# My long exposure picture is too bright



## hamlet (Oct 15, 2013)

So i took a picture on a very cloudy day of a two way car tunnel. Here is how my picture turned out: 







What can i do to make this picture less bright? This was taken on my d3200 with the shutter speed at its slowest setting.


----------



## Mach0 (Oct 15, 2013)

hamlet said:


> So i took a picture on a very cloudy day of a two way car tunnel. Here is how my picture turned out:  What can i do to make this picture less bright? This was taken on my d3200 with the shutter speed at its slowest setting.



Shares the Exif ?


----------



## hamlet (Oct 15, 2013)

It is a jpeg on fine setting.

Here is the original
http://i.imgur.com/8rLHowZ.jpg


----------



## Light Guru (Oct 15, 2013)

hamlet said:


> What can i do to make this picture less bright? This was taken on my d3200 with the shutter speed at its slowest setting.



Well for starters you cannot just put your camera on the slowest setting and expect to get a proper exposure. You really need to understand the exposure triangle to understand how to do this. 

If an image is overexposed when using a long shutter speed then you need to compensate by changing the other two parts of the exposure triangle, or by using a ND filter to let less light in.

So like I said. You NEED to learn the exposure triangle!!!


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 15, 2013)

provide your shutter speed, aperture setting, ISO setting, etc

but you can, say stop down your aperture from 5.6 to 9
or speed up your shutter from 6 seconds to 2 seconds
or if your ISO was too high like say 1600 decrease it to 100.

Maybe your exposure setting got changed ... could be multiple ways to fix dependent upon the outcome you want.


basically, you have too much light.  So control that with the aperture (bigger f number), shutter (not so slow) or ISO (not so high).


----------



## hamlet (Oct 15, 2013)

Here is a picture of just above the tunnnel






Original: http://i2.minus.com/iZVLwHhlxMwDb.JPG


----------



## sm4him (Oct 15, 2013)

hamlet said:


> It is a jpeg on fine setting.
> 
> Here is the original
> http://i.imgur.com/8rLHowZ.jpg



^That's not what he wants to know.

We need to know the specific shutter speed this was shot at (not just "slowest setting"--the "slowest" setting would be "bulb", I'd think, which allows you to leave it open as long as you want).  We need to know the aperture as well. And the ISO setting.
Did you have any sort of filter on the camera? What lens?

"Very cloudy" can still be REALLY light when you're talking about long exposures. If the shutter speed was at its "slowest setting" you were letting a LOT of light in. If it was set at 30 seconds, say--that is a LOT of light that's going to get in, even on a VERY cloudy day.
Many nighttime long-exposures don't even need 30 seconds.

At the risk of sounding rude, judging from what I've seen in your other posts, I'd really suggest you not try long-exposure daytime shots just yet. You REALLY need to get a better handle on the basics of exposure and focus before you start experimenting with things like this.


----------



## Mach0 (Oct 15, 2013)

Light Guru said:


> Well for starters you cannot just put your camera on the slowest setting and expect to get a proper exposure. You really need to understand the exposure triangle to understand how to do this.  If an image is overexposed when using a long shutter speed then you need to compensate by changing the other two parts of the exposure triangle, or by using a ND filter to let less light in.  So like I said. You NEED to learn the exposure triangle!!!





sm4him said:


> ^That's not what he wants to know.  We need to know the specific shutter speed this was shot at (not just "slowest setting"--the "slowest" setting would be "bulb", I'd think, which allows you to leave it open as long as you want).  We need to know the aperture as well. And the ISO setting. Did you have any sort of filter on the camera? What lens?  "Very cloudy" can still be REALLY light when you're talking about long exposures. If the shutter speed was at its "slowest setting" you were letting a LOT of light in. If it was set at 30 seconds, say--that is a LOT of light that's going to get in, even on a VERY cloudy day. Many nighttime long-exposures don't even need 30 seconds.  At the risk of sounding rude, judging from what I've seen in your other posts, I'd really suggest you not try long-exposure daytime shots just yet. You REALLY need to get a better handle on the basics of exposure and focus before you start experimenting with things like this.







^^^^^^^* this


----------



## pgriz (Oct 15, 2013)

Regarding the first image, how did you determine what the exposure should be, and what was your thinking process in deciding which setting to set the camera to?  Why were you interested in the slowest shutter speed?


----------



## hamlet (Oct 15, 2013)

I think i understand, my shutter speed was set at 30 sec and iso was at  1600. There was no filter attached to my lens because the amazon hasn't  delivered yet.



sm4him said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > It is a jpeg on fine setting.
> ...



My camera was set on the picture with mountains on it. I only know how to set my focus on a single point like a hamster. I'm sure there is a setting in there that lets me pic more dots to focus on.


----------



## hamlet (Oct 15, 2013)

pgriz said:


> Regarding the first image, how did you determine what the exposure should be, and what was your thinking process in deciding which setting to set the camera to?  Why were you interested in the slowest shutter speed?



I was just curious.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 15, 2013)

hamlet said:


> My camera was set on the picture with mountains on it. I only know how to set my focus on a single point like a hamster. I'm sure there is a setting in there that lets me pic more dots to focus on.



Your focus point & focus settings are not relevant. It has _nothing_ to do with exposure.

Here's what we need to know:

ISO
Shutter speed
Aperture.

We need all three.


----------



## KmH (Oct 15, 2013)

What camera are you using?

Cameras that allow manual setting of the shutter speed, lens aperture and ISO have a light meter that measures how much reflected light there is in a scene.
Those cameras also usually offer 3 or more light metering modes:
One that averages all the reflected light in a scene. Nikon calls that Matrix metering mode. Canon calls it Evaluative metering mode.
One that weights the central 70% or so of the scene, or Center-weighted metering mode.
And Spot metering that only samples a small spot that is 2% to 5% or so of the reflected light in a scene.

