Night Time Long Exposure Shots

Fr0dders

Fr0dders

Fr0dders

Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
33,438
Location
West Yorks
Whats the secret to these ?

This is what I took,


IMG_2046.jpg by Fr0dders, on Flickr

and this is what I'm comparing it to.

I set the camera to ISO100, the smallest apperture I had, and even with 2 / 3 second exposures was having some parts horrendously over exposed. The building slap bang in the middle is apparently so horrendously over exposed that even lightroom can't bring it back. I've tried applying a filter over it to drop the exposure back but it just ends up looking awful as most of the detail has gone.

How do you get 25 second exposures like Shoosh's without having the bright lights just over expose everything ?

sHo0sH said:
Couple of favourites from a trip about Westminster the other night...

untitled-26-3.jpg by sho0sh, on Flickr


untitled-25-2.jpg by sho0sh, on Flickr


untitled-21-3.jpg by sho0sh, on Flickr
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
There's not much you can do other than HDR/manual HDR, or selective darkening.

His shots are simply that there's no buildings with brighter lights. The first one is easier because the buildings are further away but even the billboards towards the centre are over exposed.
 
If you can position the filter over the building that is darker than everything else then that would help... I'm guessing that's what he means. It would be difficult in this case!

As mentioned, you either need to get in there with PP to dark/lighten stuff but personally, I'd also try the HDR route! Can be a bit annoying though since often, the bracketed shots can't go over 30 seconds so you need to take your own over/under exposed manual shots.
 
I'll expand, graduated ND filter. Or, a reversed graduated filter. Where the centre part is the darkest.

That could work.
 
Russinating said:
There's not much you can do other than HDR/manual HDR, or selective darkening.

His shots are simply that there's no buildings with brighter lights. The first one is easier because the buildings are further away but even the billboards towards the centre are over exposed.
Click to expand...

I'm having problems with 2 second exposures though.

I experimented with 5 / 6 second exposures and everything was overexposed, it was all just white.

I take it the only way to take 30 second exposures at night is with a filter or some sort to make it even darker then ?
 
Fr0dders said:
I'm having problems with 2 second exposures though.

I experimented with 5 / 6 second exposures and everything was overexposed, it was all just white.

I take it the only way to take 30 second exposures at night is with a filter or some sort to make it even darker then ?
Click to expand...

ND Filter (10 stop are most common, which means 9 stops tend to be much better priced ;) darkens the whole scene (by 9 stops in the case of a 9 stop ND filter), and therefore allows these longer exposures.

The shots in question also have a bit of HDR though.

You can actually do a simple HDR job with LR if you've got a decent camera with decent dynamic range. Take the original raw, make two copies, knock one up a stop, one down a stop, and blend all three new images into a single HDR.

kd
 
I think comparing your image to those London ones is also a little different because of a number of factors.

First one is that yours aren't really taken at night, they are just after sunset. I personally don't feel the sky on that evening is doing much for the photo.

While London has lots of lights, in the photos you are comparing to, most are very distant specks of light. Your photo though, the light sources are bigger and the buildings are much closer, further to that they are light in colour and thus are absorbing all that light and blowing the highlights on them. If you look at the first picture of London you referenced, you can see St Pauls is also like that, its just very distant.

The third factor is that the photos of London are taken actually at night. The long-ish exposure though just shows up how much light pollution there is in the sky.

I myself took a set of photos of London at night last year and I used between F/11 and F/22 and some pretty long exposures in bulb mode.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/taiga_studio/sets/72157634574151755/

It's real trial and error as I only came away with a handful of shots that were exactly what I wanted. If you are shooting long exposures they take a while, especially when trying different lengths of time. It ends up being an entire night of shooting. Shooting RAW also gives you some scope to recover highlights. On another note, I have tried playing around with a ND400 (9 stops) which is so dark you can barely see through it during the day and around sunset. I found it a bit useless by the river though, as things like boats and such on the water end up having too much movement from the water.



London Bridge lit up by Dazzle by Taiga Studio, on Flickr


HMS Belfast & Tower Bridge by Taiga Studio, on Flickr


As an example, while this shot below might not look it, where I was stood was pitch black. Had to dig out the phone to use as a torch when I walked down the steps to the river.


Millenium Bridge & St. Pauls by Taiga Studio, on Flickr
 
I did have an ND with me on those, but those are actually just done with my CPL still attached. I think they were about 30 secs, and probably used f6 and ISO 100. In post I underexposed them by about 0.5 of a stop and toned down the highlights a bit, the originals were a bit more blown out indeed!
 
sHo0sH said:
I did have an ND with me on those, but those are actually just done with my CPL still attached. I think they were about 30 secs, and probably used f6 and ISO 100. In post I underexposed them by about 0.5 of a stop and toned down the highlights a bit, the originals were a bit more blown out indeed!
Click to expand...

CPL ?
 
Nexus said:
I think comparing your image to those London ones is also a little different because of a number of factors.

First one is that yours aren't really taken at night, they are just after sunset. I personally don't feel the sky on that evening is doing much for the photo.

While London has lots of lights, in the photos you are comparing to, most are very distant specks of light. Your photo though, the light sources are bigger and the buildings are much closer, further to that they are light in colour and thus are absorbing all that light and blowing the highlights on them. If you look at the first picture of London you referenced, you can see St Pauls is also like that, its just very distant.

The third factor is that the photos of London are taken actually at night. The long-ish exposure though just shows up how much light pollution there is in the sky.

I myself took a set of photos of London at night last year and I used between F/11 and F/22 and some pretty long exposures in bulb mode.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/taiga_studio/sets/72157634574151755/

It's real trial and error as I only came away with a handful of shots that were exactly what I wanted. If you are shooting long exposures they take a while, especially when trying different lengths of time. It ends up being an entire night of shooting. Shooting RAW also gives you some scope to recover highlights. On another note, I have tried playing around with a ND400 (9 stops) which is so dark you can barely see through it during the day and around sunset. I found it a bit useless by the river though, as things like boats and such on the water end up having too much movement from the water.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that

Given the limitations of the scene (every building was white painted rendering like you say :( so they just soaked up the light)

What else would you have done differently being charged with photographing the same scene

1) taken it later in the evening with less light
2) used a filter ?
 
Fr0dders said:
Thanks for that

Given the limitations of the scene (every building was white painted rendering like you say :( so they just soaked up the light)

What else would you have done differently being charged with photographing the same scene

1) taken it later in the evening with less light
2) used a filter ?
Click to expand...

earlier in the night, before the sky goes all black, so the average light all round is more even.
 
As Raymond pointed out, best ting is to shoot earlier when there is more ambient light, (or better still just before sunrise).

Night time shots are rarely good when photographed in the middle of the night, it is the 10-15minutes around dawn and dusk where the lighting is most interesting and better balanced.

I've never found filters to be required for these kinds of shots. A CPL wont be much kip because without the sun you don't have strongly polarized light, plus you want to maximize the reflections off water rather than minimize them. Some graduated ND filter might be feasible but t is unlikely with the layout of buildings, the sky etc.


Finally, in PP you can bring out more shadow detail. Expose to protect highlights and pull up the shadows. Shoot at Base ISO. This is definitely where the Sony exmor and Nikon sensors do very well at pulling up shadow detail and the DR comes into play. But really, get the right lighting and you should be there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom