# Unedited long exposure shots



## AaronLLockhart (Jun 26, 2012)

Alright, the revised version with the original photos has been uploaded. ONce again these have not been edited.

Opryland hotel internal gardens in Nashville Tn.


----------



## Trever1t (Jun 26, 2012)

I definitely do not like that border, it's confusing at very best and detracts from an otherwise pleasant image. That brings me to my question, WHY didn't you edit a perfectly good image? Do you think not editing is better? I never understood why people tout "un-edited"??


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jun 26, 2012)

Trever1t said:


> That brings me to my question, WHY didn't you edit a perfectly good image? Do you think not editing is better? I never understood why people tout "un-edited"??



I wanted critique on a pre edited photo. I usually edit all of my photography. However, I want constructive criticism as to how I can better this shot *without* pp.

I did notice that the quality is dropped, so I will upload the originals when I get off of work.


----------



## Bynx (Jun 26, 2012)

I dont see great images but I do see great potentials. If you had bracketed your shots for HDR, the lighting would have given you a great result. Your long exposure has created a ghosting effect from people moving around. This would not have happened had you taken a series of bracketed images. I wish I had the chance to shoot that place. The shots themselves arent that bad considering the difficult lighting.


----------



## TonyAldo (Jun 26, 2012)

Besides the watermark editing, it looks good, I like the bright soft colors, problem is it makes me want to see the unedited photos. So get them up


----------



## The_Pearl_Poet (Jun 26, 2012)

Although I don't have much experience with HDR, I agree with Bynx's statement. It looks like you have some blown highlights in both pictures.


----------



## Bynx (Jun 26, 2012)

Blown highlights and filled in shadows. Thats why the scene is made for HDR shooting.


----------



## KmH (Jun 26, 2012)

Yep. The scene has a dynamic range (the DR in HDR) that is higher (the H in HDR), or broader, than the image sensor's dynamic range capture capabilites. 
Which makes multiple, bracketed exposures necessary to avoid the blown highlights and blocked shadows in the final image.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jun 26, 2012)

The_Pearl_Poet said:


> Although I don't have much experience with HDR, I agree with Bynx's statement. It looks like you have some blown highlights in both pictures.


 


Bynx said:


> Blown highlights and filled in shadows. Thats why the scene is made for HDR shooting.


 


KmH said:


> Yep. The scene has a dynamic range (the DR in HDR) that is higher (the H in HDR), or broader, than the image sensor's dynamic range capture capabilites.
> Which makes multiple, bracketed exposures necessary to avoid the blown highlights and blocked shadows in the final image.




If I shot with bracketed photos, would I have gotten the same result from the waterfall? My assumption would be no? Also, I'm used to taking HDR's in this fashion. I start with the level exposure, and I shoot -1 EVand +1 EV. Should I have more bracketed photos than just 3? I never get the detailed results from an HDR that I'm looking for when I shoot, which is why I avoid them most of the time. I've heard a friend tell me to do +3, +2, +1, 0, -1, -2, -3 EV. Then I have had another buddy tell me that is too many photos to get the range I am looking for. 

Thank you guys for commenting. I have always stayed in my comfort zone in photography for the past four years or so. My comfort zone is automotive and portraits. I have done a little long exposure, but not enough to be knowledgeable, and I'm also brand new to black and white photography.

I'm shooting A LOT of both so I can learn. So, You all will see much posted here... please let me know my flaws on them


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jun 26, 2012)

Here is another shot I did during the daytime of the same waterfall. I think the shutter time was about half of the other, and this is also shot with a 50mm 1.8G.


----------



## Bynx (Jun 26, 2012)

You can control the look of the water by using longer shutter speeds. Then do your HDR using long shutter speeds. Your fstop might be f18 to cover the highlights and still give you a slow enough shutterspeed for the water to be silky. It would be an interesting place to experiment because its not only light to consider but the look of the water.


----------



## Blairg (Jun 26, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:
			
		

> Here is another shot I did during the daytime of the same waterfall. I think the shutter time was about half of the other, and this is also shot with a 50mm 1.8G.
> 
> <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=12387"/>



Awesome picture


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jun 27, 2012)

Blairg said:


> Awesome picture



Thanks! I know it's a bit blurred from camera shake, but that was like a 10-15 second shutter with no tripod. Steady hands


----------



## KuntaKinter (Jun 29, 2012)

I would say if you want to shoot waterfalls for the silky effect during the day. You should look into get ND filters. I've just started doing research on them because I like to shoot water. It's almost a necessity to have if you want to shoot for the silky effect during the day. 
The other problem I see with getting a real nice shot of the first one with the silky effect is that the water itself is lit. But if you are using multiple brackets that might help. My camera doesn't bracket (D40x) so I haven't really gotten into using multiple brackets yet. I'd love to see some finished results.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jun 29, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> The_Pearl_Poet said:
> 
> 
> > Although I don't have much experience with HDR, I agree with Bynx's statement. It looks like you have some blown highlights in both pictures.
> ...



I haven't done much HDR for a while, but when I do I do +3 and -3 and all the steps between.  That way you at least have all steps covered.  Using your Hdr software you can decide how many shots you actually use, whereas if you haven't shot 7, you won't have 7 choose from.  If I am doing only 3 shots, I'll generally do + and -2


----------



## jake337 (Jun 29, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> The_Pearl_Poet said:
> 
> 
> > Although I don't have much experience with HDR, I agree with Bynx's statement. It looks like you have some blown highlights in both pictures.
> ...



If you are using a tripod you do not necessarily need to just do a -3, 0, +3.  If you have time, take your time and meter different areas of the scene and jot down the exposure needed for those areas.  Set up your cam/tripod and shot those metered exposures.  Then each area of the scene will be exposed to your liking.

You could also do the bracketed photos, like above, then do a separate exposure for the water falls and create a composite.


----------

