Post your night time long exposure photos here!

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Post your night time long exposure photos here!

«‹›59 »

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

DJExile posted:

Jeez, I really overthink things sometimes.

And it only cost you $yourfirstborn!

# ? Mar 22, 2010 20:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 20, 2024 01:06

Belflek: Feb 7, 2007

like 6 sec?
Actually two photos. The previous one a little under had a much better looking fire so I masked it in

# ? Mar 22, 2010 21:29

Khelmar: Oct 12, 2003; Things fix me.

Click here for the full 681x1024 image.

Moonbow in Yosemite - I could kill myself for using high ISO, but I think I had the camera on auto. Focusing was my biggest problem - I tried getting it set for the hyperfocal distance, but I kind of messed up. It took me 45 minutes to see the moonbow with my eyes.

# ? Mar 23, 2010 03:53

orange lime: Jul 24, 2008; by Fistgrrl

Khelmar posted:

Moonbow in Yosemite - I could kill myself for using high ISO

I was just about to say "well just convert it to monochrome!" :downs:

# ? Mar 23, 2010 04:00

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

Khelmar posted:

Moonbow in Yosemite

I kind of like the look, it's similar to stuff shot on old film cameras with high saturation film.

# ? Mar 23, 2010 10:15

Munkaboo: Aug 5, 2002; If you know the words, you can join in too
He's bigger! faster! stronger too!
He's the newest member of the Jags O-Line crew!

Wegas

# ? Mar 23, 2010 23:17

Henker: May 5, 2009

Couple of shots of a hill by my old house.

Normal:

On fire:

# ? Mar 25, 2010 22:52

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

# ? Mar 25, 2010 23:55

Beve Stuscemi: Jun 6, 2001

# ? Mar 27, 2010 05:38

TheAngryDrunk: Jan 31, 2003; "I don't know why I know that; I took four years of Spanish."

# ? Mar 27, 2010 06:52

sensy v2.0: May 12, 2001

I have to say, that building looks a lot cooler in the night than in the day.

# ? Mar 30, 2010 19:21

fronkpies: Apr 30, 2008; You slithered out of your mother's filth.

sensy v2.0 posted:

I have to say, that building looks a lot cooler in the night than in the day.

Nothing worse than seeing all that dust on your negatives is there?

# ? Mar 30, 2010 19:23

sensy v2.0: May 12, 2001

fronkpies posted:

Nothing worse than seeing all that dust on your negatives is there?

It's the loving worst. I guess it's worse than usual because it's so dark?

# ? Mar 30, 2010 19:25

Ingraman: Jul 6, 2005; Arrogant bastard

A few shots from Mass:

# ? Mar 31, 2010 01:59

ElroySmin: Oct 21, 2005

night time in the desert, used a waterbottle stuck in the sand as a tripod, hence the low, low angle. still dig the shot.

# ? Mar 31, 2010 07:22

KING EGG: Dec 1, 2000; Saturday is "Treat Day"

Can film play too?

Shot on T-MAX 100 @ ISO100 for about a second. Hadn't had the camera long but I enjoyed the effect that I got. Camera was a Contax 159MM with a Zeiss 1.8/50mm for anyone interested. Love the camera to bits but the mechanisms are starting to jam and the light seals are rotting

# ? Mar 31, 2010 11:55

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

The problems you describe are why God invented CLA's.

# ? Mar 31, 2010 12:00

Ouhei: Oct 23, 2008; Cat Army

10 second exposure w/ ISO 200:

I've been meaning to take a photo like this ever since I got my camera, finally went out last night and went for it. I love how it came out.

# ? Mar 31, 2010 14:31

PlasticSun: Feb 12, 2002; Unnaturally Good

ElroySmin posted:

night time in the desert, used a waterbottle stuck in the sand as a tripod, hence the low, low angle. still dig the shot.

Very nice.

# ? Mar 31, 2010 15:55

suddenlyissoon: Feb 17, 2002; Don't be sad that I am gone.

