Setting up

[christopher_collie]

Hey guys invading a little trouble. I'm trying to take some super slow shutter landscape shots.

I'm

Shooting with a nikon d3000 in manual mode with a 18-105 lens

I'm setting my shutter to 30s and my aperture to it's smallest setting(almost closed) my problem is that I'm still getting super bright

photos. I know having the shutter open so long let's in tons of light. Which I've tried to counter by having the aperture closed as much

as it can. But it's just not enough. I'm ahooting with and ISO rating of 100 which is the lowest I can get it.

 

 

Any tips to get a darker product? So I can see more cloud detail and such?

 

I'm pretty new to the camera and maybe I'm missing something

[elliot1]

<p>A neutral density filter will take care of your issue. </p>

[christopher_collie]

Will a nuetral density filter really help that much?

[John Crowe]

<p>Neutral density filters come in various factors and you can stack them. Stacking will decrease image quality though. I believe typical ND filters will soak up 1 or 2 stops of light and perhaps even 3 or 4.</p>

<p>The obvious question here though is why do you need a shutter speed of 30 seconds? I don't even think flowing water shots require that much. If you expose that long the clouds you are trying to get more out of will be blurred from their motion.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I wonder why you need to use a shutter speed as slow as 30 seconds. I have a 3-stop neutral-desity filter for the occasional waterfall shots where I want to use a shutter speed in the 1 to 2 seconds range, under bright sunlight. If you really want 30 seconds, you may need to stack ND filters, which has its own set of problems.</p>

<p>Moreover, be careful using very small apertures. Diffraction will rob some sharpness from your lens. See the examples in this current thread: <a href="00Z78s">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Z78s</a></p>

<p>I hope you have a very sturdy platform that can keep your camera still for 30 seconds.</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>ND filters are available up to 10 stops if you really want to turn day into night. :)</p>

 

[Two23]

<p>Don't use f22 on your lens, for starters. OK, you want a shutter speed of 30s. Here's what you do, using Sunny 16 rule. On a sunny day, to get a 30s long exposure you need to set camera to manual mode. Set ISO to 100, set aperture to f16, set shutter speed to 30s. You then must add 12 stops of neutral density filters, by my calculation. Keep in mind the exposure will NOT be dark, it will just be a normal daylight exposure with a 30s shutter speed. I do this sort of thing often with my 4x5 camera and 19th century lenses that have no shutters (such as 1860 Derogy f3.5 Petzval.) A 10 stop + 2 stop ND filter will do this, with minimal creation of flare. </p>

<p>If you want the exposures to look DARK, you must dial in exposure compensation (see your manual) or set to manual mode and start dialing down either apeture or shutter speed below suggested exposure level until you get what you want. You are using a solid tripod for all this, right?<br />Kent in SD</p>

[lachaine]

<p>Why would you even want to use a slower shutter speed than you need to for a landscape? You don't need that slow even if you want to still a water surface, which is the only reason I can see. Leaves move, the ground vibrates, clouds move fast, etc. Everything will be more blurred than it has to be, and on top of that, you're not using your lens to its best advantage.</p>

<p>I actually know someone who is doing exactly what you are talking about, with "stacked" Cokin neutral density filters. Stacked Cokin filters seem to have been just discovered on Flickr and are all the rage on some groups there. What's the point? Whatever your point is, that would be what you need to use.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Don't know about the OP, but I sometimes do use daytime exposures of 2-30 seconds with my historic camera gear. It gives a much softer look, and long exposures are a good way to get shots without people in them. Just as you can use exposure to play with light, you can use it to play with time. They did this routinely in the 19th century. Use your imagination a little here.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>It would help to know why you must have a 30sec exposure, as Shun asks. Although there are the occasional needs for a long shutter speed in daylight, it's rare.</p>

<p>Could you give us more information, Christopher?</p>

[bms]

<p>I think you want to have that blurred cloud/water look? You need to get a 1000x filter. B+W make a good one which I use. Exposure metering will likely not work accurately though.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I was imagining one of those shots of a highway (normally heavily-travelled) that makes it appear to be deserted.</p>

<p>By the way, the reason that some of the other posters here are recommending against using f22 is that sharpness will suffer due to diffraction. It's up to you whether that sharpness loss is acceptable for your purposes.</p>

<p>Note that you'll need to focus before adding all those ND filters, and your 18-105 doesn't have any distance markings so you'll probably want to focus before adding filters and be careful not to change the setting. At least you're stopped down so far that precise focus probably isn't important.</p>

[christopher_collie]

Trying get extreme cloud blurring in a mountain landscape shot. And also unthinking of doing some early evening light

trails in the city but not at dark.

[eric_arnold]

<p>i wouldn't shoot below f/13 on any digital camera if i could help it, except for perhaps a macro shot. and i agree with other posters, don't use a longer shutter than you actually need. doing a 30 sec exposure in the daylight is going to be problematic and possibly almost certainly require a filter such as the one suggested. i have a Genus vari-ND filter which is like the singh-ray, but much cheaper, but even that only does so much.</p>

<p>light trails in the city are much easier, since with automobile lights you need much less exposure time (approx. 1-6 seconds, depending on how fast the cars are moving).</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[johne37179]

<p>Kent, I liked your comment. I used to give my photography students an assignment to take images at exposures greater than 1 minute. It certainly gave them a different perspective on their vision of the world. It also technically challenged them and pushed their understanding of photography and physics. Your comment reminded me of that time way back in the day.</p>

[Two23]

<p>John--</p>

<p>There are things you just have to figure out when trying to use a c.1875 Darlot lens with no shutter when taking daytime photos, LOL. Now that we know what the OP is after, I still suggest a 10-stop ND filter, or even two. I've heard of people using welder's glass pressed against the lens to get even more (shooting b&w of course.) In summer, the camera sensor tends to heat up, giving you noise with very long exposures. I get around that by shooting long exposures in winter. Nothing warms up much here when it's 20F below.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Most commonly available ND filters are offered in a pathetic 8x (- 3 stops) density at most. To get really dramatic long exposures in full sunlight you need something approaching 128 x (- 7 stops) or sometimes more. One company that can supply these is called "thesnapshop" who advertise on the bay. However their filters are mislabelled, and the ones being sold as ND16 are actually ND128, although they are very cheap! The quality is reasonable - except if you really wanted and were expecting an ND16! </p>

<p>They also have some filters marked ND32, which are more like ND4000 (about -12 stops and fine for arc-welding or sun watching). The filters are uncoated, which is probably not very important in such a dense filter.</p>

<p>Anyhow, if you want a deep ND filter in a large thread size, these are your guys for a bargain!</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>BTW, the common picture of a filter shown by <strong>thesnapshop </strong>is also not representative of the real items. The filter I received is a pretty standard looking glass filter with a black aluminium double thread mount. Here's what the filter actually looks like, complete with the bottom half of the case it's shipped in, and another picture to give some idea of the true density of their filter marked "ND16".</p>

<p>The staff of thesnapshop are very friendly, seemed genuinely surprised by the mis-marking and apologised profusely, but I notice that their advertising has remained unchanged. In truth I was very glad of their mistake since I wanted denser filters that I couldn't find elsewhere. I bought filters in 82mm (marked ND16, but actually ND128) and 77mm (marked ND32, actually ~ND4000). I can't speak for other sizes being offered so YMMV.</p><div></div>