As any of the 3 settings are changed, the light meter indicates if over exposure or under exposure will result when the shutter is released.


----------



## hamlet (Oct 15, 2013)

480sparky said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > My camera was set on the picture with mountains on it. I only know how to set my focus on a single point like a hamster. I'm sure there is a setting in there that lets me pic more dots to focus on.
> ...



30 second exposure
iso 1600
That's all i know because i set on the S symbol. The camera decides all the other settings, but i changed my iso in the menu manually.


----------



## Mach0 (Oct 15, 2013)

KmH said:


> What camera are you using?  Cameras that allow manual setting of the shutter speed, lens aperture and ISO have a light meter that measures how much reflected light there is in a scene. Those cameras also usually offer 3 or more light metering modes: One that averages all the reflected light in a scene. Nikon calls that Matrix metering mode. Canon calls it Evaluative metering mode. One that weights the central 70% or so of the scene, or Center-weighted metering mode. And Spot metering that only samples a small spot that is 2% to 5% or so of the reflected light in a scene.  As any of the 3 settings are changed, the light meter indicates if over exposure or under exposure will result when the shutter is released.



D3200


----------



## Mach0 (Oct 15, 2013)

hamlet said:


> I think i understand, my shutter speed was set at 30 sec and iso was at  1600. There was no filter attached to my lens because the amazon hasn't  delivered yet.  My camera was set on the picture with mountains on it. I only know how to set my focus on a single point like a hamster. I'm sure there is a setting in there that lets me pic more dots to focus on.  <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=58180"/>



Try it at ISO 100 and see how it does


----------



## pgriz (Oct 15, 2013)

Well, the high iso of 1600 means that the signal created by the sensor will be amplified.  A 30-second exposure will let in LOTS of light, which will now be amplified by the high ISO setting.  The camera may try to reduce he aperture (the only thing you allow it to control) but it cannot reduce the aperture anywhere near enough to get a decent exposure.   If you wish to experiment (always a good way to learn) you need to be systematic about it.  Vary ONE variable throughout its range, keeping everything else constant, and see how that variable changes the image.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 15, 2013)

Hey, he's trying to learn.  Experimentation is the first step to understanding.

the exposure triangle meant nothing to me when I first ventured into Manual mode of terrestial objects .... the camera took care of everything up to that point.

But just taking a regular picture, then transposing those ISO, Aperture and Shutter into Manual, 
then adjusting one setting up then down and seeing what happens then one starts to learn.

He just went to an extreme with the super long shutter speed during the day.


----------



## hamlet (Oct 15, 2013)

pgriz said:


> Well, the high iso of 1600 means that the signal created by the sensor will be amplified.  A 30-second exposure will let in LOTS of light, which will now be amplified by the high ISO setting.  The camera may try to reduce he aperture (the only thing you allow it to control) but it cannot reduce the aperture anywhere near enough to get a decent exposure.   If you wish to experiment (always a good way to learn) you need to be systematic about it.  Vary ONE variable throughout its range, keeping everything else constant, and see how that variable changes the image.



I messed up there, i thought that higher iso meant less light. I was just walking around the city taking some pictures. Next time i'll find a bench and try your suggestion.


----------



## hamlet (Oct 15, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> Hey, he's trying to learn.  Experimentation is the first step to understanding.
> 
> the exposure triangle meant nothing to me when I first ventured into Manual mode of terrestial objects .... the camera took care of everything up to that point.
> 
> ...


So this triangle. If i move the shutter speed down, does that mean that i have to move the aperture and the ISO in the other direction to get a triangle?


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 15, 2013)

hamlet said:


> 30 second exposure
> iso 1600
> That's all i know because i set on the S symbol. The camera decides all the other settings, but i changed my iso in the menu manually.



Load the image into View NX 2.  It came with the camera.  If you don't have it, you can download it free from Nikon.  On the right of the screen, you will be able to see your aperture.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 15, 2013)

hamlet said:


> So this triangle. If i move the shutter speed down, does that mean that i have to move the aperture and the ISO in the other direction to get a triangle?



Yes.... you must change one of the others (or both), in order to maintain proper exposure.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 15, 2013)

If you have a good picture with proper exposure

and you make the shutter speed shorter

you would have to do one of two things to equal it out for a proper exposure
 change the aperture (a smaller f number) which lets more light in 
 OR/and increase the ISO which makes it more sensitive to light


----------



## hamlet (Oct 15, 2013)

I would have to move into uncharted territory... 







View attachment 58187


----------



## limr (Oct 15, 2013)

hamlet said:


> I would have to move into uncharted territory...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do it! Do it! C'mon! You know you wanna!


----------



## hamlet (Oct 15, 2013)

Tomorrow i will put most of my day into figuring this triangle out.

 Here are some pics i took today in the old and new brewery streets with my camera on the mountain mode.






















I have to figure out how to take these pictures in M mode.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 15, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> If you have a good picture with proper exposure
> 
> and you make the shutter speed shorter
> 
> ...



OR:  Change the aperture *AND* the ISO......


----------



## raventepes (Oct 15, 2013)

Shooting in manual is, I think one of the easiest ways to understand exposure. Since you were using a 30 second shutter speed, you would have wanted to drop down your ISO to 100 or 200, and perhaps even with that, you may have needed to drop your shutter speed as well, depending on how dark or light it was in the tunnel itself. Your aperture is like the pupils in your eyes. It controls how much light is coming in. The smaller it is (Or larger f/stop number, such as f/22), the less light gets in. The bigger it is (the smaller f/stop number, such as f/2.8), the more light gets in.  The shutter speed controls how _*long*_ light is allowed to enter. And as mentioned, the ISO controls its amplification. 

Regardless of what you're shooting, if you keep an eye the exposure on your meter, if it's dead center, it should end up with a balanced exposure, though I'll warn that different exposure modes read light slightly differently. What's shot in, say "Spot" metering at ISO 400, f/8, and with a 1/600 shutter speed, could look very different than the same settings shot in "Matrix". Sometimes, you'll want to over expose, sometimes under expose, depending on circumstances, but that's something that takes a bit of time learning the basics first. 

So my suggestion is go out with your camera and shoot in Manual for some practice. Play and experiment with it. Keep an eye on your meter, and have fun! The More you shoot, the better understanding you'll get, and will eventually get to a point to where you can recall rough settings for any given situation.


----------



## limr (Oct 15, 2013)

Just google "exposure triangle" and you'll have more reading material than you'll ever be able to consume in one lifetime. Once you start practicing it, it'll become much easier and more intuitive. And y'know, once you go Manual...


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 15, 2013)

It took me some time to start feeling comfortable in it.  The exposure meter in your D3100 is your BEST friend to learn how to do photographs in manual without really understanding it.  Then the understanding will come with more experimentation.

d3100 exposure meter
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-read-and-adjust-the-exposure-meter-on-a-nik.html

here's an example of the D5100
Reading and Adjusting the Exposure Meter on a Nikon D5100 - For Dummies


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 15, 2013)

480sparky said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > If you have a good picture with proper exposure
> ...



umm ... yup


----------



## hamlet (Oct 15, 2013)

I hope to get some nice dreamy pictures once my 10 stop ND filter arrives. I am starting to figure out why this filter is so essential.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 15, 2013)

hamlet said:


> I hope to get some nice dreamy pictures once my 10 stop ND filter arrives. I am starting to figure out why this filter is so essential.



What brand did you end up getting ?


----------



## hamlet (Oct 15, 2013)

I settled for a tiffen for my 52mm lens. This for my starting glass, so my thought process told me not to go overboard with a B+W, Singh or Heliopan. The other lenses i have in my wish list are not 52mm, so it wouldn't make sense to get the best for this glass since i probably won't be using my basic lens again.


Wishlist:

Nikon AF-S VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED 
Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Lens for Nikon

Very excited!


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 15, 2013)

hamlet said:


> I settled for a tiffen for my 52mm lens. ..........



You have a 52mm lens, or the lens takes 52mm filters?


----------



## hamlet (Oct 15, 2013)

Filter Size.

*edit*
Upon further reflection, i can see how confusing my previous post is. Filter size on the lens is what i mean to say.


----------



## hamlet (Oct 15, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> It took me some time to start feeling comfortable in it.  The exposure meter in your D3100 is your BEST friend to learn how to do photographs in manual without really understanding it.  Then the understanding will come with more experimentation.
> 
> d3100 exposure meter
> How to Read and Adjust the Exposure Meter on a Nikon D3100 - For Dummies
> ...


This is really handy. Thanks!


----------



## hamlet (Oct 15, 2013)

raventepes said:


> Shooting in manual is, I think one of the  easiest ways to understand exposure. Since you were using a 30 second  shutter speed, you would have wanted to drop down your ISO to 100 or  200, and perhaps even with that, you may have needed to drop your  shutter speed as well, depending on how dark or light it was in the  tunnel itself. Your aperture is like the pupils in your eyes. It  controls how much light is coming in. The smaller it is (Or larger  f/stop number, such as f/22), the less light gets in. The bigger it is  (the smaller f/stop number, such as f/2.8), the more light gets in.  The  shutter speed controls how _*long*_ light is allowed to enter. And as mentioned, the ISO controls its amplification.
> 
> Regardless of what you're shooting, if you keep an eye the exposure on  your meter, if it's dead center, it should end up with a balanced  exposure, though I'll warn that different exposure modes read light  slightly differently. What's shot in, say "Spot" metering at ISO 400,  f/8, and with a 1/600 shutter speed, could look very different than the  same settings shot in "Matrix". Sometimes, you'll want to over expose,  sometimes under expose, depending on circumstances, but that's something  that takes a bit of time learning the basics first.
> 
> So my suggestion is go out with your camera and shoot in Manual for some  practice. Play and experiment with it. Keep an eye on your meter, and  have fun! The More you shoot, the better understanding you'll get, and  will eventually get to a point to where you can recall rough settings  for any given situation.





I will try your suggestions tomorrow. I will post the results of my manual endeavours.


----------



## hamlet (Oct 15, 2013)

480sparky said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > 30 second exposure
> ...


That is one handy program. Here is the information you requested of my OP image:


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 15, 2013)

hamlet said:


> That is one handy program. Here is the information you requested of my OP image:




Let's start with the good, ol' standby, the Sunny 16 rule:  When you shoot at ISO 100, and 1/100 sec, you should set your aperture at f/16 on a sunny day.  As you were shooting at f/32, that would under-expose a sunny day image by 2 stops (f/16 to f/32).  In order to compensate for that, you would need to balance that out by changing your shutter speed by two stops.... 1/100 to 1/25.

Now, given that you were shooting on a _cloudy_ day, the issue becomes 'how much less light is there on a heavily overcast day as opposed to a nice sunny day?'  The answer is:  3-4 stops.  So to obtain a correct exposure on a very cloudy day, you would need to 'slow down' your shutter another 3-4 stops.  Let's say 4 stops.  1/25.... 1/12....1/6...1/3....1/1.6.  So ISO 100, f/32 and 1/1.6 second should be in the ball park for your overcast day.

