Has anyone ever done a long exposure portrait shot?
Apr 15, 2015 16:13:30 #
wtompkins wrote:
I took this last year in a local tourist town.
This guy was able to stay still for very long periods of time. My husband and I (and many others standing around) thought it was a statue, because he hadn't moved in so long....but then we saw his eyes going to different people. It was kind of creepy, but also way cool!
Canon T3i, f/4.5, 1/2500, ISO 200, @50mm
This guy was able to stay still for very long periods of time. My husband and I (and many others standing around) thought it was a statue, because he hadn't moved in so long....but then we saw his eyes going to different people. It was kind of creepy, but also way cool!
Canon T3i, f/4.5, 1/2500, ISO 200, @50mm
To the OP's question, 1/2500 is hardly a long exposure. I would have liked to see what it looked like with a 15 or 30 second exposure. Cool pic though.
Apr 15, 2015 16:15:15 #
In the late 1800s and early 1900s most photos were long exposure. Take a look at the old CDVs and cabinet cards. None of those people were smiling. The reason? Its difficult to hold a smile for the length of time it takes to create the photo. So nobody smiled. Deadpan is natural and the "normal" human expression. A smile is not.
In some cases, the studio chair had a clamp or brace for the subject to rest their head against to help prevent movement.
So, yes, it's possible and back in the early days was done all the time
In some cases, the studio chair had a clamp or brace for the subject to rest their head against to help prevent movement.
So, yes, it's possible and back in the early days was done all the time
Apr 15, 2015 16:21:00 #
Apr 15, 2015 16:23:27 #
Try a self portrait...set your camera up with a remote and see for how long you can realistically hold the pose. That way you could control lighting settings etc. Just put something head height on a chair to pre-focus on first.
just a thought
just a thought
Apr 15, 2015 16:25:33 #
skiman wrote:
To the OP's question, 1/2500 is hardly a long exposure. I would have liked to see what it looked like with a 15 or 30 second exposure. Cool pic though.
Yes, I realize it wasn't a long exposure, and never claimed it as such; was just replying to the part about someone standing still for long periods of time.
I think Nighstki will do a wonderful job with a long exposure portrait, and look forward to the results!!
Apr 15, 2015 16:26:23 #
cmikal wrote:
In the late 1800s and early 1900s most photos were... (show quote)
This was part of what was behind the series I posted earlier.
I've worn one of those braces while a friend may a tintype of me. I had to keep the brace on the back of my neck not only throughout the exposure but during the pouring and sensitizing of the plate as well. Such an odd feeling.
Apr 15, 2015 16:26:47 #
I noticed that wtompkins shot wasn't long exposure, but it was a good idea for a subject so I am glad she posted.
Apr 15, 2015 16:33:40 #
Nightski wrote:
I am curious. I am wondering if it's possible to do a long exposure shot of a person. I am thinking of those live mannequins they sometimes have in clothing stores. Is it possible for a human to remain perfectly still for 30 .. 40 .. 60 seconds? Do you have a shot like this that you would like to share? Please do.
If you post a shot, please list your settings. Feel free to try it and post.
If you post a shot, please list your settings. Feel free to try it and post.
It is why you almost never see anything but posed shots from the Civil War and earlier that are in sharp focus, nothing was still long enough for the exposures of the day. Yes in studio they used head clamps etc. Outdoors on bright sunny days people had to do their best to stay still. No 'action' shots, pictures of the dead, or everyone doing their best not to move for 5-20 or more seconds. Almost no animals, they didn't stay still. Yes, there are some in the history books, but most used glass plate negatives so the blurred ones got cleaned, recoated and used over, only the good ones were kept.
look here for examples: http://listverse.com/2008/11/18/top-20-great-us-civil-war-photographs/
Apr 15, 2015 19:42:54 #
Nightski wrote:
head clamps? :shock:
head clamps? :shock:
I have been on the lookout for a Brady Stand for years...., but have never found one.
Not so much to use it, but just to have it!! ;-)
SS
Apr 15, 2015 19:52:32 #
robertjerl wrote:
It is why you almost never see anything but posed ... (show quote)
Thank you for the link, Robert.
Apr 15, 2015 19:53:15 #
SharpShooter wrote:
I have been on the lookout for a Brady Stand for years...., but have never found one.
Not so much to use it, but just to have it!! ;-)
SS
Not so much to use it, but just to have it!! ;-)
SS
hmmmmm .... interesting ... :shock:
Apr 15, 2015 20:53:53 #
SharpShooter wrote:
I have been on the lookout for a Brady Stand for years...., but have never found one.
Not so much to use it, but just to have it!! ;-)
SS
Not so much to use it, but just to have it!! ;-)
SS
The head clamp my friends used at a workshop.
Apr 15, 2015 22:14:33 #
No wonder all the people back then looked all stiff, cranky and uncomfortable. I've got a photograph of my great grandmother like that! She looks like a woman you wouldn't want to mess with.
I'll post it tomorrow.
I'll post it tomorrow.
Apr 16, 2015 06:23:39 #
PHIL BITTLE
Loc: CALIFORNIA
NIGHTSKI: In the early days of photography that's how it was done as the films were so "slow" and that included props such as head and neck braces behind the subject to help them remain still:
http://www.lomography.com/magazine/247452-amazing-portrait-doubles-from-the-late-1800s
https://ohiohistory.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/why-dont-people-smile-in-old-photographs/
"When daguerreotypes were first introduced in France in 1839 the exposure time for larger photographic plates could be up to 15 minutes, sometimes longer. In just a couple of years improvements in camera lenses and the chemicals used to expose the images shortened the exposure times to a minute or less, but to get clear images people had to sit still. Photographers even had headrests that held sitters heads in place when they were having portraits made. Having to sit perfectly still for seconds probably discouraged smiling."
Phil Bittle
http://www.lomography.com/magazine/247452-amazing-portrait-doubles-from-the-late-1800s
https://ohiohistory.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/why-dont-people-smile-in-old-photographs/
"When daguerreotypes were first introduced in France in 1839 the exposure time for larger photographic plates could be up to 15 minutes, sometimes longer. In just a couple of years improvements in camera lenses and the chemicals used to expose the images shortened the exposure times to a minute or less, but to get clear images people had to sit still. Photographers even had headrests that held sitters heads in place when they were having portraits made. Having to sit perfectly still for seconds probably discouraged smiling."
Phil Bittle
Apr 16, 2015 06:28:12 #
Nightski wrote:
I am curious. I am wondering if it's possible to do a long exposure shot of a person. I am thinking of those live mannequins they sometimes have in clothing stores. Is it possible for a human to remain perfectly still for 30 .. 40 .. 60 seconds? Do you have a shot like this that you would like to share? Please do.
If you post a shot, please list your settings. Feel free to try it and post.
If you post a shot, please list your settings. Feel free to try it and post.
It would be difficult for a subject to stay still enough for that long... Try hand holding a camera for 30 seconds and it will give you a feel. Having said that, you MIGHT experiment with a long exposure with a flash during the exposure. It will often override movement of the subject and only "long expose" the surroundings, and the flash freezes movement and correctly exposes the subject. I've never tried this with people but Joe McNally does it frequently. You might check some of his videos.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.