Slow Shutter Photography (Page 2): This is weird. Since my camera club is on the subject of slow shutter speed this month, I thought I'd try my hand at capturing tail lights. I'm...

rdrechsler Loc: Channel Islands Harbor, CA

This is weird. Since my camera club is on the subject of slow shutter speed this month, I thought I'd try my hand at capturing tail lights. I'm mystified by the results. Firstly, PLEASE, overlook the shortcomings of the photos. I was just experimenting to get an idea....there's NOTHING I would share here, except for this question. Where are the cars...LOL? Check it out. I see the tail lights, but no cars. Is this the way shots like this are supposed to look, even when shot skillfully? I'm LOL at these car-less images. Anyone know what happened to the cars???

Look Mom, there's no car!
Look Mom, there's no car!...

(Download)

Hey Dad, where'd you hide the car?

(Download)

R.G. Loc: Scotland

rdrechsler wrote:

.....Anyone know what happened to the cars???

You get the same effect with pedestrians if you make the exposure long enough. It's one of the techniques used for shooting scenes with lots of people in them (it gets rid of the moving ones anyway - stationary people are another story, usually dealt with by cloning).

Where the wave shots are concerned, long exposures are usually used to get rid of waves altogether. It produces an ethereal misty look in the water. #5, 6, 7 and 8 are all reasonably successful examples of that. In your goal image, the plume is mainly wind-blown spray that didn't need the slow shutter speed (but it had a slight softening effect on the water surface).

dat2ra Loc: Sacramento

Yup, because the cars are underexposed and are moving too fast to be recorded. The tail lights are moving the same speed, but are well exposed so show up. Nice shots, btw.

rdrechsler Loc: Channel Islands Harbor, CA

dat2ra wrote:

Yup, because the cars are underexposed and are moving too fast to be recorded. The tail lights are moving the same speed, but are well exposed so show up. Nice shots, btw.

Thanks, it's a pretty amazing result. I will have to play with this some more ;-)

PaulDineen Loc: Fort Morgan, Colorado

I also prefer photos 5-7. I take it that a tripod (or other stability) is required, given that you're shooting 20-30 seconds. I use the (imprecise) term "slow" exposure to refer to durations that are somewhat longer exposures than ones that freeze action and are (much) shorter than long exposures. Often, daylight exposures of ~1/25 sec of moving subjects, and ~1/5 sec - 5 sec of nighttime ones often with intentional camera movement. I mention this because I wonder if the assignment (or personal interest in general) might allow for shorter exposures that are either handheld (with minimal movement) or handheld with intentional movement. ND filters could be used to alter the times. Also, given the shoreline theme, you'd probably need to change the subject on some by getting closer. Being in Colorado (29 years), I don't take many shoreline photos. Two examples:

#1: handheld (but fairly steady) with slow exposure 1/8 sec, f/5, ISO 100

#2: same exposure, but with camera movement

#1 minimal camera movement - subject moves

#2 intentional camera movement

rdrechsler Loc: Channel Islands Harbor, CA

PaulDineen wrote:

I also prefer photos 5-7.

A BIG THANK YOU TO EVERYONE who provided comments, encouragement, education and critical analysis as I learned what slow shutter photography was all about. This is the picture I submitted for the judging this coming week. In my 72 years this is the first time I have ever submitted an image for judging, so I'm going to be most interested in the outcome. This is a "Merit" or "No Merit" judging. Wish me luck. I'll let everyone know how it turns out after the meeting on Wednesday night.
Cheers,
Dick

Slow Rock Fizz
Slow Rock Fizz...

(Download)

rdrechsler Loc: Channel Islands Harbor, CA

PaulDineen wrote:

I also prefer photos 5-7. Two examples:

#1: handheld (but fairly steady) with slow exposure 1/8 sec, f/5, ISO 100

#2: same exposure, but with camera movement

Those are damn good Paul. I thought of trying to photograph a blowing flag, but never got to it. You've inspired me to try again. I'm going to save your message and try to emulate your great success.

