Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Long Exposures
Page <<first <prev 3 of 4 next>
Jul 30, 2012 14:12:33   #
marty wild Loc: England
 
super smooth shot very nice
IanC wrote:
Here is a shot with no filters. Just F11 for 0.5seconds.

Reply
Jul 30, 2012 14:23:02   #
coco1964 Loc: Winsted Mn
 
IanC wrote:
Here is a shot with no filters. Just F11 for 0.5seconds.
Excellent rendition and it actually looks like water instead of being overdone and looking like milk................

Reply
Jul 30, 2012 14:28:27   #
Luthien Loc: United Kingdom
 
I have a tripod and a gorillapod. I used the gorillapod to try and get a picture of some running water at the beach, but it was a really sunny day and I realise now was doing too long an exposure with the wrong aperture.
I practised a bit today pouring wine into a glass, and seemed to get the effect I was after...I'm getting there, just need to try it outside now. With a bit of luck I'll get something halfway decent by the end of the week! :lol:

Thanks for all your help!

Reply
 
 
Jul 30, 2012 14:34:27   #
coco1964 Loc: Winsted Mn
 
Luthien wrote:
I have a tripod and a gorillapod. I used the gorillapod to try and get a picture of some running water at the beach, but it was a really sunny day and I realise now was doing too long an exposure with the wrong aperture.
I practised a bit today pouring wine into a glass, and seemed to get the effect I was after...I'm getting there, just need to try it outside now. With a bit of luck I'll get something halfway decent by the end of the week! :lol:

Thanks for all your help!
Keep experimenting and you may come up with all kinds of new ideas. Like the wine idea already---hope to see some results..........

Reply
Jul 30, 2012 15:13:46   #
Sidney Carton
 
As Nikonian 72 said, try playing with lower ISO's

Reply
Jul 30, 2012 15:15:33   #
slickrock Loc: jacksonville
 
Try this 8 stop ND > http://www.singh-ray.com/varind.html
If you want quality and you are building a system, this is convenient and versatile.

Reply
Jul 30, 2012 16:16:01   #
twowindsbear
 
chapjohn wrote:
Nikonian72 wrote:
Waterfalls in full sun require a CPF (Circular Polarizing Filter - it is NOT a lens) or a Neutral Density filter, to elongate exposure. Small waterfalls in shade can be handled with only low ISO & small aperture.


I agree that it is a filter and not a lens. My question is, how come none of mine say CPF but say CPL? I am asking because I want to use terms that are recognizable by all. Is this a manufacturer thing or is the more common term CPL that all would understand?
quote=Nikonian72 Waterfalls in full sun require a... (show quote)


Perhaps CPF - Circular Polarizing Filter
and CPL - Circular PoLarizer ?

Reply
 
 
Jul 30, 2012 16:25:04   #
fstop11 Loc: Huntington Beach Ca
 
Luthien wrote:
bullfrogs wrote:
Luthien
Can you elaborate further on what type of long exposure photos you desire to take. What venue? Astrophotography etc ???
Bullfrogs


I'd like to try the 'soft' water effect, and night exposures of my city skyline.
I only really want to get a feel for it at the moment though, to get some practise in.
Eventually I would love to do astrophotography!


Canon just came out with a 60Da hope you shoot Canon

Reply
Jul 30, 2012 16:28:58   #
ijustshotu Loc: Northern California
 
Sweet!
IanC wrote:
Here is a shot with no filters. Just F11 for 0.5seconds.

Reply
Jul 30, 2012 16:32:04   #
Luthien Loc: United Kingdom
 
fstop11 wrote:


Canon just came out with a 60Da hope you shoot Canon

I've only just recently got the Canon 600D, don't think I can afford anything else just yet! However, the 60Da does sound great.

Reply
Jul 30, 2012 21:13:07   #
bayman Loc: Delaware
 
Where is the shot

Reply
 
 
Jul 30, 2012 23:49:25   #
Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA
 
chapjohn wrote:
I agree that it is a filter and not a lens. My question is, how come none of mine say CPF but say CPL? I am asking because I want to use terms that are recognizable by all. Is this a manufacturer thing or is the more common term CPL that all would understand?
I cannot speak for manufacturers who are more interested in making sales than accurate labeling. "Circular Polarizing Lens" sounds so much more sophisticated and expensive than "Circular Polarizing Filter". But as you know, a lens alters the direction of light, where as a filter alters only the quality of light.

for the same reason, many lenses labeled as "Macro" cannot focus close enough to capture more than 1:2 (1/2 life-size), or even 1:3 (1/3 life size). Who would buy a lens labeled as "Close-Up"? Marketing departments want to engrave "Macro" onto as many lenses as possible.

