# Midday Long Exposure | No ND



## Braineack (Sep 21, 2015)

I wanted to try a technique of capturing a long exposure without actually capturing a long-exposure. I thought the cloud formation behind my hotel and bright direct sunlight looked interesting.  The clouds were moving rapidly to the shore over-top the hotel so I wanted to do a long-exposure to capture this.

I setup the camera it had it take 10 shots at 1min intervals.  I stacked them in PS as a Smart Object and blended them using Mean.  I need to play with the intervals and length better next time, but I ultimately had to resort to a little bit of motion blur to blend the movement a little better--maybe 15-30sec intervals for the same 10min period.

But in the end I achieved pretty much what I was going for, and was able to capture a 10min exposure without the use of any poverty filters.




Bethany Beach Ocean Suites by The Braineack, on Flickr


----------



## Parker219 (Sep 21, 2015)

Hmmm...yeah I think thats pretty cool. However since I would have just used an ND filter, it seems like a lot more work to accomplish the same thing. 

Do you have an ND filter but just didn't want to use it?


----------



## Braineack (Sep 21, 2015)

wasn't much work.  There's an interval timer within the camera, took about 3 seconds to set it up.

Post took a few minutes, I opened all 10 frames in one PS file. I highlighted all the layers right clicked and picked "convert to a smart object"  Then I went to Layers > Smart Objects > Merge and chose Mean.  Then I made a very quick layer mask and added a slight motion blur to the sky to blend the frames a little better because there was a 1min gap between each so the motion it averaged wasn't fluid.

I'm not spending $300 for a filter holder and two plates of glass, and I wanted to see if I could mimic it easily without needing special tools and lugging even more crap with me to the beach.  

This was simply an experiment I wanted to try while I was sunbathing.  I've toyed with ND filters before and dont like having to deal with long exposures and figuring out the math.  Then for some reason Nikon decided that it's WAYYYYYYYYY to difficult in 2015 to have a user input a shutter time longer than 30s and requires external devices to control the shutter for any longer.

I can see Nikon's research and development team right now:

R&D #1: Hey gang, look at all these cool photos on 500px.com.

R&D #2: WOWIE!!!! Long at all these cool long exposure photos!

R&D #1: You think we should write a few lines of code to help users achieve these easier?

R&D #2: no, let's require them to hold the button down by hand like they did they in the 1920s with a long wire cable.  It worked back then, why should we try to keep up with the times and actually innovate.  I like resting on our laurels.   Instead, lets design a camera that looks exactly like a film camera from the 60s, we should include the film advance lever and mechanical timer and everything...digital is over.

R&D #1: You know Sony actually let's you see a long exposure shot appear in the LCD screen as you're exposing...

R&D #2: you're fired. exposure that.


----------



## Parker219 (Sep 21, 2015)

Oh I see...cool.

For what its worth, I got these and they work great.


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007SXJ1RK?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00


Make sure to get the correct size of course!  It would be really embarrassing to order these in the wrong size...so I am told.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 21, 2015)

I can see a reduction in IQ with my $50 Tiffen CPL filters...


----------



## idcanyon (Sep 21, 2015)

The method is intriguing. It has the advantage over an ND in that it is variable without limit. The need to blur is the big downside. You need to make a mask for that. That might have been quick and easy on this image, but it won't be easy on all. It seems to me that the best approach would be to combine this with an ND. Carry one ND and do an interval shoot with it. Instead of one quick frame every 10 seconds for 10 minutes, take 20 30-second exposures continuously. Then you don't need the blur and you only need one ND filter in your bag. A remote release + continuous burst mode would work as well as the camera's interval function.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 21, 2015)

yeah im pretty sure if I had done more frames at shorter intervals within the same period i wouldn't have needed to blur.

doing what you're suggesting would work, you can set the number of frames to take at each interval.  But then you're dealing with 400 frames for 1 image.


i have another set I did at 30sec intervals at 10min as well, but the lighting conditions changed between a few frames, so i didnt try using them.  But ill see if the software deals with that better.

the clouds were moving quite fast so there were big changes from frame to frame that the software couldn't "deal with"


----------



## idcanyon (Sep 21, 2015)

Braineack said:


> doing what you're suggesting would work, you can set the number of frames to take at each interval.  But then you're dealing with 400 frames for 1 image.