Aye... there's the rub.  You shot at _30 seconds_.  That's almost 6 stops overexposed (*64x too much light*) !!! No wonder it's mostly white.  You would need to add a 6-stop ND filter to make 30 seconds work.


----------



## hamlet (Oct 16, 2013)

How about a 10 stop filter?


----------



## pgriz (Oct 16, 2013)

Hamlet, you're going to have to do the math.  I've a 10-stop filter, and I prepared a sheet showing how much additional time I need if I had a regular exposure without it.  But a 10-stop filter requires you to understand the basic techniques, because you'll need to do your aperture selection, focus, framing, BEFORE you put on the filter (so, manual focus, manual exposure).  Also, given that the 10-stop exposure will usually be in the 20 sec to 960 sec range (the latter is 16 minutes), you will also need a solid tripod, a shutter release, and a stopwatch or software tool like Magic Lantern.  AND, if you have long-exposure noise-suppression enabled on your camera, the camera will follow your exposure by another exposure of the same length (this is called the dark frame) which it will use to minimize the eventual image's noise.

The typical shooting scenario is as follows, for me>

1) Select the scene.  _I'm going to shoot the lake at my cottage just before sunset._
2) Select the framing.  This usually means that I determine what focal length would be "right" on my zoom lens.  _I want a wide angle-view, so I'm selecting 24mm on my 24-105mm zoom._
3) Select the ISO.  Since I'm reducing light, I will usually pick the lowest ISO I have, which is 100 on my camera.
4) Figure out the depth of field I want - this determines the aperture (Depth-of-field is determined by aperture + focal length).  _There's some rocks at the shore edge that I want to be sharp, and they are about 4 feet away.  I also want to have the horizon in focus.  Looking up my DOF tables, I see that at 24mm (on a 1.6x crop camera), at f/16 focused at 10 ft, I get the acceptable DOF range from 3.85 ft. to infinity.  Perfect.  f/16 it is._
5) Measure the scene in terms of exposure. _Sunset at ISO 100, f/16 will usually require about 1/15 sec exposure.  Take a shot to be sure, and check the histogram to see if there is clipping or blocking. 
_6) Put the camera on a tripod, plug in the remote shutter release, adjust the camera so you get the desired framing.
7) Put the lens in manual, turn off IS (image stabilization), turn on live-view, and focus on the 10-ft. point.  
8) Take another photo and check the framing, focus, exposure.
9)  Without moving anything, put on the 10-stop filter.
10)  Set the shutter speed.  1/15 second exposure under regular conditions will be a 60 second exposure with a 10 ND filter.  That means the shutter has to be on B(ulb), and I will manually have to time 60 seconds.
11)  Set the release on your remote shutter release, and hold it for 60 seconds before releasing the shutter.  Now you have your 60 second exposure.
12)  Wait another 60 seconds while the camera exposes its dark frame.
13)  Now you can see what the result is on your LCD.

See?  Easy-peasy if you understand exposure, understand DOF, and know how to use the tools.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 16, 2013)

hamlet said:


> How about a 10 stop filter?



Then you would need to adjust the exposure another 4 stops.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Oct 16, 2013)

I always try to keep my ISO as low as I can while being able to maintain a decent shutter speed. I can comfortable hold a shot at 1/15 and it won't have camera shake. If I need faster speed, I up the ISO. Occasionally I'll change aperture but usually I have that set to what I'd like the DOF to turn out like. Because if I really need the extra light I don't wanna have to cut back on what can be in focus. I'd rather keep that than worry about a little noise that can be fixed.


----------



## hamlet (Oct 16, 2013)

pgriz said:


> Hamlet, you're going to have to do the math.  I've a 10-stop filter, and I prepared a sheet showing how much additional time I need if I had a regular exposure without it.  But a 10-stop filter requires you to understand the basic techniques, because you'll need to do your aperture selection, focus, framing, BEFORE you put on the filter (so, manual focus, manual exposure).  Also, given that the 10-stop exposure will usually be in the 20 sec to 960 sec range (the latter is 16 minutes), you will also need a solid tripod, a shutter release, and a stopwatch or software tool like Magic Lantern.  AND, if you have long-exposure noise-suppression enabled on your camera, the camera will follow your exposure by another exposure of the same length (this is called the dark frame) which it will use to minimize the eventual image's noise.
> 
> The typical shooting scenario is as follows, for me>
> 
> ...


I didn't know that the cameras exposure could be set more than 30 seconds, so that's what bulb mode is for. I have seen other photographers use cheat sheets for long exposure photography. Is there maybe one i could use for my 10 stop filter?


----------



## hamlet (Oct 16, 2013)

Devinhullphoto said:


> I always try to keep my ISO as low as I can while being able to maintain a decent shutter speed. I can comfortable hold a shot at 1/15 and it won't have camera shake. If I need faster speed, I up the ISO. Occasionally I'll change aperture but usually I have that set to what I'd like the DOF to turn out like. Because if I really need the extra light I don't wanna have to cut back on what can be in focus. I'd rather keep that than worry about a little noise that can be fixed.



I am going to have to get it right in my shot, i have no experience with editing software other than resizing my images.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 16, 2013)

When I first started a "stop" just meant "confusion" to me.
And the math didn't mean a thing at all.

The exposure meter helped me first adjust the exposure correctly before I started understanding stuff.


I was going to get Tiffen ND filters for my lens too as Heliopan/B+W are way too expensive.

Anyone know about those adjustable ND filters from 1 to 9 ... do the good ones (B+W / Heliopan) have that "X factor"?


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 16, 2013)

hamlet said:


> I am going to have to get it right in my shot, i have no experience with editing software other than resizing my images.



Been there done that.
That's where watching the Exposure Meter is soooooo helpful to get it right the first time!!
That's exactly what I did.

