Eliminating Moving Cars While Photographing (Page 4): SharpShooter and all, the link I provided does not show the video. I'm inquiring to see if I can get to it. Sorry it wasn't...

Moose Loc: North Carolina

SharpShooter and all, the link I provided does not show the video. I'm inquiring to see if I can get to it. Sorry it wasn't available.

Moose wrote:

SharpShooter, not a trick question. Dcampbel52 an... (show quote)

MtnMan Loc: ID

TheDman wrote:

You shoot until you know you have clear views of Everything you want to be car free. This method is better than ultra long exposures or mean stacking, as it doesn't introduce any potential artifacts or degradation.

Thus using median, NOT mean!

Mean would give ghosts.

Moose Loc: North Carolina

JerryC, thanks for the links. Unfortunately, I don't use Lightroom or Photoshop. Just PSE.
Thanks again for posting them.

blackest Loc: Ireland

Rongnongno wrote:

I use stacking/masking but this (PS CC Script Statistic) is something I was not aware of.

Thank you for the info.

The statistic script is pretty much the same as affinity does it with mean median, mid point range ect.

It might be slightly better since a tripod is optional affinity will scale and adjust to align the layers. you lose a few pixels on the edges

Moose Loc: North Carolina

Thanks Morningstar for the links. It looks like Shutter Speed, ND filters and Photoshop are the options. Thanks to all for your help.

Morning Star wrote:

There's been a discussion about this some time ago, but I can't find it back. Two links here though, for two different methods:
http://ctysonphotography.com/how-i-made-80-people-disappear-by-just-adjusting-my-cameras-shutter-speed/
http://luminous-landscape.com/making-people-and-other-things-go-away/

Collie lover Loc: St. Louis, MO

thephotoman wrote:

One method, is to take photos of the seane, with t... (show quote)

The word is scene, not sceane or seane.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

boberic wrote:

Only partly. These days with so many cars with daytime running lights, It's harder to get a light streak free photo. I don't know which location you want to shoot. So, by your response, I guess there is not any time when there are no cars. So maybe you should wait for a time when there is very little traffic, rather than none. (only partly kidding again)

Bo, you bring up a good point about the running lights. With that in mind, probably the best time to take a pick like that is to use the brightest part of the brightest days, that will mitigate some of the light produced by a headlight. Also to get a little higher than the cars so the full power of the light is not shining directly into the lens. That would make a big difference in the intensity of the light.
Maybe not the approach Moose is looking for but possibly using an infrared filter to increase times even more if lights seem to be a problem. Just some thoughts! ;-)
SS

ToTellIt Loc: Sacramento, Ca

Moose wrote:

I saw a photography video long ago that showed how to eliminate a moving vehicle, while photographing, from the scene. I'd like to experiment with that technique and wonder if anyone on the forum knows how to do that.
Thanks for your help.

Try this link for a tutorial that explains how to do this in multiple ways. I've tried them and they work...
https://phlearn.com/automatically-remove-objects-photos-photoshop

MtnMan Loc: ID

ToTellIt wrote:

Try this link for a tutorial that explains how to do this in multiple ways. I've tried them and they work...
http://phlearn.com/automatically-remove-objects-photos-photoshop

If you remove the s the link will work.

This showed me that the masking could be much simpler than I thought. I thought it required precise selection.

The one I had seen before included an additional step to first align the layers before running the statistical script. With that step you don't need to use a tripod.

You might be able to simplify taking the images using continuous release. It would need to have the right rate so that the the times areas are bare of objects exceed the time they are covered.

I tried the statistical method once handheld with people in front of a church. It worked OK but I got some smudges from slow movers.

Wmetcalf Loc: Rogersville, Mo

Moose wrote:

I saw a photography video long ago that showed how to eliminate a moving vehicle, while photographing, from the scene. I'd like to experiment with that technique and wonder if anyone on the forum knows how to do that.
Thanks for your help.

Long exposure

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Moose wrote:

I saw a photography video long ago that showed how to eliminate a moving vehicle, while photographing, from the scene. I'd like to experiment with that technique and wonder if anyone on the forum knows how to do that.
Thanks for your help.

Get a permit to have the cops close the street during your shoot.

drizztguen77 Loc: Tualatin, OR

Bill_de wrote:

That should do it!

Years back a woman who was afraid to go into a NY subway station at night took a picture of a relatively busy station during the day. IIRC she used Kodak Pan X, an ND filter, and a 90 minute exposure.

There was some minor ghosting in the busiest areas, but that could be cleaned up pretty easily today.

--

One day goofing around I took this long exposure picture of a bridge using a 9 stop ND filter. This was looking across a busy street. Quite a few cars drove across in front of me and even a huge log truck drove through completely obstructing the view for a couple seconds. Yet the picture still came out fine. Exposure time was 130 seconds.

Moose Loc: North Carolina

Thanks for that information. 130 seconds sure is a long time. I wonder if a shorter time would have worked as well. Anyway, glad to hear that there is a way to address this problem.

soaro77 wrote:

One day goofing around I took this long Yet the picture still came out fine. Exposure time was 130 seconds.

drizztguen77 Loc: Tualatin, OR

Moose wrote:

Thanks for that information. 130 seconds sure is a long time. I wonder if a shorter time would have worked as well. Anyway, glad to hear that there is a way to address this problem.

It would have. It was just that I was using a 9 stop ND filter and needed that long to get proper exposure.

duck72 Loc: Laurel Ridge, PA

Not to beat a dead horse, but, just ran across your OP. I "think" I've read all responses to-date (4/10) and didn't see anyone reference this excellent video which specifically addresses your question (without *any* post-processing):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpNtAXbaNr0