# First try at light painting



## Josh66 (Jan 30, 2012)

2012013002 by J E, on Flickr


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 30, 2012)

I was going for teleportation, 'Terminator' style.


----------



## BlackSheep (Jan 30, 2012)

I like it alot, but I get "exorcist" more than teleportation.

Either way, very cool!


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 30, 2012)

I tied the flashlight to the handlebars with a string to make sure the distance stayed constant (more or less) to get a sphere.


----------



## paigew (Jan 30, 2012)

I love this! It looks magical


----------



## Derrel (Jan 31, 2012)

Looks kind of cool.


----------



## mishele (Jan 31, 2012)

Kinda creepy....=) Fun shot Josh!!


----------



## Frequency (Jan 31, 2012)

very creative; loved it a lottt


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 31, 2012)

Thanks everyone!  I'll probably try another one tonight.


----------



## BigknockHawk (Feb 1, 2012)

This is VERY cool!


----------



## camz (Feb 1, 2012)

I agree very cool Josh!


----------



## LuckySe7en (Feb 1, 2012)

that looks freaking cool


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 1, 2012)

Very neat. Good idea with the string on the handlebars... Maybe if you try it again, you can find the mid-point of the bike frame and attach the string there. It would probably give a more uniform distance around the bike, as the back tires are very close to the edge, and the handlebars are very far (relatively). 

Are the thicker, softer lines from where the flashlight hit the wall?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Feb 1, 2012)

film?


----------



## cannpope (Feb 1, 2012)

I like, but where did the kid go


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 1, 2012)

Thanks again, guys.



o hey tyler said:


> Very neat. Good idea with the string on the handlebars... Maybe if you try it again, you can find the mid-point of the bike frame and attach the string there. It would probably give a more uniform distance around the bike, as the back tires are very close to the edge, and the handlebars are very far (relatively).
> 
> Are the thicker, softer lines from where the flashlight hit the wall?


Yes, the wider streaks are from the light hitting the wall (and floor).  At first, I planned to tie it to the seat, since it's closer to the middle, but the handlebars seemed to be a better 'pivot point'.  I was worried that the string would snag on stuff with it tied to the seat.  In hind-sight, I probably could have taped the end of the string to the top of the seat and just be careful not to pull it too hard.

[edit - I like how the softer lines kind of trail off to the right side.  Like it's some kind of 'mist' drifting in the wind.]



Schwettylens said:


> film?


Fuji Acros 100, 50mm 1.4 @ f/8, Bulb.  I just locked it open in bulb mode after pre-focusing with the lights on.  The shutter was open for probably about 3 minutes.



cannpope said:


> I like, but where did the kid go


LOL.  Yeah, I might have to try that next time.

Maybe I'll really do it 'Terminator style' and make it a nude self portrait.    (Seriously sounds like a good idea...)


----------



## jwbryson1 (Feb 1, 2012)

If the bulb is open for a period of time and the person is moving around in front of the lens with the light, why does the person not appear in the image?


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 1, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:
			
		

> If the bulb is open for a period of time and the person is moving around in front of the lens with the light, why does the person not appear in the image?



Because if they're not illuminated by the light, combined with the movement, they won't be visible in the exposure. The greater allowance for incidental light will increase the probability that you see the painter in the frame. Thus why Josh shot on f/8.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Feb 1, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Because if they're not illuminated by the light, combined with the movement, they won't be visible in the exposure. The greater allowance for incidental light will increase the probability that you see the painter in the frame. Thus why Josh shot on f/8.



So if he had stopped down the aperture that would further lessen the chance of him appearing in the photo?  Did I say that right?

Are you saying that he's exposing the image for the bright lights and the ambient lighting is not enough to expose him?


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 1, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:
			
		

> So if he had stopped down the aperture that would further lessen the chance of him appearing in the photo?  Did I say that right?
> 
> Are you saying that he's exposing the image for the bright lights and the ambient lighting is not enough to expose him?



Yes, but it would also decrease the prominence of the light painting. I'd say that he did well as he doesn't appear in the exposure as far as I can tell.  It's somewhat of a fine line to walk, but you're on the right track bud. 

Do some experimenting tonight!


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 1, 2012)

What Tyler said.

I plugged the aperture and ISO into my light meter and hit the test button with the lights off - it said the 'proper exposure' would be something like 10 minutes...

So, basically, NO LIGHT is registering, except for the light I make.

My movement around the frame *might* have caused a slight loss of contrast, but that's it.


I shot this on film, which might give it a slight advantage due to reciprocity failure (but the film I shot it on is known for having VERY little reciprocity failure) - but the same principles apply to digital.

In a dark enough environment, with a small enough aperture, the only light that will register on the sensor is the light you paint in with the flashlight.

For the light on the tricycle, after I was done making circles and stuff, I 'painted' the tricycle with the flashlight.  Going over it a few times to make sure it got enough light to register on the film.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Feb 1, 2012)

Yeah, I've been wanting to try this and I read that it works best when you do it in a dark setting.  Makes sense.  Cool image.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 1, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> Yeah, I've been wanting to try this and I read that it works best when you do it in a dark setting.  Makes sense.  Cool image.


Wait till it's dark out, pre-focus with the lights on, put 'er in Bulb.  ISO 100 and f/8 should give you around 10 minutes to work with (much more than you need).

If in doubt, do a test exposure.  ISO 100, bulb, f/8.  Open the shutter for like 5 minutes or something.  Review the picture on the LCD.  If you get anything other than a completely black frame, stop down more or expose for less time (or lower the ISO, if you can).


----------



## jwbryson1 (Feb 1, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> Wait till it's dark out, pre-focus with the lights on, put 'er in Bulb.  ISO 100 and f/8 should give you around 10 minutes to work with (much more than you need).
> 
> If in doubt, do a test exposure.  ISO 100, bulb, f/8.  Open the shutter for like 5 minutes or something.  Review the picture on the LCD.  If you get anything other than a completely black frame, stop down more or expose for less time (or lower the ISO, if you can).



Awesome!  I can tell you right now my 7 year old daughter is going to LOVE this!  :smileys:


----------



## arkipix1001 (Feb 1, 2012)

that is wicked...i would love to try that myself....


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 1, 2012)

If you're going to try to include her in the picture, you can pop a flash on her with it in manual (the flash) by pressing the test button.  It should be pretty straight-forward to figure out the required flash power prior to the actual exposure.

That's what I would do if I do the 'nude terminator self-port', though I would use a radio trigger (holding the transmitter in my hand) so the flash isn't visible in the frame.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 1, 2012)

arkipix1001 said:


> that is wicked...i would love to try that myself....


Do it!


----------



## hoyinsiu (Feb 2, 2012)

this is cool


----------

