# Long Exposure - Noise



## wackii (Jul 13, 2014)

I need a little help on long exposure noise.  What do you guys do in regarding to super long exposure that result in noise everytime?  I am researching for solutions but come up empty.  I've noticed that if I have an exposure over 5 minutes (using 10-stop ND filter), pictures come out noisy (in the dark area).  I have pictures of 2-3 minutes long and those are okay...  Is it my camera or filter?  Or some settings I need to turn on/off?   Below are two pictures, one I took it with 3-stop ND filter and the other is with 10-stop ND filter.

3-Stop ND filter & 3-Stop Grad ND filter from Lee Filters  (ISO 100, f11, 2secs, NIkon D7100).  There's no noisy at all with this pix.



10-ND Filter & 3-Stop ND Grad filter from Lee Filters (ISO 100, f11, 11minutes, Nikon D7100).  This is quite noisy (color) if I do 100% zoom.  This picture was taken about 2 minutes after the first pix above.  


I am trying to find the best solution to take long exposure of sunset or sunrise without dealing with noisy picture.  Cloud was quite beautiful today but with that super long exposure.  I got noise in my pix   Any help will be appreciated.

Thanks,

Al,


----------



## thereyougo! (Jul 13, 2014)

Your camera may have Long Exposure Noise reduction.  It takes a second shot, a dark frame so it can match the hot spots and deduct them from the original shot.  The only problem is that it doubles the exposure and at times when the light is changing quickly - dawn and dusk this makes it difficult to judge exposure time.  

I use Nik's Dfine to deal with the hot pixels as it has a specific setting for hot pixels.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 13, 2014)

Also make sure you are covering your viewfinder as that let's light leak in.


----------



## Light Guru (Jul 13, 2014)

Honestly I think you could achieve the effect you are going for with a a shorter exposure time. The image that you posted has an 11 minute exposure time you could easily get the water to look like that in the under 5 minutes time that you mention that does not give you a lot of noise.


----------



## wackii (Jul 13, 2014)

thereyougo! said:


> Your camera may have Long Exposure Noise reduction.  It takes a second shot, a dark frame so it can match the hot spots and deduct them from the original shot.  The only problem is that it doubles the exposure and at times when the light is changing quickly - dawn and dusk this makes it difficult to judge exposure time.
> 
> I use Nik's Dfine to deal with the hot pixels as it has a specific setting for hot pixels.


Yeah.  I knew about the the camera Long Exposure NR but light changes quickly during dawn and dusk therefore I turn it off.  I use Lightroom to remove the hot pixels/noise but it's way too much noise.  Software can only deal up to certain point.  Thanks.



astroNikon said:


> Also make sure you are covering your viewfinder as that let's light leak in.


 You are right about covering the viewfinder.  This picture I was there kinda late.  I snapped the first picture of 3-Stop ND filter and then rushed through the setup for the 10-Stop ND and forgot about covering the viewfinder.  I think I have a few picture with the viewfinder covered but it still produced noise (little less).  More noise on this one is probably resulted from light leak through the viewfinder.  Thanks.  I will try to double check everything next time.



Light Guru said:


> Honestly I think you could achieve the effect you are going for with a a shorter exposure time. The image that you posted has an 11 minute exposure time you could easily get the water to look like that in the under 5 minutes time that you mention that does not give you a lot of noise.


You are probably right about achieving the same effect in about 4-5minutes exposure time.  However, I only have the 3-Stop ND and the 10-Stop ND.  Using the 10-Stop at that time, I am required to have exposure of 11 minutes due to light changes during sunset.  First shot with no ND filter the exposure time is 1/4 sec which resulting in 2 secs exposure time using the 3-Stop ND filter.  On the second shot, the normal exposure time is still 1/4 sec at that time.  Using the 10-Stop ND filter will resulted in 4 minutes exposure time but since the light changes to darker in 4 minutes, I normally add 2 times of 4 minutes to my exposure which should be 12 minutes.  I stopped at 11 minutes since I felt like that sky lit up quite long this time.  I could have use aperture of f/8 to shorten my exposure time but I was in a hurry setting up and forgot everything.  Sunset/Sunrise using the 10-Stop ND filter is tricky.  Thanks.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 13, 2014)

wackii said:


> You are probably right about achieving the same effect in about 4-5minutes exposure time.  However, I only have the 3-Stop ND and the 10-Stop ND.  Using the 10-Stop at that time, I am required to have exposure of 11 minutes due to light changes during sunset.  First shot with no ND filter the exposure time is 1/4 sec which resulting in 2 secs exposure time using the 3-Stop ND filter.  On the second shot, the normal exposure time is still 1/4 sec at that time.  Using the 10-Stop ND filter will resulted in 4 minutes exposure time *but since the light changes to darker in 4 minutes, I normally add 2 times of 4 minutes *to my exposure which should be 12 minutes.  I stopped at 11 minutes since I felt like that sky lit up quite long this time.  I could have use aperture of f/8 to shorten my exposure time but I was in a hurry setting up and forgot everything.  Sunset/Sunrise using the 10-Stop ND filter is tricky.  Thanks.