Thanks again,
Dick

PaulDineen Loc: Fort Morgan, Colorado

dat2ra wrote:

Yup, because the cars are underexposed and are moving too fast to be recorded. The tail lights are moving the same speed, but are well exposed so show up. Nice shots, btw.

What R.G said.

I'm infatuated with photos of hubcaps in motion with slow exposures (~1/25 sec - ~1/5 second). They can produce interesting graphical patterns and, surprisingly often, faces. For this, you really have to get direct sun on a fairly sunny hubcap, and direct headlights at night, else it's too dull/low contrast. During the day, similar to what you saw in your pics, the car tends to not show much, but much better at dusk (I'm never up at dawn :-), then again less visible at night (but the shiny hubcaps show ok). I always use ISO 100. Then set SS for desired movement/rotation distance and set aperture per exposure.

PaulDineen Loc: Fort Morgan, Colorado

rdrechsler wrote:

Those are damn good Paul. I thought of trying to photograph a blowing flag, but never got to it. You've inspired me to try again. I'm going to save your message and try to emulate your great success.

Thanks again,
Dick

Thanks. I took about 400 exposures. I saved 8. I like 2 enough to use regularly. But, that's me. It was a pretty windy day and I used a SS of 1/8 sec mostly.

rdrechsler Loc: Channel Islands Harbor, CA

rdrechsler wrote:

My camera club assignment this month is slow shutter images.

Yahoo!! Mostly good news! After all the work I did for the camera club competition (my first ever!), I am 2 for 3. I entered 3 images. The first two won a Merit Award in the Open category. The last one, which you're all familiar with, didn't make it. The judge says when he looks at images like this he wants to see two things...first and foremost an interesting picture, second the effect. Well, I guess he's got a point. Without the motion the third image would be a nothing shot. BUT, two out of three isn't bad for my first try and the judge spoke highly of them both! I'm very encouraged!!! Thank you to everyone who jumped in and helped me with this project. Your input was invaluable.

Now it's on to "In The Shadows" for next month and....of yeah...learning the new Nikon D850.

Majestic Eagle
Majestic Eagle...

(Download)

Competitive Chaos
Competitive Chaos...

(Download)

Slow Rock Fizz
Slow Rock Fizz...

(Download)

Dalex

Those who can’t do teach. Those who can’t teach judge. The only thing that matters is if you like what you have done. Your goal, in my opinion, should be to please yourself. After all who cares what others think of your work. Take the Oscars. What’s a better movie? Lady Bird? Three Billboards,? or The shape of water? They’re all about something different, different subjects, different people, different tone. How can anyone say one is better than another. An eagle? A sailboat? Or some waves? Maybe a bowl of fruit on a table? How can anyone hope to judge which is best. I was in a club once where the judge of a competition actually said “Well it’s down to these two but I will have to pick the one of the dog over the one of the horse. Probably because I like dogs better than I like horses.” Personally I would look for another club.

rdrechsler Loc: Channel Islands Harbor, CA

Well, I’d agree with you, but the judge is a National Geographic photographer, as well as a commercial photographer. What he said made sense although, in an abstract way, I really like the ocean motion shot. So I’m not the least bit disappointed. Judges obviously have their own bias, but I have so much to learn I’m going to take it all in for now and practice what I like and discard what I don’t. Thanks for your inspiring response. That’s what I like about this group, people really speak candidly. It’s useful.

wapiti Loc: round rock, texas

Longshadow wrote:

Looks like your shutter maybe too slow in your attempts. There is a ton of wind in the goal that creates the "cloud" above the wave. It appears that with your attempts, there wasn't a lot of wind. The bird in the goal is not that blurry. I think the shutter speed in the goal was not all that slow.

PaulDineen Loc: Fort Morgan, Colorado

rdrechsler wrote:

Those are damn good Paul. I thought of trying to photograph a blowing flag, but never got to it. You've inspired me to try again. I'm going to save your message and try to emulate your great success.

Thanks again,
Dick

Dick, have you had a chance to take those flag pics yet?

rdrechsler Loc: Channel Islands Harbor, CA

No, it’s been a week of rain here, but it’s in my to do list for next week.