Mega Long Exposures

P

Philx1979

Suspended / Banned
Messages
987
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
Just been reading elsewhere on the internet about Lee big stopper and little stopper filters both 10stops and 6stops.

Some people were talking about stacking the filters to get a mega long exposure of 16 stops!

Am i missing something or is there really no point to this?, i only think this because i once done a 13 minute exposure and afterwards thought to myself i could have probably got the same `look` by only doing a couple of minutes.

I`m guessing that once you get to the 1-2 minute stage of exposure there is going to be very little or no change to the `scene` or `look` by doing several minutes etc.
 
If you were trying to photograph a building without people walking through the shot you would have more chance of them being there for two minutes than fifteen. Not guaranteed but might get a usable shot.
 
Star trails with a single exposure?
 
It's not necessarily for "mega long exposures" if you want to do 2-3 minute in daytime it's pretty hard to get that exposure with just a 10 stop unless you drop the f stop to something quite small and we know how that can degrade an image. I've been using 16 stops (not Lee) for a while in daylight to get 4-5 minutes.
 
As you've correctly IMO identified there is very little practical need, that said sometimes you do need a hell of a lot of filter to get a desired movement in the sky on some days...have to agree with Brian that peopleless images is the primary reason I can think of for really long exposures...

Nod said:
Star trails with a single exposure?
Click to expand...

Obviously unfiltered as you'd never see a single star through that amount of filtration, well except maybe the sun, but that's not to be recommended, you want solar film/filter for that
 
Using filtration on digital, yes but mega long exposures can be done on film with little or no filtration (well, depending on what you call mega long! I've done 30 minute + single shot star trails on 100 and 50 ASA film.)
 
Nod said:
Using filtration on digital, yes but mega long exposures can be done on film with little or no filtration (well, depending on what you call mega long! I've done 30 minute + single shot star trails on 100 and 50 ASA film.)
Click to expand...

I've done 15minute exposures on my 450D at ISO100
 
Got to agree with Matt here. Stars through a 16stop ND wouldn't register in the time they take to move. I doubt even a bright magnitude star like Sirius would register.
 
I use exposure times up to 8 minutes quite often as in this example


at a shutter speed of 481 seconds: I'm trying to balance out the exposure for the foreground and the sky without doing it in Photoshop, also to get the movment in the clouds as they moved towards me, on this shot I used a Lee 10 stop a .9 ND grad .6 ND grad and used the magic cloth technique
 
zeb said:
I use exposure times up to 8 minutes quite often as in this example


at a shutter speed of 481 seconds: I'm trying to balance out the exposure for the foreground and the sky without doing it in Photoshop, also to get the movment in the clouds as they moved towards me, on this shot I used a Lee 10 stop a .9 ND grad .6 ND grad and used the magic cloth technique
Click to expand...

Can I ask what the magic cloth is please..?
 
As above.

Nothing magic just lots of practice it can be a bit of a bummer if you don't get it right though.
 
Jayst84 said:
It appears to be another silly neologism for a technique that's been credited to some random on the internet by people who don't realise the technique has been in use for many decades (longer likely). ;)
Click to expand...


Yeah that happens a lot. Kind of reminds me of the "Brenizer effect". I can remember shooting multiple medium format frames and scanning them together to get a large format result back in the late 90s... loads of people used to do it. It didn't even have a name back then. The digital generation are funny: They come along and rediscover things already discovered and think they own them :)... kind of like when each generation of teenagers think they've invented sex, drugs and rock & roll not realising their parents probably put them to shame in that department :) It does how show little research they do though.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
kind of like when each generation of teenagers think they've invented sex, drugs and rock & roll not realising their parents probably put them to shame in that department
Click to expand...

Is anyone interested in my new invention? It's a rotating disc shaped object which, when used in multiples, will revolutionise transportation of people and goods.


Steve.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Yeah that happens a lot. Kind of reminds me of the "Brenizer effect". I can remember shooting multiple medium format frames and scanning them together to get a large format result back in the late 90s... loads of people used to do it. It didn't even have a name back then. The digital generation are funny: They come along and rediscover things already discovered and think they own them :)... kind of like when each generation of teenagers think they've invented sex, drugs and rock & roll not realising their parents probably put them to shame in that department :) It does how show little research they do though.
Click to expand...

Just so you are aware Brenizer openly admits he did not create the method. It just so happened that others latched onto it because he was doing it so well when it became popular for weddings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top