> there's too much available light to permit very long exposures, you
> could reduce the light reaching the sensor by using a neutral
> density filter. This might be useful when trying to take blurred
> shots of 'pedestrian' traffic during the daytime.

Thanks for the help, much appreciated. Certainly not much traffic around
here at night but worth having ago anyway with the orange street lighting we
have, might give some unusual effects.
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 2:44:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 09:58:51 +0100, "Beck"
<my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote:

>Paul Allen wrote:
>
>> What do you need to know about 10 or 15 seconds that you don't already
>> know about 1/60 or 1/1000? A longer shutter time means more light to
>> the sensor and more opportunity for motion blur. There is nothing
>> mysterious about it.
>>
>> You can't break your camera by playing with it. (Well, maybe you can,
>> but I've never broken mine that way. :-)) Try a 10 second exposure
>> of a scene with indoor lighting and see what you get. Now try the
>> same scene at 1/1000. How do the two images differ? Why do they
>> differ? How do the colors look? Does fiddling with the white balance
>> change how the colors look?
>
>So basically its all about motion blur?

No, not "all about" motion blur.

>The longer the shutter speed the blurrier the picture?

Yes, but only if it contains something that moves. What if
you want to photograph a landscape by moonlight? There's
nothing moving except the slow movement of the moon, but you
need a long exposure simply because there is very little
light. Nothing at all to do with motion blur.

>Well if someone had explained that earlier it would
>have made sense. I am not a pro and have read several books but it never
>covered that aspect of picture taking.

Best to try things yourself, see what happens. If you don't
understand what you see then ask. There is no shortcut way
to become a competent photographer - "practice makes
perfect" is a truism.

--
Regards

John Bean
August 5, 2005 2:46:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tony wrote:
> You mean like this ===
> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/gallery2/wcpe/wcpe01/wcpe...
>
> The lights are going to be many times brighter than the body of the
> car so the body will not record unless it stays in one place (in
> relationship to the camera) for a fair amount of the exposure.
> Here is one where the cars did stay in pretty much the same relative
> position to the camera throughout a long exposure, but since all the
> cars (including the one with the camera) are moving, the ground and
> sky are blurred.
> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/tvag/tvag03/tvag0303.html
>
> And in the opening shot for my site I have a long exposure that
> includes a bus moving away from the camera, a car moving toward it
> and the moon. http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/menu/gallery0.html

Good pictures. I particularly like the one with the moon. The headlines go
in an interesting shape. Thankyou all for the ideas.
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 2:48:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 19:14:10 -0700, "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com>
wrote:

>Bill Hilton wrote:
>>> Beck asks ...
>>>
>>> if I took a 10 second shutter picture on moving cars to get
>>> that long headlight effect how does it manage
>>> to picture the cars as the cars would be gone in 10 seconds.
>>
>> What happens is the car lights will record as streaks but the darker
>> bodies of the cars will not record, or if they do, as dark blurs.
>>
>> Here are a couple of shots I took recently in a forest with
>> contrasty
>> light, the lightest areas are specular highlights reflecting off
>> leaves ... I think these were 1/4 and 1/2 sec and I moved the camera
>> while the shutter was open ...
>> http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/forest_2_detail...
>> http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/forest_1.jpg
>>
>> Try it, experiment, with digital it's free and you get instant
>> feedback to see if you need to modify the shutter speed, so don't be
>> afraid to give it a go. My wife took several really nice
>> impressionistic pics out the car window a couple days ago by just
>> shooting at long shutter speeds when she saw colors that might look
>> good blended together.
>>
>
>Ahemty-some years ago I was practicing to photograph a night road-race
>at Riverside International Raceway. My daughter drove her Satellite
>back and forth on a road, and I experimented with shutter-speeds and
>flash. I ended up with about twenty tries on color print film, and had
>a pretty good idea how to proceed. What happened? My support system
>broke down and I missed the race entirely. But I was ready. This is
>the only shot I kept, if I recall correctly:
>http://home.san.rr.com/fsheff/pictures/sateli0s.jpg
>
>Looks as if the car is flying backwards. Pan-moving the camera the
>opposite direction, but not too much, left the light streaks on the
>car's body, attractive in its own way.

