Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Fortnightly Challenge May 12-25 : Long Exposures
- Thread starter Designer Dale
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
-2.147484e+09 is scientific notation and means the same as -2.147484 x 10^9 or times 10 to the 9th power. In other words over -2 billion. Like Dale said though the exposure time was 1279 seconds. Either that's the real value and it's not meant for human consumption or the value was too large for the camera to record and it recorded this (kind of like excel and some calculators do). Anyway...I enjoy useless knowledge, so if anyone knows what the value means...
Gotta have traffic for light trails. I think it's a good shot. Those folks must have been pretty still for 20 seconds. If the light trail is going to be the subject then you need interesting surroundings. You have it here expect the tree kind of gets in the way. The other thing I always find interesting is a curve in the road and you have one but it's just out of the pic. As far as this pic goes I might try going black and white and more contrasty just to make it more interesting. But that's my personal preference since the light trail wasn't that colorful. I gave it a quick go...
Attachments
Thanks. I do like it in B&W ... it fits the era of the building. The light trail was an added bonus ... my main focus was the Palace. There was a tall building on the right which cut off the curve.
Thanks also, to you and Dale, too, for the info on the scientific notation stuff.
Here are two more I took the same evening, even though I'm not convinced that 1/60 counts as long exposure. I was doing a lot of experimenting that evening. I accidentally turned the flash on, and found I liked it, so left it on for the last few shots. (Flash was just the on-camera flash ... can't afford a "real" one.) I know I was way too far away for it to reach the subject, but it did seem to make a difference. This goes against everything I THOUGHT I have read ... Arg!!!
Above: ISO 800, 32mm, f/7.1, 1/60. Below: 2nd is ISO 3200, 21mm, f/7.1, 1/60
Tomorrow I'll try them in B&W, for my own edification.
Thanks, again!
mackmgg: Wow! Thanks for the detailed info! Some of it I don't understand yet. One thing I was hoping to figure out was your Shutter Speed, but what you have here (-2.147484e+09) still has me confused.
I'll just have to experiment myself. Hopefully I'll have some good weather before this challenge ends! (Although it's not looking overly promising.
I'm not sure why it put that for Shutter Speed Value. On all of my photos, it puts the correct shutter speed under Exposure Time, which in this case is 1249 seconds. I was shooting tethered, maybe that had something to do with that field being incorrect
Thanks, once you look at a larger scan you can see the limitations of the cheap plastic lens the Lubitel has. Still once sharpened a bit it looks fine at this size
These were my first star trails, I haven't had the opportunity for another shot but I thought I might as well stick it up.
![]()
Star Trails by danieljackcox, on Flickr
Star Trails by danieljackcox, on Flickr
The EXIF data says this was 13s, so I'm not sure why the water is not a lot smoother. I would have thought an exposure of that length would yield a frosted glass effect.
Here's a long exposure of the Boston downtown skyline I took last week... Only 6 seconds here resulted in much smoother water...
6s @ f8; ISO 800
Last edited:
^^ I didn't understand it either... I guess it's because it's a lake with fairly still water, but I would have liked it to look more like your shot. Tried it with 20 seconds and still didn't change much, so I just used this one. D:
Also, that's an amazing skyline shot. The light in the buildings is so great!
Also, that's an amazing skyline shot. The light in the buildings is so great!
Yeah, you're probably right... I'm sure the degree of ripples or waves in the surface of the water plays a big role in the outcome. Thanks!
Nope, just plain old darkness and some light painting on the tree with a flashlight.
Okay, here's the first one I processed this morning. The low end is 1/6s and the high end is 2.5s. This is the lobby of the Woodruff Arts Center in Atlanta, GA. I noticed the reflections in the marble wall, so I went for dividing the frame between real and reflected. There's also some random dude on a cell phone in the middle.
Woodruff Arts HDR by Gerg1967, on Flickr
Nicely done and I like the framing of this picture. Would love to see it in color as well.
Fun challenge. I only have a handfull of long exposure photos.
Shot this on the far, far western side of Albuquerque. This was a 30 second exposure at f8 with an ISO of 200. Didn't do hardly ANY Photoshop work on it.
The photo is that of a "ghost bike" that was erected by Heather's family after she was run over on her bike and killed by an illegal immigrant high on meth.
This shot made it to the #8 spot on Flickr's Explore.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidbales/3870811622/in/set-72157623565750514#/
Shot this on the far, far western side of Albuquerque. This was a 30 second exposure at f8 with an ISO of 200. Didn't do hardly ANY Photoshop work on it.
The photo is that of a "ghost bike" that was erected by Heather's family after she was run over on her bike and killed by an illegal immigrant high on meth.
This shot made it to the #8 spot on Flickr's Explore.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidbales/3870811622/in/set-72157623565750514#/
This is a really interesting photo. I like the effect you got with the flashlight mentioned in your Flick post. What kind of flashlight did you use and how did you come to decide on the exposure time? The flashlight photos I have tried don't keep the color as true as this.Fun challenge. I only have a handfull of long exposure photos.
Shot this on the far, far western side of Albuquerque. This was a 30 second exposure at f8 with an ISO of 200. Didn't do hardly ANY Photoshop work on it.
The photo is that of a "ghost bike" that was erected by Heather's family after she was run over on her bike and killed by an illegal immigrant high on meth.
This shot made it to the #8 spot on Flickr's Explore.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidbales/3870811622/in/set-72157623565750514#/
The only bad thing about it is the fact that it's a memorial.
Dale
I agree with Dale. Given the history, a truly poignant and moving photo in it's simplicity.
I decided to really challenge myself, but maybe went beyond my (current!) capabilities?
I set up a fresh flower arrangement in a dark hall. The flower arrangement gave me an extra challenge, as it has "water beads" floating in the water in the vase -- marble-sized gel balls (jello-like) that are shimmery and reflective like crystal, and seems to move by themselves. Also, there is an LED light under the vase to give it a neat "glowing" effect.
I tried to recreate what my eyes were seeing, but the flowers are still a little dark, and the glow isn't quite what I was hoping for. I used a tripod and a wireless remote (which allowed me to shoot in "bulb" mode), but forgot to turn off vibration reduction, so it's not as crisp as I'd like. I used a flashlight to paint a little light into the flowers, without cutting into the illumination from the base.
The purpose of this wasn't to create a fantastic photo, it was shot to try to become comfortable with a new technique, and difficult conditions. Other than the crispness, how did I do? What might I have done to make it better?
ISO 100, 35mm, 1 ev, f/5, 3.6 seconds.
I set up a fresh flower arrangement in a dark hall. The flower arrangement gave me an extra challenge, as it has "water beads" floating in the water in the vase -- marble-sized gel balls (jello-like) that are shimmery and reflective like crystal, and seems to move by themselves. Also, there is an LED light under the vase to give it a neat "glowing" effect.
I tried to recreate what my eyes were seeing, but the flowers are still a little dark, and the glow isn't quite what I was hoping for. I used a tripod and a wireless remote (which allowed me to shoot in "bulb" mode), but forgot to turn off vibration reduction, so it's not as crisp as I'd like. I used a flashlight to paint a little light into the flowers, without cutting into the illumination from the base.
The purpose of this wasn't to create a fantastic photo, it was shot to try to become comfortable with a new technique, and difficult conditions. Other than the crispness, how did I do? What might I have done to make it better?
ISO 100, 35mm, 1 ev, f/5, 3.6 seconds.
Last edited: