Long exposure scene without blurring the model?

<p>This is my first attempt at long exposure photography. I'm trying to shoot a long exposure beach scene including a model sitting or standing on a jetty during the exposure. Other than instructing the model to stand/sit perfectly still during the exposure, is there any technique to freeze the model but not the moving water and clouds? I'm trying to do this in camera not in post. </p>

<p>The only real 'technique' that I can think of would be to expose the girl by flash, and the landscape by shutter speed. But you are not likely to get much movement in clouds or water with shutter speeds that will also maintain crispness of the model.</p>

<p>I agree, doing this in a single exposure will make it difficult, though not impossible. Why are you avoiding combining 2 exposures? It would relatively easy.</p>

<p>I'll take the traditional approach and tell you to talk with the model and have him or her take a comfortable position that will be easy to hold for several seconds. Water movement records in as little as 1/15 second, so five or six seconds (in which a model should easily be able to stay still except for blowing hair), will show a great deal of water movement. Clouds may or may not be another thing. If it's a calm day, you will have no apparent movement. If it's windy on the ground, it may not be windy at the level of the clouds, or the reverse, the clouds could be high enough to catch winds aloft and be moving very fast across the sky. Also, set up your scene to be perpendicular to the movement of the clouds to maximize their motion on film.</p>

<p>Everything is relative to the model remaining still. One of the earliest of all photographic images and the very first one to show a human form is a street scene with a distant man having his shoes shined. The many second long exposure shows much of his figure quite clearly because he stood very still with one foot propped up to be shined.</p>

<p>If you choose to shoot in automatic and need to extend your exposure beyond what your camera allows, a neutral density filter is your answer.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You are not giving us all the info here like what time of day or night you are doing this or if you are using a neutral density filter or not. I agree with all the above although the flash and slow shutter speed would have to be done just after sunset and later to avoid double image.</p>

<p>I'm open to a double exposure just never done double exposures before.<br>

As far as time of day, I don't have a set time when I "need" to do it. I'm open to any suggestions. I've wanted to try long exposures and am just starting out.</p>

<p>I'll be using b & w neutral density filters. I've to got three the .9, 1.8 and 3. I also have two porarizing filters. </p>

<p>An in-camera double exposure or flash exposure won't get what you want. You'll end up with a see-through model looking like a ghost or with a blurred halo around them. The ONLY sensible way to do this is to strip two separate exposures together using an image-processor like PhotoShop.</p>

<p>To get "milky" water effects in broad daylight you'll probably need the 3.0ND (1000x), since exposure times will need to be in the region of several seconds. IME clouds need a lot longer to show significant streaking - tens of seconds - and no model is going to be able to hold a pose for that long. Shooting at dusk or dawn means you'll only likely need the 1.8D filter, but obviously exposure times will still be just as long.</p>

<p>Now we have some info to go on. Rodeo joe can you post some examples of shots you took using the techniques you are describing? As far as myself I only do long exposures at dusk and night time using a fill flash at then end of the exposure. What ever f-stop you use will be the flashes exposure and the shutter speed time ( 1sec to 10sec) will be the ambient exposure. I try to keep the shutter speed to the shortest time to avoid movement and also keep the background a little underexposed. Make sure no stray ambient light is hitting the subject. Keeping your subject off of brighter background whether it is open sky or lights will prevent the black edge that outlines the subject when they slightly move. This is another form of ghosting.</p>

<p>I'm afraid I'm not very proud of my attempts to get streaked clouds up to now. Even on quite windy days with scudding clouds and using an exposure time of around 30 seconds I didn't like the results very much. The composition is also quite hit-and-miss as the final appearance of the clouds is difficult to predict. I therefore haven't bothered to index the shots or move them to my working directory, so they're kind of electronically buried at the moment. All I can say is that based on those experiments the exposure time for cloud streaking needs to be <em>very </em>long compared to water shots that only need a few seconds.</p>

<p>I considered the option of sitting the model against a dark background, but then thought it might be a bit limiting compositionally, and would probably look more contrived and artificial than a combo done completely in post.</p>

<p>I agree I see nothing special with moving clouds. Now stars in the night sky can be cool with the rotation of the earth and then flash in the subject. The water ok, it does look cool when it looks like steam or smoke moving. I personally don't think that type of shot is best done in one shot. I think get one shot perfect with the moving water and then do another with the model and use PS to layer or whatever technique you like.</p>

<p>Here's a sample of my first attempt at long exposure without a model. Thanks for the tip on the clouds. I was wondering how to get streaking clouds. and water. </p><div></div>

<p>second shot</p><div></div>

<p>When I read this my first thought was the steel braces that Photographers used in a bygone era for portraiture. Second was PP :-)</p>

<p>What settings did you use with each of the two shots (F-stop, shutter speed, ISO)? And which filters?<br>

<br />Since you have natural light and are using a tripod, you should be able to get the qualities you want in a single exposure. It's "easier" to do it with two exposures... but it can be done in camera.</p>

 

<p>Rodeo Joe said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The ONLY sensible way to do this is to strip two separate exposures together using an image-processor like PhotoShop.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've been attempting a similar shot for night exteriors with the city as a background, but any stray ambient light muddies the subject's skin tones. What would be your best recommendation for this technique? Shoot the model on a white background and punch it out with a luminance key? I've had limited success with green screen composites (too much green light reflects back onto the model).</p>

<p>Not to hi-jack the thead, but I thought this was a related question--this is the shot I was talking about in the above post: Does anyone have any suggestions on how to better shoot this? It's a strobe-fired, tripod-ed shot using a 1/3rd-second exposure, but I'd like to shoot with even longer exposures, while still using a live model.</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/studio460/karina-1-700.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Other than attempting this as a composite shot, the only thing I could only think of was to flag off any ambient light hitting the subject using two 4' x 8' flags (e.g., sheets of black Foamcore, 4' x 4' floppies, etc.) on either side of the subject (or find a darker street).</p>

<p>I don't have much experience with flash photography, but it seems like blending 2 exposures here would do the trick as well. But forget about blocking the ambient light, use enough flash too overwhelm it. Or an other option would be to do levels adjustment on the version with model to get her skin tones how you like.The trickier part being blending it realistically with the point light sources right behind her.</p>

<p>The trick is finding the right combination of shutter speed and f stop to get your desired results without going to slow on the shutter which would blur the subject. You also need to be mindful of stray light hitting the subject. Lastly you need a powerful enough flash to have control over your ambient. Although i do like your image it does have a natural feel. The only problem is your 3 sec exposure does not help with a sharp subject. All you had to do was increase your iso by two stops and you would of been able to speed up your shutter. </p>

<p>Yes, all good points. Thanks for your comments--I was worried this thread was too old to garner any replies. Yes, a few clicks up on the ISO dial would've eliminated the subject motion blur, and lessened the exposure bleed on the subject. Will have to experiment more to nail this one down (exposure was 1/3 sec. by the way). I believe I was using a Dynalite Uni400 Jr., through a 30" x 40" softbox, handheld by a friend, directly over the lens.</p>

<p>Anyone have any further tips on how to shoot the composite? Model on white background?</p>

<p>I find this works best with a strong strobe.<br /><br />I use a low ISO, expose for the flash with the aperture, and let the shutter drag until I achieve the level of fill that I want. The model has to stay relatively still, but a bit of movement won't be too much of a problem.<br /><br />You need a strong flash because most shoe-mount or built-in strobes won't light a large-ish subject evenly at low ISO and moderate apertures (say, f2.8 or f4)</p>