Long Exposures-Help

[bsparr]

I have an opportunity to view the international fireworks competition in Vancouver, BC in a couple of weeks and really want to try photographing some fireworks. I have never done any photography at night using long exposures. So we were at the county fair in Kansas this weekend and thought I could practice on the rides along the midway. I did have my tripod with me but only my Tokina 12-24 lens. I figured that I would expiriment by just shooting in manual and try different settings to see what I come up with.

Any advice is appreciated.

[Aggie04]

So what do you need help with?

It looks like you've got it down pat!

[Huck]

I shot in manaul as well for the 4th. Only things I can recommend is a tripod and a wireless remote to prevent camera shake. I used the BULB setting in my camera and got the results I was looking for. I would have left it open for say 5 seconds, but wasnt sure of the fireworks timing so the bulb mode made it easy for me. Hope this helps.

[bsparr]

It's just that some of the work I see on this forum just blow's me away and I just want to learn more and get better. Never seem to be pleased with my own photo's, you know what I mean !

[LonestarMan]

Like Huck said, Tripod, Bulb and a remote. If I'm close enough and can see the trail or hear the initial boost I will sometimes hold the shutter open and cover the lens opening with my hand or a small box between explosions allowing multiple burst on a single frame. Then again, with a solid black sky, you can easily stack images in Photoshop.

[venchka]

Great work! My only thought would be to try faster shutter speeds to give some idea of what those whirling spinning things are. Or maybe the same shutter speed when the equipment is starting or stopping.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by venchka

Great work! My only thought would be to try faster shutter speeds to give some idea of what those whirling spinning things are. Or maybe the same shutter speed when the equipment is starting or stopping.

Who cares what they are? These are beautiful images of light.

[xfloggingkylex]

I kind of agree with the shorter exposures. I like number 4 the best because I know what ride that is. The others are great shots but I find myself slightly puzzled by the pictures. Of course with fireworks it's pretty obvious what it is. you seem to have it down just fine.

[venchka]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

Who cares what they are? These are beautiful images of light.

No argument. I didn't mean "either or". Rather I was thinking both ways. And any other way that might work. Experiment! Shucks, with digital you can experiment 'till the cows come home with instant feedback.

[OneWayMule]

Seems like you have the proper shutter speed down to get the desired motion (except the last one which is blown)

But better composition and post-processing is whats lacking.
The reason youre not satisfied with these shots may have to do with the overall tonality/contrast of the pic.

The proper shutter speed for the ride itselt is only the first step.

No.1 has too many blown areas (i.e. under the tent, the trailer, other ride to the left and parts of the main ride) that takes away from the overall pic. The chopping on the top also doesnt help.

No2 & 3 have rich spinning colors but its the composition thats lacking. The bottom of the pic does more to distract IMO than play the supporting role of telling the viewer where you are.

Sometimes its better to leave most things out and only make it an abstract sort of shot... like show only PART of the ferris wheel.
Sometimes its better to take a wider shot and let the spinning ride hover over things happening at the carnival.

You may have to look into doing multiple exposures to ensure all areas of the pic are properly exposed then putting em together in photoshop. The best night (skyline) shots are composed of many many shots.

[bsparr]

OneWayMule

Thanks for your input, this is the kind of information I am looking for, I probably should have experimented more with focal length or my set up, but there just was not a lot of room along the midway where you could get a clear shot. My objective that evening was to just figure out what settings were involved in photographing light at night. This is what I really like about digital, instant feedback.

You may have to look into doing multiple exposures to ensure all areas of the pic are properly exposed then putting em together in photoshop. The best night (skyline) shots are composed of many many shots.

I had no idea that this sort of thing was even possible, I don't use photoshop at all so the multiple exposure method may not be an option.

So off topic a bit, when you PS your photograph to achieve some result other than the original photo, is this considered photography or art ? I'm not trying to be a smart a$$ this is a real question.

[OneWayMule]

Originally Posted by bsparr

I had no idea that this sort of thing was even possible, I don't use photoshop at all so the multiple exposure method may not be an option.

This link will show you the essence of reducing blown out highlights and capturing good shadow detail. The key to getting a wider dynamic range
http://luminous-landscape.com/tutori...xposures.shtml

Nightshots often have a lot of noise, but we want to have a noisefree image, one which looks as smooth as the ones we take in bright daylight. There is a technique called stacking, perfected by Shay Stephens. Here is the link for it
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read....essage=2502988

Furthermore a dude called Arjun finetuned his method of nighshots and his steps taken are written here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...essage=8813356

And finally this is a great thread where you'll find Shay Stephens, who to date still is the best nightshot master, correct Arjun on several techniques used.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...essage=8826925

So off topic a bit, when you PS your photograph to achieve some result other than the original photo, is this considered photography or art ? I'm not trying to be a smart a$$ this is a real question.

Thats a very subjective question.
What one considers art may be garbage to rest.

Many photographers justify and accept digital manipulation (i.e. burning/dodging, contrast change, cropping) cos it can be replicated in traditional darkroom. Few photographers are real hardcore where they wont manipulate a pic at all and "straight-outta-the-camera" image is the only true "art". And they make this known on their websites and/or clients.

Then you have others like this guy who do more then just make the pic pop.

you'd be surprised at the Before/After photos of even everyday novice photographers who know how to make their shots shine. I'd recommend learning atleast the basics of photoshop. Not many things in life are as vivid as seen on photography books or in magazines.

[OneWayMule]

As for me, this photographer's night shots are head & shoulders (isnt that a shampoo?) above anyone else's.
You may wanna bookmark cos he goes into some of his techniques/theory... (he's a scientist so not very exciting to read :)

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/cambridge-gallery.htm

[bsparr]

Very nice, lot's of information to read, thanks for the link.

[engstrom]

Hey, I love shooting midway rides too! You have some very nice pictures there.







And remember, sometime you can use a flash to get some neat ghosting effect: