# Long exposure shots during daylight without any filters



## batmura (Sep 27, 2012)

Hello!

First of all, I'm an absolute beginner, so I'd appreciate replies in that manner. Recently I have been watching videos on YouTube about how to take photos with long exposures. Yesterday, I watched video with Scott Kelby where he was giving a short tutorial on shooting photos of the seaside. After emphasizing the importance of using a tripod and remote cable, he put a "natural density filter with 9 stops" on his lens which he said would reduce the amount of daylight (they were shooting at around 2 p.m.) and I was wondering if it is possible to shoot similar photos without any filters. I only have the kit lens and do not want to invest in any filters before getting to know my first DSLR a little better. 

If Kelby had shot the picture without that filter, would the sea not be as calm as it looked? If not, does this mean one can never shoot waterfalls during daylight without using any filters under any circumstances?


----------



## mjhoward (Sep 27, 2012)

batmura said:


> he put a "natural density filter with 9 stops" on his lens which he said would reduce the amount of daylight (they were shooting at around 2 p.m.) and I was wondering if it is possible to shoot similar photos without any filters.



Not really.  You can use the lowest ISO and the smallest aperture to get the shutter speed down, but you are going to have some image quality issues with using the smallest possible aperture and even that may not reduce the shutter speed enough to get the effect you're after.  BTW, it's NEUTRAL density filter, not Natural.


----------



## ceejtank (Sep 27, 2012)

The longer the shutter stays open, the more light is let in.  What the ND filter is doing is blocking a decent amount of that light (9 stops worth) so that the image will be properly exposed.  Shooting in full sunlight for long times will make your image incredibly bright (over exposed).  If you sot when there was very little light out, then you can use a longer shutter speed without problems.  

That being said, play with your "Time Value" or "shutter speed" setting.  You'll see the longer you go, the higher the Fstop, and that's because the camera is adjusting the aperature based on the shutter speed to give you a properly exposed image.  

In the example you mentioned above (shooting in daylight around 2 PM) you would need a ND filter to block out enough light to give you a properly exposed image.


----------



## batmura (Sep 27, 2012)

Does this mean all those tutorials I've been watching on YouTube with amazing photos were all shot with ND filters and such? Kelby advises to use the Bulb mode on Manual with a 2 minute exposure. At this point, I want to shoot a long exposure photo without any filters? What are my options? Can I shoot some at sunset?


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 27, 2012)

> If Kelby had shot the picture without that filter, would the sea not be as calm as it looked? If not, does this mean one can never shoot waterfalls during daylight without using any filters under any circumstances?


You could shoot water during the daytime...but a shutter speed that will give you proper exposure, probably won't be long enough to give you the blur that you want.  As mentioned, you can get a longer shutter speed by using a smaller aperture and a low ISO, but that's your limit.  After that, your only options will be to shoot when it's darker, or use filters.


----------



## batmura (Sep 27, 2012)

Big Mike said:


> > you can get a longer shutter speed by using a smaller aperture and a low ISO, but that's your limit.  After that, your only options will be to shoot when it's darker, or use filters.
> 
> 
> How much darker? Are we talking about sunset time or night dark with only city lights?


----------



## ceejtank (Sep 27, 2012)

batmura said:


> Does this mean all those tutorials I've been watching on YouTube with amazing photos were all shot with ND filters and such? Kelby advises to use the Bulb mode on Manual with a 2 minute exposure. At this point, I want to shoot a long exposure photo without any filters? What are my options? Can I shoot some at sunset?



it depends on the shot you're referring to.. If it's sunny out and you're going for 2 minutes, then yes you will need a filter.  Shooting in a darker setting, perhaps a little after sunset could get it for you.  

I would suggest taking your camera to a place you can try it around sunset, and playing with the settings until you get something that works for you.  You're trying to recreate a very specific type of picture, without using the recommended equipment for the example you've been given.

A picture is what light is reflected off an object, and then captured on your medium (whether it be film or a digital sensor).. so the amount of light comign into a camera plays a large role in what the picture will come out like.


----------



## batmura (Sep 27, 2012)

What about night streaks/tail lights? If I go on a bridge and do a long exposure shoot of cars passing by, would I still need filters?


----------



## ceejtank (Sep 27, 2012)

Here is an example of a photo I took for a time value of I believe 8 seconds.  This was taken after the sun had set.  You can see how bright it still is, and this was probably 30 minutes after sunset.  So if this was open for 2 minutes, the picture would have been completely blown out.  I'll need to tell you all the EXIF data when I get home.


----------



## ceejtank (Sep 27, 2012)

batmura said:


> What about night streaks/tail lights? If I go on a bridge and do a long exposure shoot of cars passing by, would I still need filters?




No.  I posted an example of a shutter speed of 8 seconds at night I took earlier this year, you can see cars passing by in it.  For star trails, you need a very long exposure and a very dark sky (not a lot of light around you)


----------



## batmura (Sep 27, 2012)

That is the type of photo I want to shoot! I am a beginner and I realize I need a lot of experience, but at this point I want to shoot some photos without any filters. 

You said this picture would have been "blown out" if the shutter was open for 2 minutes? What does that mean? What about the bulb mode? Do you ever use it? What would have happened if Kelby had shot the picture with a 2-second shot rather than 30+ with the filters? What would be different? I'm trying to understand the difference between 2 and 8 or 30 seconds at this time? How does one decide (or know) how long they'll keep the shutter open?

Again, sorry if these questions sound stupid...


----------



## batmura (Sep 27, 2012)

ceejtank said:


> If it's sunny out and you're going for 2 minutes, then yes you will need a filter.


What if I go for 20 seconds instead of 2 minutes? Is a filter still necessary? By the way, I assume you were using a tripod for that picture above?


----------



## fjrabon (Sep 27, 2012)

blown out means that the picture has recorded almost pure white because too much light has hit the sensor and all detail is lost.  

You probably just need to study the basics of exposure before you start thinking about how to shoot a particular type of photograph.  Because until you understand the basics of exposure you'll just be coming here every time you want a certain shot and asking "how should I set my camera?!" every single time.  Once you understand how the basics of exposure work, you can figure out a lot of stuff like the questions you are asking by just applying that knowledge and some basic logic.

Ultimately it all boils down to this:

1) you need X amount of effective light to achieve Y brightness in a given photo.  THis is a direct relationship, ie the more effective light, the brighter the photo.  Photographers refer to this as the exposure.

2) The amount of light in the environment plus any flash you may use is the first factor to consider.  The light in the environment is referred to as the ambient light.  For the shot you are referring to above, ambient light is all there is.  Obviously the more ambient light there is, the more light there is.  

3) The shutter speed controls how long the shutter is open.  Obviously the longer it is open, the more ambient light is let in.  (this doesn't work for flash, since flash flashes for as long as the flash flashes, the shutter speed doesn't change that until you get to extremely fast speeds).  Shutter speed also obviously effects the amount of 'movement' captured in the image.  What causes the 'silky' look you want is that the water is moving.  So when you capture it for a long time, it creates an averaged out look, which is smooth and silky.

4) the aperture (f/stop) controls the rate at which the light comes into the camera.  ie its essentially how large the opening that lets light into the camera is.  THe larger the opening, the more light that can pour in, the smaller, the less that can pour in.  It also controls how much of your frame is in focus.  If the hole is very large (an aperture of f/2, for instance), then the depth that is in focus will be small.  If the opening is tiny (f/22 for example) then almost the entire image will appear in focus.  

5) The ISO controls how much the light that comes in is amplified (for digital that is, for film it controls how sensitive the film is to light).  So if a picture is X bright at ISO 100, its 2X bright at ISO 200.  At high values ISO also can cause noise and color desaturation as well.  

For the look you want, you want a long shutter speed.  You usually need about 45 seconds at least to get even moderately silky water.  In daylight, this is a LONG time for a shutter to be open.  A normal shutter speed in full daylight at a normal aperture (say f/11) and ISO 100 is something like 1/40 a second.  So you're essentially letting in 1,600 times as much light with that shutter speed as you'd normally want.  This will mean that even if you go all the way down to f/22 (the smallest most consumer grade lenses will go), way too much light will be entering the camera if your shutter is open for 45 seconds.  The water will be smooth, because it wil be completely white, just like everything else in the picture, your picture will come out completely white and all detail will be lost.  

Neutral density filters are basically like sunglasses for your camera.  Very high quality sunglasses that don't change the color of the light (hence neutral).  a 9 stop ND filter basically means you are cutting the amount of light that gets in down by 256 times (each stop is half as much light, thus 1 stop down is 1/2, 2 stops down is 1/4, 3 stops down is 1/8,etc) .  Thus allowing you to take a long exposure in the daylight without making your picture pure white.  

Your solutions to this problem without a ND filter is basically shoot when it's less bright.  Either about 45 minutes after sunset, or 15 minutes after sunset when it's very overcast (this can be a dramatic shot indeed, as you get the rolling clouds as well).


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 27, 2012)

The only way you are going to find answers to these questions...is to go out and see for yourself.  The more you practice, the better of an idea you will have.


----------



## enzodm (Sep 27, 2012)

The best thing is to study the basics. Search for "exposure triangle", or better buy a good beginner book on photography.



batmura said:


> That is the type of photo I want to shoot! I am a beginner and I realize I need a lot of experience, but at this point I want to shoot some photos without any filters.
> 
> You said this picture would have been "blown out" if the shutter was open for 2 minutes? What does that mean? What about the bulb mode? Do you ever use it? What would have happened if Kelby had shot the picture with a 2-second shot rather than 30+ with the filters? What would be different? I'm trying to understand the difference between 2 and 8 or 30 seconds at this time? How does one decide (or know) how long they'll keep the shutter open?
> 
> Again, sorry if these questions sound stupid...


----------



## batmura (Sep 27, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> blown out means that the picture has recorded almost pure white because too much light has hit the sensor and all detail is lost.
> 
> You probably just need to study the basics of exposure before you start thinking about how to shoot a particular type of photograph.  Because until you understand the basics of exposure you'll just be coming here every time you want a certain shot and asking "how should I set my camera?!" every single time.  Once you understand how the basics of exposure work, you can figure out a lot of stuff like the questions you are asking by just applying that knowledge and some basic logic.
> 
> ...


Thanks! Any recommendation for a good (and preferably cheap) ND filter for my Nikon 18-55mm kit lens?


----------



## .SimO. (Sep 27, 2012)

I was going to say. Those questions you could have answered yourself for the amount of time you were waiting for a reply. Go take a bunch of pictures and then have everyone critique them.  That is what works for me and if you are serious about the pictures, you will get serious answers.  GL


----------



## ceejtank (Sep 27, 2012)

batmura said:


> That is the type of photo I want to shoot! I am a beginner and I realize I need a lot of experience, but at this point I want to shoot some photos without any filters.
> 
> You said this picture would have been "blown out" if the shutter was open for 2 minutes? What does that mean? What about the bulb mode? Do you ever use it? What would have happened if Kelby had shot the picture with a 2-second shot rather than 30+ with the filters? What would be different? I'm trying to understand the difference between 2 and 8 or 30 seconds at this time? How does one decide (or know) how long they'll keep the shutter open?
> 
> Again, sorry if these questions sound stupid...



I did not use a filter on that shot as it was very dark out.

"blown out" means over-exposed.. but to an extreme really in this case.  The picture woudl essentially be white because of how much light woudl be recorded. 

I use bulb mode when I want to control the amount of time exactly using my off camera release, or for star trails.  If kelby had the filters on, shot for 2 seconds instead of 30+ the picture would be very dark as only a little light would have gone through.

You'll learn how long to keep the shutter open by understanding exposure.  For now - play with the Time value (shutter speed) mode of your camera.  Adjust for the length of time (probably limited to a max of 30 seconds), and try and notice what settings the aperature and ISO changes to on your camera to accomplish the time.  It is one way (besides reading on the "exposure triangle(aperature, ISO, shutter speed)) to gain an understanding of how the three work together.  If you only adjust one variable, and see how your camera automatically adjusts the otehr 2 variables, you will start to see how all three interact with each other.


----------



## rokvi (Sep 27, 2012)

batmura said:


> ceejtank said:
> 
> 
> > I assume you were using a tripod for that picture above?
> ...


----------



## PlanetStarbucks (Sep 27, 2012)

batmura said:


> That is the type of photo I want to shoot! I am a beginner and I realize I need a lot of experience, but at this point I want to shoot some photos without any filters.



Why fear the filter?  ND filters are like mana from heaven to any photographer shooting in natural light.  Not only do they allow you to take longer exposures, but they compress the dynamic range of light allowing the camera to get a proper exposure on more of the scene.  It won't save you from bad photography, but they are one of the tools that you should add to your bag as soon as the wallet permits it.


----------



## batmura (Sep 27, 2012)

> Why fear the filter?


Since I'm a beginner, I was told that I shouldn't bother with any filters till I have a solid grasp of basic photography. I also came across similar advice in some videos I've been watching. If I get a filter for my kit lens, will I be able to use it on another one? I guess not? Also, do you have any suggestion as to what would be the best choice for the D3100 kit lens?


----------



## Light Guru (Sep 27, 2012)

you can use one filter on multiple lenses.  there are a few ways to do this.  if you get a round filter then get a large one and then you can use step up rings from lenses with smaller filter sizes.  You can also go with a square filter system and get an attachment for each lens that will fit the square filter holder.


----------



## rokvi (Sep 27, 2012)

PlanetStarbucks said:


> batmura said:
> 
> 
> > That is the type of photo I want to shoot! I am a beginner and I realize I need a lot of experience, but at this point I want to shoot some photos without any filters.
> ...