That's not what I was intended to suggest. I was thinking only 20 frames for 10 minutes. Each one would be a full 30 second exposure. That way you capture the whole 10 minutes rather than just slices of it. This is the same thing as is done for star trails. If conditions only allow for a shorter exposure then you'd need to have more frames or to leave a gap between them and blur.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 21, 2015)

yeah gotta, same page then.   This was a first attempt, so we'll see if I have time to play with the one I did in 20 frames over 10 minutes tonight.


----------



## jcdeboever (Sep 21, 2015)

Very interesting image and composition. Some of y'all amaze me with your ingenuity and knowledge. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tailgunner (Sep 21, 2015)

Interesting


----------



## Tim Tucker (Sep 22, 2015)

To be honest, I'm not really sure what the point is. It's just a picture of a hotel with the sky blurred. Now I realise this is something of a test, but I still ask myself why the sky is blurred. Does it look better than it would if you'd caught the delicate structure of the cloud? Does it actually communicate movement? I don't think so on either count because clouds are naturally soft, and there are high level cloud formations that much resemble what you've changed the probably cumulus cloud into. We're used to seeing clouds with different textures and though to you who saw the clouds before and after and can see the relative difference and thus attach the feeling of movement, to me they just resemble a different type of cloud that occurs naturally. See here:
Cirrostratus clouds
Altocumulus clouds
It looks like technique for technique's sake. Does it really matter to the viewer seeing the web version or a print what the invisible difference in IQ is? Is IQ really important seeing as you're using it as a technique to blur things?
I don't understand this need in digital to change things, to leave the stamp saying 'this is obviously digital'. Looking for a subject to use the technique on rather than looking at the subject. Looking to produce a digital abstraction to make the image rather than letting the subject do so.

So if you removed the digital/technical wow factor by showing it to somebody who really didn't care for technique and just wanted to see the picture, what does it become? More than the sum of it's parts or just a hotel with an odd looking sky?

Sorry about the contrary opinion.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 22, 2015)

What are you even talking about?

Are you just responding for repsondings sake?


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 22, 2015)

I believe this was an exercise in creating a long exposure like image without using a ND filter nor a small aperture.

Experimentation is a useful learning tool.


----------



## Tim Tucker (Sep 22, 2015)

Braineack said:


> What are you even talking about?
> 
> Are you just responding for repsondings sake?


I am assuming that because motion blur is highly dependant on distance you experiments with blurring the clouds are meant to be applied specifically to clouds because your timings and intervals wouldn't have the same effect with closer subjects. That being so it seems like a very elaborate way to produce soft an blurred clouds when soft and blurred clouds are a natural and common sight. You can take shots of natural cloud formations that can look similar to what you've produced with a lot less effort. I'm not sure the casual observer might not just mistake it for a different type of cloud formation. It's a perfectly valid point as the clouds in your image resemble common mid-level cloud types to me. I'm not doubting your technical skill.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 22, 2015)

I was trying to capture the movement of the clouds traveling over time, much like you would if you took this same shot over a full 10 minutes with a 12 stop ND filter or alike--without a 12-stop ND filter or alike--similar to almost every picture on 500px.com.   I said it like 15 times now.  It was literally technique for technique's sake.  it was my first attempt and i came away with lessons learned and i wanted to share it.

i could care less about natural cloud formations, I wanted to show movement and blur.