Don't worry, in 10 months time you'll know ALOT more and still be lost like me


----------



## pgriz (Oct 16, 2013)

hamlet said:


> I didn't know that the cameras exposure could be set more than 30 seconds, so that's what bulb mode is for. I have seen other photographers use cheat sheets for long exposure photography. Is there maybe one i could use for my 10 stop filter?



Try this:


----------



## joyserran (Oct 16, 2013)

as a beginner on photography this happened to me as well and so reading forums and other tutorial stuff and try it was my strategy  it might be a trial and error but still i am learning


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Oct 16, 2013)

The exposure meter is great.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Oct 16, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> Been there done that. That's where watching the Exposure Meter is soooooo helpful to get it right the first time!! That's exactly what I did.  Don't worry, in 10 months time you'll know ALOT more and still be lost like me


I don't use Lightroom to drastically change exposure. I use it to edit my photo and fix the noise and add a touch of sharpness. If you rely on post processing to get a good photo, you'll be disappointed.


----------



## hamlet (Oct 16, 2013)

What an awful day today. Its been raining all day long.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 16, 2013)

get a picture of hamsters surfing with the runoff


----------



## hamlet (Oct 16, 2013)

I was fooling around with the exposure meter today and i took a picture of a monument with the sky in the background. 







The meter was centered and i didn't have a polarizer attached. Here is this images information


----------



## hamlet (Oct 16, 2013)

This one i was experimenting with blurring the background. After 20 minutes of trying to figure out how to adjust my aperture, i failed to blur the background and only keep this tree in focus. I don't really know how to do that in manual mode.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 16, 2013)

that monument looks like a bug stuck on a car radio antenna ?
increase shutter speed a little like to 1/125 and get the exposure setting more to the right, for underexposing and the sky will come out better.
I think by default Nikon's exposure setting is "backwards" in a ways, except for the way the dial moves.

so to the left is over exposure, to the right is underexposure.

I have them reversed (or corrected) by a menu setting.


don't worry about blurring the background yet.
If you want to practice with Depth Of Field (DOF) to take a picture of a long fence, or bridge at an angle and focus in the middle at f/1.8, or the lowest setting on your lens f/3.5.  Then you will be able to see the photo being blurred, go into focus, then get blurred again.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 16, 2013)

your tree picture wasn't there when I looked.
But DOF is dependent on alot of things for a blurry background.

If you look at the postbox in the background, it is blurred.
the square thing behind the tree was probably too close for your location and lens.  But to the right you can see the bench planks starting to get blurry.

I found it best to practice ONE concept at a time. I know .. I went all over the place when I first started using manual and just confused myself.  I then worked on One concept at a time until I understood it some then went on to a 2nd concept/technique.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 16, 2013)

To really understand the DOF concept, I found it best to purchase a 50mm - f / 1.8 lens.
That lens really made it plainly visible the DOF concepts.  But your pictures show it, you just have to recognize it.


----------



## hamlet (Oct 16, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> that monument looks like a bug stuck on a car radio antenna ?
> increase shutter speed a little like to 1/125 and get the exposure setting more to the right, for underexposing and the sky will come out better.
> I think by default Nikon's exposure setting is "backwards" in a ways, except for the way the dial moves.
> 
> ...



That monument is to honor science. Personally i would have gone with a cute lab rat.


I actually tried to lower my aperture number, but it won't go lower than f5. Also i actually didn't know that the lens dictated the apertures range. It makes sense though now that i think about it.


----------



## hamlet (Oct 16, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> To really understand the DOF concept, I found it best to purchase a 50mm - f / 1.8 lens.
> That lens really made it plainly visible the DOF concepts.  But your pictures show it, you just have to recognize it.



Its all coming together now. I am beginning to understand a lot now.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 16, 2013)

hamlet said:


> That monument is to honor science. Personally i would have gone with a cute lab rat.
> 
> 
> I actually tried to lower my aperture number, but it won't go lower than f5. Also i actually didn't know that the lens dictated the apertures range. It makes sense though now that i think about it.



On professional lens they will allow and focal length (say, from 35 to 70) to use an aperture of 2.8 throughout the entire range

On more consumer oriented lenses they do not do that.
They "adjust" the aperture usually smaller as you get to a longer focal length.

So if you have a 18-55  f/3.5-5.6
at 18mm it's 3.5 maximum
and at 55 it's 5.6
and in between it adjusts between those apertures


----------



## hamlet (Oct 16, 2013)

I was thinking of buying the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 for all my general hamtography. Is the AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G a better fit for me for general hamtography?


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Oct 17, 2013)

hamlet said:


> This one i was experimenting with blurring the background. After 20 minutes of trying to figure out how to adjust my aperture, i failed to blur the background and only keep this tree in focus. I don't really know how to do that in manual mode.


Smaller the number, (f2.8) the more blurry things will be in the background.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Oct 17, 2013)

hamlet said:


> That monument is to honor science. Personally i would have gone with a cute lab rat.  I actually tried to lower my aperture number, but it won't go lower than f5. Also i actually didn't know that the lens dictated the apertures range. It makes sense though now that i think about it.


If you are using a kit lens, the aperture may be 3.5-5. That 5 is when it's zoomed in. That's why a lot of nice lenses have a constant aperture. Like my 50mm 1.8.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 17, 2013)

Devinhullphoto said:


> If you are using a kit lens, the aperture may be 3.5-5. That 5 is when it's zoomed in. That's why a lot of nice lenses have a constant aperture. Like my 50mm 1.8.