If your flash/camera will do rear curtain sync, you'll get the car at
the right end of the light streaks.
Looking at my DR's manual, in AV mode, it doesn't say the flash fires
at the beginning of the exposure, or at the end, but without
experimenting, I'm going to guess the beginning.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
August 5, 2005 2:55:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John Bean wrote:
> Yes, but only if it contains something that moves. What if
> you want to photograph a landscape by moonlight? There's
> nothing moving except the slow movement of the moon, but you
> need a long exposure simply because there is very little
> light. Nothing at all to do with motion blur.
>
>> Well if someone had explained that earlier it would
>> have made sense. I am not a pro and have read several books but it
>> never covered that aspect of picture taking.
>
> Best to try things yourself, see what happens. If you don't
> understand what you see then ask. There is no shortcut way
> to become a competent photographer - "practice makes
> perfect" is a truism.

Thanks very much John. I shall try out a few things tonight when there is
less light.
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 2:56:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 01:42:24 +0100, "Beck"
<my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote:

>Bert Hyman wrote:
>> In news:3lfpr3F129jlpU1@individual.net "Beck"
>> <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> I think you are definitely ready to buy a book on basic photography.
>>>
>>> I have two, they just do not mention long shutter speeds.
>>
>> But surely they must mention something about the relationships among
>> shutter speed, aperture and exposure.
>
>They do go into the relationship between the shutter and the aperture but
>not for very long shutter speeds.
>Like for example to freeze the action of flowing water would be a fast
>shutter speed or to capture the expression of movement it would be a slow
>shutter speed but it doesn't say what speeds. So if for example the
>difference in speeds could be 1/60 of a second or 1/1000 of a second that
>would be understandable, but I don't know about much longer speeds like 10
>or 15 seconds.
>
This is one of the great things about digital - you can experiment to
your heart's content!
Go out and see what happens when you use long shutter times. You'll
get a feel for what speed works with what subject. Children won't need
much to create a feeling of motion, but it might take a longer
exposure to give a feeling for the wind in trees, for example.
Flowing water gives different texture with differing shutter speeds;
try it, and see what works for you.
You can also pan with longer shutter speeds, to hold the main subject
stationary, while giving a feeling of motion to the background.
The thing is, you need to experiment to see how this works for
yourself. There is no substitute for experience.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 2:59:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 09:58:51 +0100, "Beck"
<my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote:

>Paul Allen wrote:
>
>> What do you need to know about 10 or 15 seconds that you don't already
>> know about 1/60 or 1/1000? A longer shutter time means more light to
>> the sensor and more opportunity for motion blur. There is nothing
>> mysterious about it.
>>
>> You can't break your camera by playing with it. (Well, maybe you can,
>> but I've never broken mine that way. :-)) Try a 10 second exposure
>> of a scene with indoor lighting and see what you get. Now try the
>> same scene at 1/1000. How do the two images differ? Why do they
>> differ? How do the colors look? Does fiddling with the white balance
>> change how the colors look?
>
>So basically its all about motion blur? The longer the shutter speed the
>blurrier the picture? Well if someone had explained that earlier it would
>have made sense. I am not a pro and have read several books but it never
>covered that aspect of picture taking.
>
I'll bet it did...
Didn't any of the books say something about using a faster shutter
speed to eliminate motion blur?
Well, the opposite is true...

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
August 5, 2005 2:59:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Randy Berbaum wrote:
> Beck <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote:
>
>> So basically its all about motion blur? The longer the shutter speed
>> the blurrier the picture? Well if someone had explained that earlier
>> it would have made sense. I am not a pro and have read several books
>> but it never covered that aspect of picture taking.
>
> Yes and no. One application of long exposures is creating blur.
> Another is to adjust for lower light conditions. The image is created
> by a a certain quantity of photons of light energy striking a light
> sensitive element (electronic or chemical) and then converting the
> reaction of that (and many other) element(s) into regions of light
> and dark (or light and color in a color image) on some form of
> display (photo paper, screen, printed image, etc). So the longer the
> sensitive element is exposed to the light source, the more photons
> that can interact with the element. In low light, the longer the
> shutter speed the more potential for light gathering, and the
> brighter the resulting image.
>
> Another use of longer shutter speeds is to allow or create motion
> blur to one extent or other. And the reverse is also true. To reduce
> motion blur you would shorten the shutter speed. The same image may
> evoke very different emotional responses depending on the use of
> motion blur. A waterfall with motion stopping shutter speeds will
> look very different than the same image taken with a longer shutter
> speed.
>
> There are also other creative uses of long shutter, but these are the
> most frequent used. So saying that it is all about motion blur is
> partly right. :) 

Thankyou randy. I am beginning to get a good picture now of its uses. Would
lightning be a fast or slow speed? I am figuring fast as lightning is such
a quick action. It amazes me how people can get such fantastic pictures of
lightning. I guess its down to taking lots of shots during a storm and
getting one by sheer luck.
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 2:59:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 10:59:57 +0100, Beck wrote:

> Thankyou randy. I am beginning to get a good picture now of its uses. Would
> lightning be a fast or slow speed? I am figuring fast as lightning is such
> a quick action. It amazes me how people can get such fantastic pictures of
> lightning. I guess its down to taking lots of shots during a storm and
> getting one by sheer luck.