 

"Compressing" dynamic range is done with multiple exposures.
 An ND filter reduces the intensity of the colour wavelengths equally without changing them. eg: less light, allowing (larger Aperture = less diffraction). Also allowing longer shutter speeds, giving motion to moving substances/objects.


----------



## rokvi (Sep 27, 2012)

batmura said:


> > Why fear the filter?
> 
> 
> Since I'm a beginner, I was told that I shouldn't bother with any filters till I have a solid grasp of basic photography. I also came across similar advice in some videos I've been watching. If I get a filter for my kit lens, will I be able to use it on another one? I guess not? Also, do you have any suggestion as to what would be the best choice for the D3100 kit lens?



Check the inside of your lens cap or the front of your lens, it will give you the size in mm (millimeters). That is the size of the screw on filter you need. If you have more than 1 lens the same size it will fit them as well.

Best choice? "you get what you pay for" is the only way to say it.


----------



## ceejtank (Sep 27, 2012)

The exif data is as follows for the shot i posted.

Shooting Mode    Shutter-Priority AE
Tv( Shutter Speed )    6
Av( Aperture Value )    5.6
Metering Mode    Evaluative Metering
Exposure Compensation    0
ISO Speed    100
Auto ISO Speed    OFF
Lens    EF28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Focal Length    28.0mm
Image Quality    RAW
White Balance Mode    Auto
AF Mode    One-Shot AF
Picture Style    Landscape


----------



## digby (Sep 30, 2012)

With the filter - I've looked on amazon, some are £20, some are £3. Is there any difference? This is the £3 one...is it junk?

NEW 58mm 58 mm Neutral Density ND 4 ND4 Filter For 58mm: Amazon.co.uk: Camera & Photo


----------



## fjrabon (Sep 30, 2012)

digby said:


> With the filter - I've looked on amazon, some are £20, some are £3. Is there any difference? This is the £3 one...is it junk?
> 
> NEW 58mm 58 mm Neutral Density ND 4 ND4 Filter For 58mm: Amazon.co.uk: Camera & Photo



yes, it is junk.  It's fine if you only use a ND filter once a year just for fun.  if you want actual decent image quality, when it comes to filters, you get what you pay for.


----------



## digby (Sep 30, 2012)

Thanks for the reply, the other one on there is only £20 though - will that be any better?! It still sounds cheap. It does say it's reduced from £40:

Hama 58mm Variable Neutral Density Filter: Amazon.co.uk: Camera & Photo

If not, could you recommend one?


----------



## fjrabon (Sep 30, 2012)

digby said:


> Thanks for the reply, the other one on there is only £20 though - will that be any better?! It still sounds cheap. It does say it's reduced from £40:
> 
> Hama 58mm Variable Neutral Density Filter: Amazon.co.uk: Camera & Photo
> 
> If not, could you recommend one?



I'm not familiar with Hama (the second one you linked) in fact I can't say I've even ever heard of them.  It looks almost exactly like the polaroid branded ND filters that are sold here in the US, which it probably is and is just rebranded.  If that's the case, it's not awful, but isn't good either. 

Here is a good 4 stop filter: Hoya 58mm PRO-1 Digital ND16 Filter: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics

If you want one where you can control the level of the filter: Hoya 58mm Variable Density Filter A58VDY B&H Photo Video


----------



## bunny99123 (Sep 30, 2012)

Wow, I learned alot from this question.  I read, but it being explained in relationship to a photo helped a lot. Thank you for your time and advice


----------



## digby (Sep 30, 2012)

Thanks very much - really helpful. I've gone away and had a read up on these, very interesting - it had never even crossed my mind that they might exist, it seems to open up some really interesting shots. 



fjrabon said:


> digby said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the reply, the other one on there is only £20 though - will that be any better?! It still sounds cheap. It does say it's reduced from £40:
> ...


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Sep 30, 2012)

LOL natural density!


----------



## AJB91 (Sep 30, 2012)

Hello,

If you stick to using a slower ISO (for example ISO100) and combine this with the use of a pinhole lens, you would be able to achieve longer exposures in brighter settings...

But if sharpness is of paramount importance, then it may be worth investing in a set of ND filters...

However, if not having a pin-sharp scene isn't an issue, then using a pinhole lens could be an interesting way to go!

I have made my own pinhole lenses in the past, they are easy to make and it doesn't cost that much either - and the results can be pretty ace.

heres a quick 'how-to' instructional incase you are interested:

Create your own pinhole 'lens' for your SLR camera | Pixiq

Hope this may have been of some use  

AJ


----------