Your constant 1.8 aperture 50mm is also a static focal length of 50mm  

A better example would be the 80-200/2.8 which allows a constant aperture of 2.8 from 80mm up to 200mm, or many others  
AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED from Nikon

I know nothing about the Sigma

But keep in mind, check how Close you can be with the lens to the subject.  which is 11 inches.  So if you were within 11 inches everything would be out of focus (like your original problem if I recall with the 18-55).

Looks like it has good reviews but costs alot of $$$
It costs more than I spent for my Nikon 80-200/2.8


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Oct 17, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> Your constant 1.8 aperture 50mm is also a static focal length of 50mm    A better example would be the 80-200/2.8 which allows a constant aperture of 2.8 from 80mm up to 200mm, or many others   AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED from Nikon  I know nothing about the Sigma  But keep in mind, check how Close you can be with the lens to the subject.  which is 11 inches.  So if you were within 11 inches everything would be out of focus (like your original problem if I recall with the 18-55).  Looks like it has good reviews but costs alot of $$$ It costs more than I spent for my Nikon 80-200/2.8



Oh yeah... DUH!  I sound slightly dumb. Forgive my blond moment.


----------



## hamlet (Oct 17, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> Devinhullphoto said:
> 
> 
> > If you are using a kit lens, the aperture may be 3.5-5. That 5 is when it's zoomed in. That's why a lot of nice lenses have a constant aperture. Like my 50mm 1.8.
> ...


I can see the appeal of the affordable compact and fixed AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G. But i prefer the impersonal zoom lens. If i'm at a place where my feet are incapable of helping my fixed 50mm lens zoom manually or a bunch of unsavory hooligans are between me and my shot, i like to have the idea that i can reach toward my target and get my shot. What general purpose with zoom lens would be the equivalent of the 50mm? The Sigma as of now is a very strong contender.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 17, 2013)

Any zoom lens that has 50 in it's Zoom ... such as a 35-70/2.5 - which 50 is in there, 24-70/2.8
and I'm sure dozens more.

I have my 24-80/2.8-4.0 (not a constant aperture though) which is covered by my primes of 24/2.8, 50.1.8 and 85/1.8
And as you mentioned, you can just grab your subjects, or move forward or back from them.

but generally I'm finding moving forwards to a subject indoors isn't good as you can block the lighting.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 17, 2013)

Basically the question is
what are you NOT getting from your 18-55 right now?

can't get up close like you want --> solution could be a macro which is designed to be used up close
can't get far enough ?

just want a better, sharper lens?
better at lower light ?


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Oct 17, 2013)

hamlet said:


> I can see the appeal of the affordable compact and fixed AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G. But i prefer the impersonal zoom lens. If i'm at a place where my feet are incapable of helping my fixed 50mm lens zoom manually or a bunch of unsavory hooligans are between me and my shot, i like to have the idea that i can reach toward my target and get my shot. What general purpose with zoom lens would be the equivalent of the 50mm? The Sigma as of now is a very strong contender.


With the lens hood on, the 50mm is as large as the kit lens.


----------



## hamlet (Oct 17, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> Basically the question is
> what are you NOT getting from your 18-55 right now?
> 
> can't get up close like you want --> solution could be a macro which is designed to be used up close
> ...



Those are some excellent questions. Lighting isn't a problem with the 18-55 for me as of now, but what i am having a problem with getting close and far shots. Now i have never used a macro lens and am aware that it is intended for close up shots. If i could find a macro lens that covers the length from your hand to your nose and also provide nice macro shots while having a great depth of field, that lens would be something that could cover my close range shots. The telephoto lens i have already decided on getting the Nikon AF-S VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED due to overwhelming support for this lens by many users infinity more experienced than me. So i think that your question of "what are you NOT getting from your 18-55 right now?" puts my need to get a mid range lens to rest. I should focus on a macro lens now and any suggestions would be welcome.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 17, 2013)

so
you want upclose (not necessarily macro - "true" macro provides a 1:1 image on a FF sensor)
and you need it to cover up to 70mm, as that is your choice for your other lens.

For example, and example only as this lens does NOT (AF) AutoFocus on your camera.
I have a 24-85 lens that does macro (read as "close ups") really good and sharp. I can get up to 0.21m or 8.3 inches
Nikon | Imaging Products | AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF (3.5x)

but it has 2 newer versions which will work with your camera but they are NOT as good in low light as they are f/3.5 - 4.6  versus my lens which is f / 2.8 - 4.0.   but the below ones are NOT macro/closeup (I read it some more)
AF-S  Nikon 24-85mm AF-S G Review
AFS VR Nikon 24-85mm VR Review


another thing .. just because a lens is f /2.8 doesn't mean it is nice and sharp/detailed at that aperture. Alot of lenses get sharper/more detailed stopped up to, say, 4.6 or higher and some have a particular "sweet spot".  You have to do your research.  but generally the higher the price of the lens and more professional the better overall they can be.  But then I've only researched specific Nikon lenses, I don't look into the SIgma, Vivitar, Tokina, Tamron, etc.   But I have nearly bought a few Tokina/Vivitar (older made by Tokina) lenses.

Overall, let's see what people recommend, because I have only a small experience in a small number of lenses.

But this would be a great lens to have if it didn't $$$ so much - and it fits into your other lens min focal length, but you can only get to 1.2 feet with it.
Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 Review

confused ?
======
OR
maybe stick with your 18-55
AND get a real macro lens
Macro Photography Lenses | Close Up Lenses

for instance the first one AFS DX 40mm f/2.8 gets as close as 0.53 feet .. or 6 inches

but I think your 18-55 lets you get to 0.9 feet or 9 inches.

so is 3 more inches worth the additional $$


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 17, 2013)

by the way,
here's another perspective on Macro work
How to Shoot Macro


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 17, 2013)

to confuse you even more .. and much more technical
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-photography-intro.htm
and
Macro Camera Lenses

I've been looking at getting a macro lens for myself
But truthfully, until I use my 24-85 (and other lenses) much more better, and improve my photography much more, I'm trying to hold off on getting one.
I have looked at the 90 to 105 focal length macro lenses so when I do bugs they don't get scared or fly up my nose.  But I realize it's alot of GAS too (Gear Acquisition Syndrome).