Yes, your last sentence describes the method, but if you get a
good shot or two it's not due to luck. I prefer to call it taking
advantage of probability. Not much difference I guess, other than
describing your outlook. :) 

If anyone had a crystal ball would let them know when lightning
would strike, then a fast shutter speed could be used. But as those
globes are pretty rare, long shutter speeds should be used, with the
expectation that during the long time the shutter is open, lightning
*might* strike. If it doesn't, keep taking pictures. You might
have to discard dozens of shots that turned up empty, but they won't
cost you anything other than maybe a penny's worth of battery power.
If lightning is captured in a couple of shots, you've succeeded!
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 3:01:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 10:55:09 +0100, "Beck"
<my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote:
>> Best to try things yourself, see what happens. If you don't
>> understand what you see then ask. There is no shortcut way
>> to become a competent photographer - "practice makes
>> perfect" is a truism.
>
>Thanks very much John. I shall try out a few things tonight when there is
>less light.

I'll just add that to make sure the camera is held
motionless - you can't do this by hand, you need the camera
on a solid support. It is also all too easy to accidentally
move the camera when pressing the shutter which will blur
the image, almost certainly not what you want.

But you'll see all these effects when you do it :-)

--
Regards

John Bean
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 3:06:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 10:59:57 +0100, "Beck"
<my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote:
>I am beginning to get a good picture now of its uses. Would
>lightning be a fast or slow speed? I am figuring fast as lightning is such
>a quick action. It amazes me how people can get such fantastic pictures of
>lightning. I guess its down to taking lots of shots during a storm and
>getting one by sheer luck.
>

Wrong ;-)

Lightning (and fireworks) needs a slow (long) shutter speed.
I won't go into details but it makes sense if you think
about it from the camera's point of view. It's very similar
to the car headlight trails, for much the same reason.

--
Regards

John Bean
August 5, 2005 3:23:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John Bean wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 10:55:09 +0100, "Beck"
> <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote:
>>> Best to try things yourself, see what happens. If you don't
>>> understand what you see then ask. There is no shortcut way
>>> to become a competent photographer - "practice makes
>>> perfect" is a truism.
>>
>> Thanks very much John. I shall try out a few things tonight when
>> there is less light.
>
> I'll just add that to make sure the camera is held
> motionless - you can't do this by hand, you need the camera
> on a solid support. It is also all too easy to accidentally
> move the camera when pressing the shutter which will blur
> the image, almost certainly not what you want.
>
> But you'll see all these effects when you do it :-)

I do have a tripod although its a bit rubbish. Difficult to get the legs
even, but at least it will keep the camera still.
August 5, 2005 3:24:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John Bean wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 10:59:57 +0100, "Beck"
> <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote:
>> I am beginning to get a good picture now of its uses. Would
>> lightning be a fast or slow speed? I am figuring fast as lightning
>> is such a quick action. It amazes me how people can get such
>> fantastic pictures of lightning. I guess its down to taking lots of
>> shots during a storm and getting one by sheer luck.
>>
>
> Wrong ;-)
>
> Lightning (and fireworks) needs a slow (long) shutter speed.
> I won't go into details but it makes sense if you think
> about it from the camera's point of view. It's very similar
> to the car headlight trails, for much the same reason.

LOL sorry. I thought that because lightning was such a quick action it
would be a quick shutter to get it clear not blurred. No wonder I find it
confusing ;-)
August 5, 2005 3:25:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Heslop wrote:
> Beck wrote:
>>
>
>>> problem is if your cam, like mine, isn't really up to it you may
>>> find a lot of noise in your longer exposures.
>>
>> I think I prefer picture 4 best, I like the shimmer in the water.
>> Gonna give some a try later, I have a tripod so thta should avoid
>> the shake.
>>
> Well worth a go and with a tripod you can relax a lot and just
> experiment
>
>> p.s. how is GTA?
>
>> O) Still murderous

I can't even get the pictures right in SAndreas, let alone for real ;-)
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 3:25:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 11:25:45 +0100, Beck wrote:

> I can't even get the pictures right in SAndreas, let alone for real ;-)

Well, at least in this case it wouldn't be your fault. :) 
!