Benefits of long daytime exposures

[seansphotos]

<p>I know that long exposures are used for the blurred effect in skies and waterfalls. My question is: will my photo be better—in terms of saturated colours, better contrast, depth of field, sharper image—than what I get with a short exposure handheld or tripod shot?<br /> My main area of interest is landscape.<br /> Many thanks.<br /> S.</p>

[jim_momary]

<p>Your best friend for saturating landscapes is a polarizer filter and knowing how and when to use it.</p>

<p>Slow shutter speeds can lead to blur by the person moving the camera or subject movement.</p>

<p>Color, contrast and exposure don't really depend on shutter speed, per se. It takes "X" amount of light to create a properly exposed image. So if that image is analogous to a bucket of light; the bucket can be filled regardless if filled slowly or quickly. DoF obviously does matter/rely on with aperture chosen, but that depends a lot on subject distance.</p>

<p>I stick with a polarizer (when appropriate), midrange apertures (F 5.6, 8, etc) and a tripod for my landscape shots. Also, try not to overexpose.<br />Jim<br />(below example: Nikon D200, 50mm 1.8 lens, polarizer, F5.6 and 1/1000th (it was very sunny) so no tripod that day.)</p><div></div>

[adam_puzach]

<p>You are probably going to get a mixed response on this question but overall you are not going to gain anything else other than some blurring with the longer exposure. In reality nothing should change because of having the longer exposure. The thing about exposure that you should know is something called reciprocity. Reciprocity means that shutter and aperture are directly related so that a one stop change in your aperture equals a one stop change in your shutter. For example if your original exposure is f8 1/250 then an exposure of f16 1/125 will give you the exact same picture. This works because when you are changing your aperture from f8 to f16 your are essentially cut the light entering the camera in half. So then inversely by changing the shutter from 250 to 125 you are doubling the length of the exposure and making up for the light lost by the aperture. The only difference you will see in these exposures is potentially a change in depth of field due to the change in your aperture. The smaller the aperture the larger the depth of field. This is something you will want in landscape photography as most landscape photographers prefer a large depth of field. Also when shooting these long exposure shots be sure to be using a tripod. It will not be sharp with out being stable. I personally would try and worry more about the compositional factors i.e. the blurring of the sky or waterfall or possibly changing your depth of field so that it is positively affecting your picture or what you involving in your picture as a whole rather than how much contrast you have. That will be fixed by having exposed correctly at the right time of day then properly post processing. I hope this was all helpful! Sorry if i rambled to much.<br>

Adam</p>

[seansphotos]

<p>Thank you both for that advice. It all makes perfect sense. I've read about landscape photographers using ND filters in order to in order to get a bigger aperture/longer exposure but maybe I picked it up wrong...or am I just confusing two different things?</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Landscape photographers are often looking for a small aperture to maximize depth of field, not a larger aperture opening which would lessen depth of field. The smaller aperture results in a longer exposure, but the longer expousre is a price that is paid, not a goal. As noted above, the longer exposure increases the risk of motion blur, not just from people moving but even grass and flowers blowing in the wind. So it's usually a matter of seeking a compromise somewhere in between. As for ND, what you might be thinking of is a graduated ND that is dark at the top, clear at the bottom and helps darken a too-bright sky to better match the foreground of a photo. Those are very commonly used in landscape work.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>Answer to original question: no.</p>

<p>There is never any advantage to a longer exposure than is necessary, unless you deliberately want to motion blur something. For example, stacked Cokin filter fans like to make surfaces of water look like they are ice. Or, you might sometimes want a moving subject to actually look like it's in motion.</p>

[starvy]

<p>More light does not mean more opportunity to create the best exposure. For landscape you really need a very small exposure and in bright sun, shoot handheld or in cloudy situations, use a tripod. If you are thinking of long exposures to slow the water think about an ND filter and tripod.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>One benefit of really long exposures (or a series of normal exposures taken every minute or so for an hour, and then blended together using the median operator is that people and traffic tend to disappear from such images.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[stephen_hipperson]

<p>Make sure you get the right exposure. I know a few pros who prefer to use a spotmeter, I know others who swear by an incident reading.<br>

Remember at your lenses maximum and minium aperture its resoluion may not be as good.</p>

[Jeff Lear]

<p>Jim and Puzach cover the basics nicely, I really like Puzach's explanation of reciprocity. Your original question has been answered sufficiently by others, provided the image is exposed correctly (1/500th of a second or 500 seconds, doesn't matter), the length of exposure will have no affect on saturation or contrast.<br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is never any advantage to a longer exposure than is necessary</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Monsieur Lachaine said it perfectly. Of course, <em>necessary</em> is defined by the imagination of the photographer based on what he or she wishes their photograph to portray. I've often used longer exposures in landscape either through a combination of very low ISO and small aperture or artificially with a neutral density filter but I've only done that when it was a means to achieve the image I sought. An example would be to blur the clouds, giving them a sense of movement among the static mountains or plains.<br /><br />I recommend you experiment!</p>