----------



## texkam (Oct 17, 2013)

> i set on the S symbol. The camera decides all the other settings





> What can i do to make this picture less bright?


Don't let your camera decide. Let yourself decide. Get your camera out of auto and learn to shoot in manual mode then you'll be able to measure the light with your built-in meter and adjust speed, aperture and/or iso for the results you want.


----------



## hamlet (Oct 17, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> by the way,
> here's another perspective on Macro work
> How to Shoot Macro



Thats exactly the type of macro i want. On amazon for instance, you can even see examples of portrait photos taken with the macro lens next to pictures of bugs upclose. Even the watch picture in this link is a distance that would fit exactly what i need.


----------



## hamlet (Oct 17, 2013)

Taken with no ND filter in very dark night. Still it is the best long exposure i've taken so far.











Got some more of the moon in long exposure.


----------



## hamlet (Oct 17, 2013)

Two of the moon here in a very dark night sky. My exposure was set at 30 seconds.


----------



## hamlet (Oct 17, 2013)

This is how dark it was


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 17, 2013)

Aren't cameras FUN  

Nice night shots for your first time.


----------



## hamlet (Oct 17, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> Aren't cameras FUN
> 
> Nice night shots for your first time.



Thank you. I wanted to take a picture of a misty field in the night, but the camera kept saying that my shot is too dark. It wouldn't let me take that picture unless at least a small light source was available. How can i override the camera and take the picture anyway?


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 17, 2013)

hamlet said:


> Thank you. I wanted to take a picture of a misty field in the night, but the camera kept saying that my shot is too dark. It wouldn't let me take that picture unless at least a small light source was available. How can i override the camera and take the picture anyway?



Yes.  Use the _Bulb_ setting.


----------



## hamlet (Oct 17, 2013)

Bulb wouldn't work either.


----------



## hamlet (Oct 17, 2013)

I tried again with auto aim off. Now i can even take pictures with the lens cover on. It seems that auto focus was the culprit here, damn shame i didn't figure it out when i was out on the field. I could have had some nice shots.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Oct 17, 2013)

hamlet said:


> I tried again with auto aim off. Now i can even take pictures with the lens cover on. It seems that auto focus was the culprit here, damn shame i didn't figure it out when i was out on the field. I could have had some nice shots.


What? This post is confusing. AF is great.


----------



## pgriz (Oct 17, 2013)

Um, AF is great when there's enough light for the sensors to work.  Doesn't work as well when it's dark.  As in doesn't work at all.  That's why the cameras come with AF-assist lights, which kinda work.

Hamlet, what function are you talking about when you say "auto-aim"?  I seem to be missing that feature.


----------



## raventepes (Oct 17, 2013)

One trick is to bring a flashlight with you. Something powerful enough to at least get your focus set and turn it off before you press your shutter button. First, set your focus, THEN figure out your settings.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Oct 17, 2013)

It looks like you've seen some massive improvement here. The most recent photos are just miles ahead of the white blur from page 1. Good job.


----------



## hamlet (Oct 18, 2013)

pgriz said:


> Um, AF is great when there's enough light for the sensors to work.  Doesn't work as well when it's dark.  As in doesn't work at all.  That's why the cameras come with AF-assist lights, which kinda work.
> 
> Hamlet, what function are you talking about when you say "auto-aim"?  I seem to be missing that feature.



On the side of the lens where you have the A/M switch, i switched that to M mode. Now i am able to take pictures virtually in any lighting.


----------



## Steve5D (Oct 18, 2013)

Devinhullphoto said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > I tried again with auto aim off. Now i can even take pictures with the lens cover on. It seems that auto focus was the culprit here, damn shame i didn't figure it out when i was out on the field. I could have had some nice shots.
> ...



Not in the dark, it's not...


----------



## pgriz (Oct 18, 2013)

hamlet said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> > Um, AF is great when there's enough light for the sensors to work.  Doesn't work as well when it's dark.  As in doesn't work at all.  That's why the cameras come with AF-assist lights, which kinda work.
> ...



The A/M switch on the lens is the auto-focus/manual switch for the lens.  When you switch it to Manual, you are telling the camera that it is NOT responsible for acquiring focus, and therefore the camera is programmed to allow you to press the shutter button any time.  The Auto switch tells the camera that IT is responsible, and the camera will NOT let you take a picture until it manages to acquire focus.  If it has not been letting you do so in low light conditions, it's because it could not acquire focus, and therefore did not allow you to take an out-of-focus picture.

However, once you switch the lens to manual, YOU need to be sure that the subject you want in focus is actually in focus.  Depending on the lens, there is usually a focusing ring (connected in some lens bodies to a distance scale) which allows you to focus on near or far things.  Digital cameras, for the most part, and unlike the film SLR's, do not have good ability to show the focus clearly, lacking tools such as split screens that the older SLR's had.  For that reason when people need to manually focus, they often use the live-view screen at 5x or 10x enlargement to ensure that the right thing is focused on.

