long exposure night photography: I spent the weekend up on Artist Point overlooking Mount Baker in Washington state with a attempt at night time long exposure photos of Mount Baker.

out4life2016 Loc: Bellingham, Washington

I spent the weekend up on Artist Point overlooking Mount Baker in Washington state with a attempt at night time long exposure photos of Mount Baker. The example below was taken on a cloudy night at 115 am with a 25 minute exposure. Is there something I could have or should have done different for a better photo.

(Download)

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I assume you’re referring to it being underexposed (unless that’s your intention). The EXIF info. shows f3.5 and ISO 100. I’d suggest bumping your ISO up a couple of stops to maybe 400 and trying that - you can then adjust it up further if necessary to get a correct exposure. You could probably also bring up the brightness in post processing, but with Canon cameras, that technique will typically produce more noise than exposing correctly initially.

out4life2016 Loc: Bellingham, Washington

Thank you, it was my first attempt at such a long exposure in complet darkness.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

out4life2016 wrote:

I spent the weekend up on Artist Point overlooking Mount Baker in Washington state with a attempt at night time long exposure photos of Mount Baker. The example below was taken on a cloudy night at 115 am with a 25 minute exposure. Is there something I could have or should have done different for a better photo.

Higher ISO

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

out4life2016 wrote:

I spent the weekend up on Artist Point overlooking Mount Baker in Washington state with a attempt at night time long exposure photos of Mount Baker. The example below was taken on a cloudy night at 115 am with a 25 minute exposure. Is there something I could have or should have done different for a better photo.

You’ll find expert advice on long exposure photography in the Long Exposure Photography Section: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-108-1.html
I suggest you post your query there, or perhaps ask Admin to move it for you.

Gibar

Here is a short article and video that will help you to determine your correct exposure. By doing some quick test shot exposures. I hope you find it useful

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2016/06/20/stop-wasting-time-when-dialing-in-your-exposure-at-night-with-this-tip-from

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

TriX wrote:

I assume you’re referring to it being underexposed (unless that’s your intention). The EXIF info. shows f3.5 and ISO 100. I’d suggest bumping your ISO up a couple of stops to maybe 400 and trying that - you can then adjust it up further if necessary to get a correct exposure. You could probably also bring up the brightness in post processing, but with Canon cameras, that technique will typically produce more noise than exposing correctly initially.

ISO 100 is far too low for the type of image you are aiming for. WIth a 25 minute exposure, you should have been able to image the foreground and gotten star trails in the sky.

I've done full dark shots of starfields and the Sierras at ISO 3200 with a 4 sec exposure, and used to full moon to illuminate terrain so ilt looks like afternoon with ISO 2000 @ 10 sec. All with a Sigma 24 mm f/1.4 ART lens.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

People seem to have a desire to always advise to increase the iso rather than increase the shutter time. As you had a clean none shakey shot, and not too much strong background light you have the option to do either at the fstop you chose. There would be few star trails on such a cloudy sky.
I shoot landscapes at ISO 100 using an old canon eos 450 - Most landscape photogs prefere a low iso even with a FF modern camera.

Had there been a street light or vehicle lights then a faster speed would be needed, but a dark night with no obvious light source is going to need more time in order to put definition into the darker areas. The lighter area of sky would set the limit if anything.

With what you have, a Little.. post processing may not go amiss (curves in the dark range rather than exposure or brightness)

It is a wonderful experience to sit quietly in the dark .....and even better to have an interesting image to prove it....

Have fun

blue-ultra Loc: New Hampshire

Years ago while hunting in the Colorado Rocky mountains we were camped at 11,000 ft. I had brought my Nikon F3HP and a small tripod to do some night shots. Just for giggles I set the camera up on the tripod with the lens cap still on I set the shutter on blub and f22, with slide film. I then found a spot and set the camera up where there was no light source, only star light, no moon. Took off the lens cap and went to bed. got up before light put the lens cap back on and closed the shutter. When I got the film back from processing to my amazement the entire frame looked like I took the photo in at noon time, except there was absolutely no shadows, weird! I did try some other shots with the tents illuminated by lanterns and hunter going from tent to tent and to the corral to feed the horses carrying the lanterns. Fun stuff.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

G Brown wrote:

People seem to have a desire to always advise to i... (show quote)

Well first, the exposure was 25 minutes, so I’d say the shutter time was plenty long enough.
Secondly, the aperture was f3.5 which may have been the widest available for this lens or chosen for DOF
So... the only other alternative is a higher ISO, and even on a crop body, there should be no issues shooting at 400 or 800 (or 1600 if necessary with some noise which can be addressed in post)
Finally, Canon bodies typically are not ISO invariant, and as most well-informed Canon users know, underexposing and bringing up in post produces more noise than exposing correctly or ETTR.
The net-net: raising the ISO is the correct response.

out4life2016 Loc: Bellingham, Washington

I want to thank all who advised on this post. I will be going back up next weekend in hopes of getting a clear night with no moon. I certainly is a wonderful experience to sit on the ice in the dark taking these shots. The sounds of nature and the cracking of the ice is truly amazing even if the shots don't come out. I will be trying several different shoots with different iso settings.

copladocus

I am seeing what appears to be lights on the mountain. I see red near the summit and another just a bit lower and to the right. I also see white lights in various places. At first I thought these might be artifacts or noise. I throw it out there for expert Hog opinion/analysis. Lights or noise?

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Very strange yet moving photo. After you find out what made the light pinpoints all over, you might try it again, and then spend some time post processing. Just "correcting" the white balance and exposure gives a great starting point to tweak backwards toward the strange original and forwards to emphasizing things you like.

Sannye Loc: Oregon

I think those are hot pixels. I get them too when I do long exposures. They’re easy to fix in Lightroom.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Sannye wrote:

I think those are hot pixels. I get them too when I do long exposures. They’re easy to fix in Lightroom.

And if your camera has the appropriate feature, you may be able to take a dark frame and map out the “hot” pixels.