TheAngryDrunk posted:

you wouldn't happen to have this any bigger, would you? I'd love to make it my desktop at 3840x1080

# ? Mar 31, 2010 18:23

TheAngryDrunk: Jan 31, 2003; "I don't know why I know that; I took four years of Spanish."

suddenlyissoon posted:

you wouldn't happen to have this any bigger, would you? I'd love to make it my desktop at 3840x1080

Sure. I have the original 4272 x 2848 file. Do you just want a jpg or the raw file? I suck at post, so you're more than welcome to mess with it.

# ? Apr 1, 2010 02:48

KING EGG: Dec 1, 2000; Saturday is "Treat Day"

evil_bunnY posted:

The problems you describe are why God invented CLA's.

God also invented assraping on prices for working on old cameras to keep amateurs like me on the outside.

# ? Apr 1, 2010 13:23

Wes Mantooth: Dec 23, 2005; The reclusive dictator of the "Hermit Kingdom"

Toronto Skyline, 15 second exposure

# ? Apr 1, 2010 19:15

BeastOfExmoor: Aug 19, 2003; I will be gone, but not forever.

I was messing around with a few photos I took a while back that I thought were pretty useless, but when I brought the white balance all the way down to 2000 or so I noticed that the colors became much closer to daylight and I was able to get results that looked like somewhat surreal daytime photos.

These were both taken in almost pitch dark except for the streetlights you see.

I'm interested to see if anyone else likes the look of these?

# ? Apr 14, 2010 01:54

ncol: May 28, 2005; Christmas Whale fully subsidized by ThatsMyBoye

I forget how long each of these was. Somewhere between 30 seconds to 2 minutes :P

# ? Apr 14, 2010 04:15

pr0digal: Sep 12, 2008; Alan Rickman Overdrive

20 second exposure plus a flashlight

# ? Apr 15, 2010 18:03

scottch: Oct 18, 2003; "It appears my wee-wee's been stricken with rigor mortis."

15 seconds with a composite sky. I need a polarizer.

scottch fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Apr 16, 2010

# ? Apr 16, 2010 02:34

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

I went outside at 9:45 to get a few night shots. Not getting the one shot I was going for added insult to injury, the injury coming in the form of walking balls-first into my lawnmower, which I forgot I had moved to the patio this afternoon. I got some boring sky shots to compensate for the loss and will post them on Tuesday when I have a computer capable of talking to my camera without crashing.

BeastOfExmoor posted:

I was messing around with a few photos I took a while back that I thought were pretty useless, but when I brought the white balance all the way down to 2000 or so I noticed that the colors became much closer to daylight and I was able to get results that looked like somewhat surreal daytime photos.

These were both taken in almost pitch dark except for the streetlights you see.

I'm interested to see if anyone else likes the look of these?

I do like them, although the vignetting on the second one is distracting and the green channel looks blown or close to clipping. I assume they were sodium halide lights if you had to drop the white balance so much and the colors are still beautiful, I've found in my limited experience that setting to flash white balance and doing long exposures under moonlight produces saturation right on the border of believable and bright enough to illuminate properly at 30s and f/5.6

ncol posted:

This looks almost like an infrared shot and is awesome.

Wes Mantooth posted:

Toronto Skyline, 15 second exposure

this feels heavily left-weighted and I think it would benefit from a crop in the same ratio with the CN tower on the right vertical 3rds line.

# ? Apr 19, 2010 03:56

Jekub: Jul 21, 2006; April, May, June, July and August fool

M106 & NGC4217 in the constellation Canes Venatici. A big stack of 10 minute exposures and lots of swearing about light pollution and camera read noise.

M42, the Orion Nebula from earlier in the year, stack of 5 minute exposures though I'm looking forward to do a better job of this next year.

(fixed links, thanks for the heads up).

