What in the heck happened here??
Oct 15, 2012 09:17:57 #
alf85 wrote:
If the tripod or head had moved, or if it was a double exposure you would get a shadow of the other tree's as well.
Alf.
Alf.
And thats EXACTLY what is there!
Oct 15, 2012 09:34:43 #
Agreed MT, if you invert the image and adjust contrast it's easier to make out details like that. That's something I've gleaned from astronomy!
Oct 15, 2012 09:49:49 #
asylum1972 wrote:
Here are the two shots back-to-back. The tripod didn't move
The two shots have the same settings. I wonder if it's a "shutter" issue?
The two shots have the same settings. I wonder if it's a "shutter" issue?
Check the Metadata .... the exposures may not be what you thought........
Oct 15, 2012 09:58:17 #
alf85
Loc: Northumberland, UK.
MT Shooter wrote:
And thats EXACTLY what is there!
alf85 wrote:
If the tripod or head had moved, or if it was a double exposure you would get a shadow of the other tree's as well.
Alf.
Alf.
And thats EXACTLY what is there!
If you can see the shadows from the tree laying down and the tree laying across the water, your a better man than me Gunga din.
Oct 15, 2012 10:01:45 #
A fictitious poem character dreamed up by Rudyard Kipling? Thats not hard. And I do see those reflected images, quite evident to anyone who downloads the image and looks for them
Oct 15, 2012 10:04:47 #
DEBJENROB wrote:
Check the Metadata .... the exposures may not be what you thought........
asylum1972 wrote:
Here are the two shots back-to-back. The tripod didn't move
The two shots have the same settings. I wonder if it's a "shutter" issue?
The two shots have the same settings. I wonder if it's a "shutter" issue?
Check the Metadata .... the exposures may not be what you thought........
I must be missing something, file info would tend to support all statements made about photo. Two 4sec exposures, #1 at 18.37:33secs and #2 18.37:42 secs
Oct 15, 2012 10:41:00 #
sjrw
Loc: Gunnislake, Cornwall, UK
alf85 wrote:
If the tripod or head had moved, or if it was a double exposure you would get a shadow of the other tree's as well.
Alf.
Alf.
There is a shadow of the other sticky-up tree to the side of the light, so it does look like the entire picture is duplicated to the side, like a nudge. Perhaps a very small earth quake or slip.
Oct 15, 2012 10:55:14 #
Enlarging the photo and observing the bright light or spot on the left of the photo you will see a slight shifting of the light twice, giving one whole image, and two partial images.
Further close examination shows another second ghostly image of the upright branches. This makes it appear that the camera shifted it's position twice more during the exposure. I tend to agree with MT Shooters primary explanation that movement occurred either at the beginning of the shoot, or at the end.
Further close examination shows another second ghostly image of the upright branches. This makes it appear that the camera shifted it's position twice more during the exposure. I tend to agree with MT Shooters primary explanation that movement occurred either at the beginning of the shoot, or at the end.
Oct 15, 2012 10:59:10 #
MT Shooter wrote:
quote=asylum1972 Was out shooting a sunrise this ... (show quote)
I have to agree. The shutter opened, an image was created, the tripod moved and took a longer better image leaving the ghost remnant behind. Kind of cool if you could control it.
Oct 15, 2012 11:35:08 #
asylum1972 wrote:
Was out shooting a sunrise this morning and came a... (show quote)
My 2 cents. The ghosting appears to be only dark areas and not lighted. If the camera was nudged to create a double exposure effect I would expect to see duplications of the far shoreline lights... especially the light house... as well as the brighter patches of sky. I see none.
Allowing for the fact that the shots are not level to the horizon, that the ghosting is slightly higher than the tree roots, that the rays of the rising sun would cast a shadow slightly elevated as they broach the horizon and to the left as the sun is to the right... I think it is a true shadow probably projected on a tenuous drifting patch of mist between camera and the roots, not noticed by the naked eye but visible in the 4 second exposure. In the next shot the mist has moved on.
Oct 15, 2012 12:03:10 #
Phreedom wrote:
quote=asylum1972 Was out shooting a sunrise this ... (show quote)
The light on the far shore has moved out of the photo. Something moved during the long exposure. The water is even showing up on the right when you download it and look at it in Photoshop. It is definitely a double exposure of sorts even though the shutter was only released once. It is not the camera.
Oct 15, 2012 13:14:30 #
PeJay
Loc: Manchester UK
alf85 wrote:
If the tripod or head had moved, or if it was a double exposure you would get a shadow of the other tree's as well.
Alf.
Alf.
If you look there is a a shadow of the other tree only it isn't as clear because it is darker = less exposure.
I recon the tripod moved which would give the ghosting effect and would underexpose the image and affect the sharpness.
Oct 15, 2012 13:46:56 #
Phreedom wrote:
quote=asylum1972 Was out shooting a sunrise this ... (show quote)
I would suggest you look at the light patch of sky to the right of the upright driftwood, then look at the light patch of sky between that driftwood and its ghost. Very clearly the same patch of sky has been repeated there. And yes, the far shore light ghost is out of frame with the tripod/head shift.
Oct 15, 2012 14:14:22 #
asylum1972 wrote:
Was out shooting a sunrise this morning and came a... (show quote)
I wouldn't worry about it. With a 4s exposure anything could have happened. That's why we chimp and take more than one image.
Oct 15, 2012 14:34:10 #
asylum1972 wrote:
Here are the two shots back-to-back. The tripod didn't move
The two shots have the same settings. I wonder if it's a "shutter" issue?
The two shots have the same settings. I wonder if it's a "shutter" issue?
How about a really simple explanation? Camera & lens in very warm car. Very cold outside. Condensation on front of lens! Second shot it's starting to dry off! Maybe could be what happened?
If you were shooting at sunrise, you clock is set incorrectly in camera as it indicates an evening shot.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.