If I wanted to show them off, I'd have posted this:




Bethany Beach Sunrise From Dunes by The Braineack, on Flickr


----------



## Tim Tucker (Sep 22, 2015)

Perhaps you should care about natural cloud formations, because as I've said they're naturally soft and blurred. After all they are just condensation in the atmosphere. I just walked out in my back yard (literally this afternoon, because of this conversation) and shot this with a sharp lens focussed on infinity at 1/640sec f5.6. All I've done is convert to sRGB, jpeg and reduced by 50% (which should increase apparent sharpness). Absolutely no jiggery-pokery, this is how clouds can and do look in the natural environment.  So what is somebody who couldn't give a damn about the effort you put into your shot going to see? Something special, or something the see almost every day when they look out of the window. Trying to capture the moment in cloud by blurring them is a fairly pointless exercise because they commonly look like that anyway. I sometimes wonder that photographers get so wrapped up with what they're doing and the meaning they attach to it they forget to take into account that it's pretty similar to what everybody sees when they look out of their own window at the real world. Absolutely no offence meant, and much respect for you technical skills.


----------



## jcdeboever (Sep 22, 2015)

Braineack said:


> I was trying to capture the movement of the clouds traveling over time, much like you would if you took this same shot over a full 10 minutes with a 12 stop ND filter or alike--without a 12-stop ND filter or alike--similar to almost every picture on 500px.com.   I said it like 15 times now.  It was literally technique for technique's sake.  it was my first attempt and i came away with lessons learned and i wanted to share it.
> 
> i could care less about natural cloud formations, I wanted to show movement and blur.
> 
> ...


Daddy issues [emoji13] 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Braineack (Sep 22, 2015)

not soft or blurred.



still none.



Just because you live under a constant dark cloud, doesn't mean we all do...

capturing images at all is kinda pointless because we can see things and remember them.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 22, 2015)

and you wouldnt really be able to achieve the look, that I'm going for (i.e. not static clouds without any movement whatsoever) with just a blur tool.

here is the same shot with the the cloud motion blurred:




now 20 images over a 10min period stacked:




this is similar to the long I'm trying to achieve, but it's still not quite right.  I want to capture the movement of the clouds over time.   you can't do that at 1/650sec.  I want to do it over 650 full seconds...


this technique might be better for water, or maybe if the clouds were moving directly towards the camera and not off at an angle.   One things for sure is i need more frames at quicker intervals so there's less gaps in time.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 22, 2015)

This guy seems to be doing what I was aiming to achieve:

Time Stacks

But I wanted to blended the layers into one smooth trail.

Looks like some of these are over 500 images large.


----------



## thereyougo! (Sep 24, 2015)

it's ok I suppose, but personally, I'd rather spend more time out in the open air shooting than looking at a screen for longer than necessary...

Pure semantics I suppose, but these aren't long exposures.  They are stacked exposures.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 24, 2015)

thereyougo! said:


> it's ok I suppose, but personally, I'd rather spend more time out in the open air shooting than looking at a screen for longer than necessary...
> 
> Pure semantics I suppose, but these aren't long exposures.  They are stacked exposures.



I post-process all my images, I didn't spend much longer stacking and blending these that I would normally editing a photo.

and yes, they are stacked exposures. Again, I've said that like 28 times now.  The idea was to try to mimic a long exposure in daylight, without the use of welding glass, by stacked and blending multiple exposures. Personally, I like long exposure land/skyscapes but I didn't happen to have a $300 ND filter available to use to capture a 10min shot at noon.  I wanted to see if I could do something to mimic it without special equipment.

So what is your point here?  You like to shoot a bunch of snapshots without any thought process behind them and don't post-process.  cool.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 24, 2015)

Wow...so much aggro man. You're acting like a high school boy.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 24, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Wow...so much aggro man. You're acting like a high school boy.



lets me get out my morning rush hour jollies out.


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 24, 2015)

I like cameras  


and telescopes


well, mostly telescopes but you need the camera to capture pictures as pulling film outta my brain ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 24, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> I like cameras
> 
> 
> and telescopes
> ...




telescopes seem like an elaborate way to just take a shot at 50mm and crop down significantly.


