Exposure length: I seem to recall that we would do long exposures with film in order to capture a landscape scene. If memory serves we called it burning. Is this still done with DSLRs.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

I seem to recall that we would do long exposures with film in order to capture a landscape scene. If memory serves we called it burning. Is this still done with DSLRs.

photocat Loc: Atlanta, Ga

Not familar with that term for long exposures, unless you mean using the bulb feature. Burning is a darkroom technique.

Long exposures are possible with digital and in one way easier as there is no reciprocity failure to worry about.

ziggykor Loc: East Texas

My limited knowledge tells me that "burning" was something that was done in the darkroom, not in camera. I routinely do long to very long exposures with my DSLR's, but only with them on a sturdy tripod and with a remote cable.

I try to set my aperture between f/8 and f/16 with the ISO at 100, but frequently modify that. I will also use neutral density filters which will add exposure time.

These procedures aren't restricted to landscapes, but are determined by what I want any given image to say.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

thanks burning was done in the dark room. didn't the long exposure make for a denser negative? If so would this hold true for a DSLR?

ziggykor wrote:

My limited knowledge tells me that "burning&q... (show quote)

cony25

The bulb setting in my camera allows looong exposures according to my camera manual,,, never tried it,, supposedly allows as long exposure as you want....any info on this?

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

cony25 wrote:

The bulb setting in my camera allows looong exposures according to my camera manual,,, never tried it,, supposedly allows as long exposure as you want....any info on this?

Your camera manual should quite nicely cover this subject.

chapjohn Loc: Tigard, Oregon

While talking about long exposures, can someone explain the benefits and drawbacks of using an "intervelopmeter" (spelling is not correct).

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

I think what you are referring to is the idea that "not all exposure combinations yield the same exact shot" which is to say that an exposure that has a much shorter shutter speed will not be as saturated as one that creates the same exposure but utilizes a shorter shutter speed.

Nothing parallel to that in DSLR that I know of as DSLR isn't a "physical" medium in the same way film negatives are.

ngc1514 Loc: Atlanta, Ga., Lancaster, Oh. and Stuart, Fl.

photocat wrote:

Not familar with that term for long exposures, unless you mean using the bulb feature. Burning is a darkroom technique.

Long exposures are possible with digital and in one way easier as there is no reciprocity failure to worry about.

True on reciprocity, but we got amplifier and sensor noise in trade!

photoninja1 Loc: Tampa Florida

Intervalometers can auto-time exposures in Bulb exposure mode. They can also be set to take multiple exposures at specified intervals and exposure times.

Bruce with a Canon Loc: Islip

ole sarg wrote:

I seem to recall that we would do long exposures with film in order to capture a landscape scene. If memory serves we called it burning. Is this still done with DSLRs.

There were darkroom techniques called Burning and Dodging
to control exposure on prints, is this to what you refer?

Long exposure in taking images was simply "looooooong Exposures"

Bruce with a Canon Loc: Islip

I can set the camera for as much as 30 seconds, that has been long enough to meet my needs in terms of long exposure using ND filters on moving water and such. That what you talking about Sarge?

photocat Loc: Atlanta, Ga

set your camera on manual mode and you should be able to go past 30 seconds, down to bulb which can stay open as long as you like, however, best to use a remote as that camera doesn't have a traditional cable release.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

That makes sense (no pun intended). Was curious if this technique would apply to DSLR. Thanks.

Film was and is different!

rpavich wrote:

I think what you are referring to is the idea that "not all exposure combinations yield the same exact shot" which is to say that an exposure that has a much shorter shutter speed will not be as saturated as one that creates the same exposure but utilizes a shorter shutter speed.

Nothing parallel to that in DSLR that I know of as DSLR isn't a "physical" medium in the same way film negatives are.

MtnMan Loc: ID

Yes. I think the noise comes in at a constant rate for a given ISO setting. Thus the longer you expose the more the noise. DSLRs have "long exposure noise reduction" to help that.

One of the instructors in the class I attended last weekend said that the long exposure noise reduction in-camera process takes as long as the exposure. Thus if you do a 45 min exposure you're going to be locked out for 45 minutes while your camera is doing it's thing.

I don't know that to be true but that is what he said. He is a landscape specialist.

ngc1514 wrote:

photocat wrote:

Not familar with that term for long exposures, unless you mean using the bulb feature. Burning is a darkroom technique.

Long exposures are possible with digital and in one way easier as there is no reciprocity failure to worry about.

True on reciprocity, but we got amplifier and sensor noise in trade!