Once you have acquired focus, the next thing to remember is that the zone of focus is a plane, perpendicular to the optical axis of the camera.  The "thickness" of the plane of acceptable focus is determined by the aperture, with wide-open apertures (f/1.4, 1.8, 2.0) having very "thin" depths of field, and small apertures like f/11, f/16, f/22 having much "thicker" depths of field.  Depth of field also varies by focal length, and sensor size.  DOF of f/2.8 on a 14mm lens is much thicker than the DOF of f/2.8 on a 200mm lens.  DOF of f/2.8 on a P&S sensor is much deeper than is f/2.8 on a full-frame sensor.  These relationships are easily figured out using either apps or DOF tables, or DOF utilities on the web (such as Online Depth of Field Calculator).


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 18, 2013)

On my D7000 I'm able to configure AF-C & AF-S Priority Selection to "release" (release priority) which allows the camera to take a photo anytime the release button is pressed.  Lens cap off or on.  this versus Focus Priority which only takes photos when items are in focus.

I'm not sure if the D5xxx or D3xxx have this option.

but shooting in the dark and wanting the Nikon to shoot without focus is an issue unless you turn off all that stuff.  There's been focus testing on Nikon v Canon over this very issue because Nikon has that focus light and Canon doesn't.  Interesting stuff.


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 18, 2013)

After gathering all this information, this is a very good time to actually read the manual.
It will make sense and it make take time of a strictly hands-on learning curve.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Oct 18, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Not in the dark, it's not...


You don't say?!???!


----------



## AVD_Photography (Oct 18, 2013)

hamlet said:


> So i took a picture on a very cloudy day of a two way car tunnel. Here is how my picture turned out:
> 
> What can i do to make this picture less bright? This was taken on my d3200 with the shutter speed at its slowest setting.



I think you put your iSO setting too high when it needs to be at 200.


----------



## VABuckeye (Oct 18, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> After gathering all this information, this is a very good time to actually read the manual.
> It will make sense and it make take time of a strictly hands-on learning curve.



But that would make too much sense. Why read the manual when you can be spoon fed?


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 18, 2013)

Actually the manual doesn't really explain things well.   It explains things perfectly clear, if you understand it.

I bought the book - Mastering the Nikon D7000, by Darrel Young.  This was a great book to learn about the camera and features.

I don't know if they make on for the d3100 but I would search out a book about it.  

After reading my book, then the manual made total sense and I use it as a good "reference" and not a "learn how" book.


----------



## hamlet (Oct 19, 2013)

I do agree with that. The manual is starting to make more sense now that i understand things more.


----------



## hamlet (Oct 19, 2013)

As of now i'm trying lots and lots of amateurish techniques to figure out what kind  of photographer i want to be and to experiment as much as possible to  learn things while i'm on the go. My 18-55's manual focus is so  sensitive that even a small bump will put my target out of focus.

Here are some pics i took yesterday:

This one is a experimental one where i took a picture from every angle of this statue.






 large version link: http://i.minus.com/ibuQlD3YmMFgxR.gif

Here i wanted to keep the building in focus but not the sky:






Here i focused on the sky, but not on the building (kind of):






Here i was playing around with the focus to get one of the sky. It has to be one of the best sky pictures i've taken so far, even it it doesn't measure up to someone much more experienced than me.





This train station shot at night could probably have been one of my best shots. This is towards the end of the night and my dslr's battery so low that my shutter wouldn't work anymore due to low energy. I could see this shot in my head play out, but i screwed it up! Like i'm starting to figure out that the shot i want is already in my head, but i just have to figure out the right moment to go for that illusive shot.





Kind of feel bummed out that i didn't get that last one right. (at least to my amateurish standards)


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 19, 2013)

yeah, great !!

I was deleting hundreds of photos this morning of when I first got my camera and I was learning what changing hte shutter speed, or aperture or ISO did.
It was a great learning experience.  At one point I tried to learn more than one thing at a time which confused everything.

Then I started to just focus on one thing at a time and I started learning alot more quickly.  And the manual and Mastering Book was so much help then.

You've come along way Charlie Brown ... or Mr. Hampster


----------



## hamlet (Oct 19, 2013)

I will look into purchasing one of these guides. Though i am really amazed at how well these dslr's are made, so even someone like me can take half decent pictures.


----------



## Joves (Oct 21, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Devinhullphoto said:
> 
> 
> > hamlet said:
> ...


Exactly! 
You are then forced to swich to manual, and use some form of lighting to get the focus if there is no light. 
I really suggest you get Petersen's book on exposure as well. 
As for the first photo you shot what were you trying to get out of it. Were you looking for trails, or blurred motion of the cars going in and out? During the day that requires the ND filter, or actually more than one if the one you have is not dark enough. Getting trails at night is really easy. But during the day requires the filtration to get the correct settings for the shot. That and low a ISO setting, with the aperture closed down, i.e the larger numbers.


----------



## AXIS (Oct 23, 2013)

Edit: Ya... I didnt realize there were already 7 pages in this thread. I suppose my advice is irrelevant now.


----------



## Aro (Oct 23, 2013)

To, make your picture less bright try turning your aperture up, and your iso down. That might do the trick your going to have to experiment. PM if you have an questions, I'm more than happy to help.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 23, 2013)

Aro said:


> To, make your picture less bright try turning your aperture up, and your iso down. That might do the trick your going to have to experiment. PM if you have an questions, I'm more than happy to help.



If you had read the thread, you'd know the OP was using ISO 100, and f/32. :er:


----------



## hamlet (Oct 27, 2013)

I think i've got this down to an art form. Now i'm taking hours long worth of long exposures of the sky. its a shame i have to drive hours long to get to France to avoid light pollution, just look at the light pollution in my country: Lichthinderkaart

The intensity goes from: red, orange, yellow, green, blue. Blue gives me the best conditions.

If i take long exposures of the sky in Belgium, i get a yellow tint and very few stars.


----------



## DaveStephan (Nov 11, 2013)

Hello Friends,

I just want to share a Long-Exposure Photography Tip here -


----------