----------



## thereyougo! (Sep 25, 2015)

Braineack said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> > it's ok I suppose, but personally, I'd rather spend more time out in the open air shooting than looking at a screen for longer than necessary...
> ...



Why so defensive?  I wasn't having a pop.  My point is that for me it's not an alternative to the real thing, at least, not for me.  
One or two photographic magazines in the UK, Digital Camera World and Practical Photography that spend longer showing how to swap skies or to do what you have done as if it is a real alternative.  

I'm not a purist, well not altogether, but I do think we should get as much as possible right in camera, then polish in post processing.  The creation part in my view is in taking the shot.  Everything else is to do with getting as much from the initial creation as possible.  Of course YMMV.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 25, 2015)

Do you like natural skies?

using tapatalk.


----------



## sleist (Sep 25, 2015)

What do you have against filters?
I like the experimentation and applaud the effort and learning curve in PS.
I just don't understand why the negative attitude toward filters.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 25, 2015)

sleist said:


> What do you have against filters?
> I like the experimentation and applaud the effort and learning curve in PS.
> I just don't understand why the negative attitude toward filters.



i dont like dealing with them and landscape photography is not my forte, so it's not something i want to invest in.


----------



## crimbfighter (Sep 29, 2015)

Well, I know I'm late to the game here, but interesting technique. Thanks for sharing your experiment. I'm not sure why so many people are viewing your experiment as an attack on filters. It's no different than finding an alternative method to steady your camera in case you forgot your tripod. Nobody bats an eye when someone talks at length about how to properly hold the camera to steady it when one could simply say, "hogwash, you should just be using a tripod!" Then the argument would go, "but what if i dont have a tripod or want to carry one?" And the reply, "too bad, its a proven method, you shouldn't focus on alternative methods when we have a perfecly good method that works." 

There's more than one way to skin a cat, and I think it's always helpful to have more than one method or tool to achieve the same goal. Makes one a more versitile photographer.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 29, 2015)

Thanks. exactly.

I was trying something out and posted my results.  It didn't go exactly as planned, but I'm hoping to try again and refine it better.  I much enjoy long-exposed landscape shots where the sky/water is blurred, but I don't have any ND filters to accomplish that (and don't necessarily want to buy any).

So I was sitting there watching the clouds roll by thinking this would be a great chance to try something out.  I learned that I need more frames with shorter intervals, then I need to work on some frame better blending method. I have a feeling water will end up working better than the clouds. 

But that link I provided to that flickr set is very similar to what I was trying to capture, but I want to blend the frames.



 i didn't even use a tripod.

one of the shots the camera was sitting on top of a beach bag.  the other shot the camera was precariously balancing on a fence post with a small piece of driftwood giving it the vertical tilt it needed to frame the shot.


also: I shot the moon on Sunday using vibration control _active_, while the camera was on a tripod...  I heard kittens dying in background.


----------



## petrochemist (Sep 29, 2015)

Tim Tucker said:


> I am assuming that because motion blur is highly dependant on distance  <snip>


Actually it's not. 
Motion blur is dependant on angular velocity. Slow moving things close up will give just the same blur as fast moving things further away if their angular velocity is the same. 
I suspect the clouds where just a convenient way to investigate the technique. It should also work for other long exposure type images though the exposure details & number of images may need considerable tweaking. Combining multiple image for a very long exposure is fairly standard practice for star trails. Total exposure in many of the star trail shots I've seen have been measured in hours.


----------



## petrochemist (Sep 29, 2015)

sleist said:


> What do you have against filters?
> I like the experimentation and applaud the effort and learning curve in PS.
> I just don't understand why the negative attitude toward filters.



They cost quite a lot of money, need to be carried & can spoil the IQ if they didn't cost much. 
Perhaps more importantly some lenses don't allow a filter to be fitted. Fish eyes are a prime example.

Despite these disadvantages I probably use filters more than most, as I shoot a lot of IR with a full spectrum camera.


----------