I have the same complaint with inaccurate terms such as "shutter speed". Speed is a measurement of distance over time, such as Miles Per Hour, or Feet Per Second. Shutter curtains always move at the same speed. The variation is length of time between leading curtain and following curtain. The proper term is Shutter Duration.

Reply
Jul 31, 2012 00:50:12   #
Lazy Old Coot Loc: Gainesville, Florida
 
Nikonian, While you're in an educational mode, I wonder if you would explain the difference between a linear polarized filter and a circular polarized filter for me? Back in my film days I occasionally used linear polarized filters to darken the sky, present a more dramatic rendition of clouds and reduce glare and reflections from various surfaces. As I understand it a linear polarized filter is somewhat like a microscopic venetian blind with parallel straight fine lines from one side of the filter straight across to the other side and the thin clear slits between the lines only allowed light with certain wave length orientation to pass through the filter. The filter could be rotated to determine which light was allowed to pass through it. I'd never heard of a circular polarized filter till I joined UHH. From what I understand the linear filter, for some reason, can not be used on a digital camera. Can you explain why that is so? I also wonder if you would educate me as to the orientation of the lines on a circular filter? Are they concentric circles or are they a series of straight lines that radiate out from the center of the filter to the outside edge?
Thanks for your help. ....... Coot

Nikonian72 wrote:
chapjohn wrote:
I agree that it is a filter and not a lens. My question is, how come none of mine say CPF but say CPL? I am asking because I want to use terms that are recognizable by all. Is this a manufacturer thing or is the more common term CPL that all would understand?
I cannot speak for manufacturers who are more interested in making sales than accurate labeling. "Circular Polarizing Lens" sounds so much more sophisticated and expensive than "Circular Polarizing Filter". But as you know, a lens alters the direction of light, where as a filter alters only the quality of light.

for the same reason, many lenses labeled as "Macro" cannot focus close enough to capture more than 1:2 (1/2 life-size), or even 1:3 (1/3 life size). Who would buy a lens labeled as "Close-Up"? Marketing departments want to engrave "Macro" onto as many lenses as possible.

I have the same complaint with inaccurate terms such as "shutter speed". Speed is a measurement of distance over time, such as Miles Per Hour, or Feet Per Second. Shutter curtains always move at the same speed. The variation is length of time between leading curtain and following curtain. The proper term is Shutter Duration.
quote=chapjohn I agree that it is a filter and no... (show quote)

Reply
Jul 31, 2012 07:54:19   #
jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY
 
Nikonian72 wrote:
chapjohn wrote:
I agree that it is a filter and not a lens. My question is, how come none of mine say CPF but say CPL? I am asking because I want to use terms that are recognizable by all. Is this a manufacturer thing or is the more common term CPL that all would understand?
I cannot speak for manufacturers who are more interested in making sales than accurate labeling. "Circular Polarizing Lens" sounds so much more sophisticated and expensive than "Circular Polarizing Filter". But as you know, a lens alters the direction of light, where as a filter alters only the quality of light.

for the same reason, many lenses labeled as "Macro" cannot focus close enough to capture more than 1:2 (1/2 life-size), or even 1:3 (1/3 life size). Who would buy a lens labeled as "Close-Up"? Marketing departments want to engrave "Macro" onto as many lenses as possible.

I have the same complaint with inaccurate terms such as "shutter speed". Speed is a measurement of distance over time, such as Miles Per Hour, or Feet Per Second. Shutter curtains always move at the same speed. The variation is length of time between leading curtain and following curtain. The proper term is Shutter Duration.
quote=chapjohn I agree that it is a filter and no... (show quote)

Right. It's always surprised me that people in the sciences don't make the best use of the language. One thing that bothers me about scientists is their use of the term "liquid water." I yell at the TV every time I hear that. Water is a liquid, ice is a solid, steam is a gas. "Hey barkeep, throw some lumps of solid water in there, will ya'." "Oh, my gaseous iron isn't working. I guess I'll go out and take a gaseous bath instead of ironing."

"Aperture" is the perfect term for the lens opening, but shutter speed, as you said, isn't quite right. We had a discussion about this a week ago because of Canon's use of their terms "Av" and "Tv." "Lens" and "filter" are misused on a regular basis, but I think the worst is "macro." Imagine buying an expensive macro lens and finding that it goes to 1:2, max. Terminology is something the camera industry should regulate so we're all speaking the same language. They should form a committee and start from scratch with all new terminology, maybe switching from mm to inches. That would be interesting. :D

Reply
Jul 31, 2012 11:51:46   #
bullfrogs Loc: Chico, Calif.
 
It seems with a lot of cameras and other equipment made overseas there is a language barrier that hides in the ability of other cultures to have sufficient words in their language to translate in to our English. I wonder if they wind up picking a word that is close enough to convey the message??
Nawwww!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bullfrogs

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 4 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.