That's a good rule of thumb. I had the worst problem shooting a waterfall which was in a small valley covered by trees as the light was going down .  My time keep increasing two-fold and I was still woefully underexposed.  I just pulled off the NDs and used the aperture.  It was just getting too dark too quickly  lol


----------



## Light Guru (Jul 13, 2014)

wackii said:


> You are probably right about achieving the same effect in about 4-5minutes exposure time.  However, I only have the 3-Stop ND and the 10-Stop ND.



Who says you need a different filter, why not up your ISO?


----------



## wackii (Jul 13, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> wackii said:
> 
> 
> > You are probably right about achieving the same effect in about 4-5minutes exposure time.  However, I only have the 3-Stop ND and the 10-Stop ND.  Using the 10-Stop at that time, I am required to have exposure of 11 minutes due to light changes during sunset.  First shot with no ND filter the exposure time is 1/4 sec which resulting in 2 secs exposure time using the 3-Stop ND filter.  On the second shot, the normal exposure time is still 1/4 sec at that time.  Using the 10-Stop ND filter will resulted in 4 minutes exposure time *but since the light changes to darker in 4 minutes, I normally add 2 times of 4 minutes *to my exposure which should be 12 minutes.  I stopped at 11 minutes since I felt like that sky lit up quite long this time.  I could have use aperture of f/8 to shorten my exposure time but I was in a hurry setting up and forgot everything.  Sunset/Sunrise using the 10-Stop ND filter is tricky.  Thanks.
> ...


I know.  I learned about adding extra time to my exposure at sunset in a hard way.  I had been through a few times where the sky was gorgeous and thought that I would have an awesome picture.  I was disappointed seeing my pictures underexposed.  I double checked everything and thought I had the exposure nailed but NO.  A few times of trials and errors, I kinda come up with adding this amount of time to my exposure resulted in fairly good exposure.  Live and learn right   Thanks.



Light Guru said:


> wackii said:
> 
> 
> > You are probably right about achieving the same effect in about 4-5minutes exposure time.  However, I only have the 3-Stop ND and the 10-Stop ND.
> ...


I hate noise to my pictures so I always use the lowest ISO in my camera which is ISO100.  I would rather open up the aperture to compensate the exposure time but I was in a hurry yesterday and forgot a few things here and there.  Thanks.


----------



## Light Guru (Jul 13, 2014)

wackii said:


> I hate noise to my pictures so I always use the lowest ISO in my camera which is ISO100.  I would rather open up the aperture to compensate the exposure time but I was in a hurry yesterday and forgot a few things here and there.  Thanks.



So you would rather have the higher notice caused by a extremely long exposure then the unnoticeable notice difference caused by going from 100 ISO to 200 ISO. 

Opening the aperture is going to cause you to loose focus on your foreground elements.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 13, 2014)

I've never actually even considered raising my ISO on long exposures even though I don't mind 800 ISO at all on any other photo.


----------



## intwophoto (Jul 13, 2014)

I'll offer my two cents merely based on experience w/out a ten stop.  I have a kit that's darkest is ND8 but for gradients, there is an ND16 as well.

I've personally found for waterscapes in the 10 seconds and above range you get what you're looking for in the water part of the photo.  Maybe the 10 stop is just too dark for the foreground.  Sometimes, first, I'll even just use the ND8 and ND16 gradients stopped down to F 16 or 18.  It's the sky you're trying to control remember, the water part is easy 

Both of these shots are stunning either way, wackii.  The 'room for improvement' looks to be quite small


----------



## thereyougo! (Jul 13, 2014)

wackii said:


> Yeah. I knew about the the camera Long Exposure NR but light changes quickly during dawn and dusk therefore I turn it off. I use Lightroom to remove the hot pixels/noise but it's way too much noise. Software can only deal up to certain point. Thanks.



well if you don't want to use long exposure NR in camera and you are not happy with software, your only options are to lower the amount of time your shutter is open for or get a second body to shoot another shot while you wait for LE NR.  If you're not going to get a second body, then you need to compromise somewhere.


----------



## wackii (Jul 13, 2014)

Light Guru said:


> wackii said:
> 
> 
> > I hate noise to my pictures so I always use the lowest ISO in my camera which is ISO100.  I would rather open up the aperture to compensate the exposure time but I was in a hurry yesterday and forgot a few things here and there.  Thanks.
> ...