Jekub fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Apr 28, 2010

# ? Apr 28, 2010 14:39

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

You have to link the photo page, friend

# ? Apr 28, 2010 16:10

l33tc4k30fd00m: Sep 5, 2004

After having a tripod for a few months I actually decided to use properly and get some long exposures in London. I used FP4+ at ISO 200 (I can't even remember why I decided to push it anymore).

I'd like to give this one another go one day because I think it has more potential than what I got out of it. I think this was 2 minutes or so.

I think this was 4 or so seconds.

Just had to give the ol' light trails thing a try. This stuff is really fun, though the adjustments for reciprocity failure on B&W film are pretty intense. Again about 2+ minutes I think, original metered exposure would have been around 32 seconds.

More dusk than night. I saw some kids messing around on the riverbank skipping stones and the like. It was a rush setting up the tripod in time to capture this. Not sure how long the exposure was anymore. But over 30 seconds. It was a bit overexposed on the negative though.

# ? Apr 28, 2010 20:52

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

l33tc4k30fd00m posted:

More dusk than night. I saw some kids messing around on the riverbank skipping stones and the like. It was a rush setting up the tripod in time to capture this. Not sure how long the exposure was anymore. But over 30 seconds. It was a bit overexposed on the negative though.

I can't put my finger on what this reminds me of, but it reminds me of something and I really like it.

# ? Apr 28, 2010 21:00

Zegnar: Mar 13, 2005

I've just ordered some shade 10 welding glass to have a dabble with daytime long exposure :regd08:

# ? Apr 29, 2010 00:17

Jean-Paul Fartre: Jun 2, 2008; exitstenchalism

ncol posted:

I forget how long each of these was. Somewhere between 30 seconds to 2 minutes :P

Im digging this one alot.

# ? Apr 29, 2010 03:29

l33tc4k30fd00m: Sep 5, 2004

GWBBQ posted:

I can't put my finger on what this reminds me of, but it reminds me of something and I really like it.

I'm sure I've seen something like it before, but I have no idea really what I was drawing on exactly.

# ? Apr 29, 2010 06:54

Beve Stuscemi: Jun 6, 2001

Jekub posted:

M106 & NGC4217 in the constellation Canes Venatici. A big stack of 10 minute exposures and lots of swearing about light pollution and camera read noise.

M42, the Orion Nebula from earlier in the year, stack of 5 minute exposures though I'm looking forward to do a better job of this next year.

(fixed links, thanks for the heads up).

What lens/telescope are you using on these?

# ? Apr 29, 2010 21:15

Jekub: Jul 21, 2006; April, May, June, July and August fool

They are both taken with a Canon 1000D at prime focus on a 250mm F4.7 (1200mm) reflector mounted on a Celestron CGEM. Autoguiding is done with a modified webcam on a 70mm refractor.

It's quite a widefield setup really for deep space objects, but I'm finding for larger objects and clustered objects like the leo triplet that it is about right. I would like a nice dedicated astro camera at some point though, maybe next year.

# ? Apr 29, 2010 23:12

William T. Hornaday: Nov 26, 2007; Don't tap on the fucking glass!
I swear to god I'll cut off your fucking fingers and feed them to the otters for enrichment.

GWBBQ posted:

I can't put my finger on what this reminds me of, but it reminds me of something and I really like it.

l33tc4k30fd00m posted:

I'm sure I've seen something like it before, but I have no idea really what I was drawing on exactly.

Alexey Titarenko, perhaps?

# ? Apr 30, 2010 14:29

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

William T. Hornaday posted:

Alexey Titarenko, perhaps?

Yes.

# ? Apr 30, 2010 15:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 20, 2024 01:06

Moist von Lipwig: Oct 28, 2006; by FactsAreUseless; Tortured By Flan

Not sure what happened to the sky here. It probably had something to do with all the sodium lights pushing the colour temperature over 50000.

Any critique? Totally new at this, but I'm having fun!

EDIT:

A couple more from the same set.

Moist von Lipwig fucked around with this message at 11:17 on May 2, 2010

# ? May 2, 2010 11:10

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Post your night time long exposure photos here!

«‹›59 »