I am not sure if ISO200 will be unnoticeable noise with that long of an exposure.  I tend to keep thing at ISO100 on landscape.  But it's not a bad idea to bump up to ISO200 and see how it does.  Also, you are right about opening the Aperture causing small DOF which will result in loosing focus in part of the picture.  It looks like I have to compromise somehow.  Thanks.



astroNikon said:


> I've never actually even considered raising my ISO on long exposures even though I don't mind 800 ISO at all on any other photo.


Same here.  I always keep mines at ISO100 but I will give it a shot next time.



intwophoto said:


> I'll offer my two cents merely based on experience w/out a ten stop.  I have a kit that's darkest is ND8 but for gradients, there is an ND16 as well.
> 
> I've personally found for waterscapes in the 10 seconds and above range you get what you're looking for in the water part of the photo.  Maybe the 10 stop is just too dark for the foreground.  Sometimes, first, I'll even just use the ND8 and ND16 gradients stopped down to F 16 or 18.  It's the sky you're trying to control remember, the water part is easy
> 
> Both of these shots are stunning either way, wackii.  The 'room for improvement' looks to be quite small


I like to shoot at f11 or f13 depends on light.  Thanks.



thereyougo! said:


> wackii said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah. I knew about the the camera Long Exposure NR but light changes quickly during dawn and dusk therefore I turn it off. I use Lightroom to remove the hot pixels/noise but it's way too much noise. Software can only deal up to certain point. Thanks.
> ...


I actually have a second body but only one ultra wide angle lens.  Anyway, I know that I have to compromise somewhere.  It looks like I might need to bump up the ISO to ISO200 to see how it works for me.  I have two more weeks till I head out to my vacation trip.  I want to get this right before heading out there... Thanks for your help.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 13, 2014)

I don't have any Graduated Neutral Density filters yet (Lee/Cokin is on my list next)

But I've experimented a little using a CPOL for GND-ish effect.

I love those two shots and especially the 2nd one.  I'm striving to take photos like that but I lack any rough wave beaches to try.
Waterfalls is the best I've had so far and not anything large with erratic water.


----------



## Light Guru (Jul 13, 2014)

wackii said:


> I am not sure if ISO200 will be unnoticeable noise with that long of an exposure.  I tend to keep thing at ISO100 on landscape.  But it's not a bad idea to bump up to ISO200 and see how it does.  Also, you are right about opening the Aperture causing small DOF which will result in loosing focus in part of the picture.  It looks like I have to compromise somehow.



The bumping up the ISO from 100 to 200 is going to significantly cut your exposure time and your biggest cause of noise if from your exposure timing being way to long.  The noise difference between ISO 100 and ISO 200 is nothing compared to the noise you are introducing from your exposure being 10+ minutes long.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 13, 2014)

Light Guru said:


> wackii said:
> 
> 
> > I am not sure if ISO200 will be unnoticeable noise with that long of an exposure.  I tend to keep thing at ISO100 on landscape.  But it's not a bad idea to bump up to ISO200 and see how it does.  Also, you are right about opening the Aperture causing small DOF which will result in loosing focus in part of the picture.  It looks like I have to compromise somehow.
> ...



What is the outside limits of exposure time in general before noise is significantly introduced ?


----------



## wackii (Jul 14, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> I don't have any Graduated Neutral Density filters yet (Lee/Cokin is on my list next)
> 
> But I've experimented a little using a CPOL for GND-ish effect.
> 
> ...



Graduated ND filter is fairly easy to use, just put it on and the camera will compensate for the exposure.  If you are closed by beaches, you should be able to run into similar scenes.  For that scene, I just drive around and check out random locations.  I thought it's a little interesting and I have access to get to that location so I took a shot 



Light Guru said:


> wackii said:
> 
> 
> > I am not sure if ISO200 will be unnoticeable noise with that long of an exposure.  I tend to keep thing at ISO100 on landscape.  But it's not a bad idea to bump up to ISO200 and see how it does.  Also, you are right about opening the Aperture causing small DOF which will result in loosing focus in part of the picture.  It looks like I have to compromise somehow.
> ...


Probably true.  I will try it out next time.  Thanks.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 14, 2014)

I live in Michigan.  Our beaches are nothing like real beaches on the coasts.  Closest is Lake Superior.  But at that point I'd rather drive to the east coast


----------



## wackii (Jul 15, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> I live in Michigan.  Our beaches are nothing like real beaches on the coasts.  Closest is Lake Superior.  But at that point I'd rather drive to the east coast



I see.  It gives you a reason to travel 
Thanks.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 15, 2014)

wackii said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > I live in Michigan.  Our beaches are nothing like real beaches on the coasts.  Closest is Lake Superior.  But at that point I'd rather drive to the east coast
> ...


I'm working on it ... as soon as I plan an east coast trip then I'll get a couple nice GNDs.


----------

