Another long-exposure water photo, and another shot from West Vancouver. This was taken from Caulfeild Park, just to the east of Lighthouse Park where my last photo was taken. The park was named after Francis William Caulfeild, who bought this area of West Vancouver in 1899.
This park is tiny, a strip of coastline that has not been taken over by expensive West Vancouver homes, but provides nice views and some interesting rock formations. The rocks below the high tide point were extremely slippery -- both me and my tripod were struggling to stay put!
This 10 minute exposure was taken 40 minutes after sunset. I used an aperture of f/16 to keep the foreground and background in focus, and bumped the ISO up to 200 to keep the shutter speed 'reasonable' (if 10 minutes can be considered such!) No filters for this photo. The long exposure has picked up the movement of the cargo ship as it rests at anchor.
I'm not *entirely* happy with it, for reasons I can't quite put my finger on -- I think the composition is a bit weak. There does seem to have been some tripod movement as well, so it's not as pin-sharp as I aim for when viewed at full zoom. But still, I took it, and it's not awful, so here it is!
Probably worth viewing large, if only for the black background.
I'm a British software developer and photographer living in Vancouver, BC. I mainly photograph landscapes, cityscapes, night scenes, and water.
If you're interested in any...
This is so beautiful. I wouldn't call you an amateur at all. Your photos are amazing. We have just booked out honeymoon to Canada and will be visiting Vancouver so you have earned yourself a follow as I am keen to see some of the delights your beautiful city has in store for us.
Always enjoy these shots and the details of how the shot was achieved. Just got myself a 9 stop nd filter and can not wait to try it out. Interested to know how you decide on the setup. Experience, mathmatics, experimentation or gueswork?
It's pretty amazing, especially the colours that come out. I actually prefer it with the lower 5th or so cropped out (which is how it appears when I view large on my laptop), the foreground rock seems to loom too large to me.
For this shot, I knew I would need a large depth of field, to capture the detail sharply all the way from the foreground rocks to the distant peninsula. However, it wasn't desirable to simply set the aperture to the smallest diameter, as this would both extend the shutter time more than necessary (and I knew it would already be quite long), and lose sharpness due to diffraction.
I therefore used Live View, along with the depth of field preview button, to determine the required aperture. I did this by zooming in to 10x on the peninsula, setting an approximate aperture value (I started at f/11), holding down the DOF preview button on the camera, and then manually bringing the focus as close to me as possible while still keeping the distance peninsula sharp. Once I'd reached that point (with the lens focus set as near as possible while keeping the furthest point in focus when stopped down), I then moved the Live View zoom to the nearest rocks, and checked if they were sharp. They weren't quite, so I repeated the setting at f/14, and then f/16, which was the sweet spot.
For shutter speed, I started quite early with relatively short speeds, so I was able to watch as the light evolved and the shutter time increased. I've written a bit more detail on how I did this in a comment on yesterday's photo for someone else who asked.
One problem with shooting at times like this is that you are chasing a moving target. It's very easy to take a 2 minute exposure, decide it's a stop underexposed, take another exposure at 4 minutes, and find it's just as bad -- in the time it took to take the second shot, the scene has darkened by a stop as the light fades! So there is certainly an amount of 'guesswork' and experience that comes into determining how much you need to increase an exposure by, when combined with rapidly-changing light levels. When you are beginning with this type of photography, this really benefits from using RAW files, as you have a lot more ability to correct underexposed shots.
For your 9-stop ND filter, you won't typically be using this after sunset, as the shutter times will simply be too long -- this shot was taken without any filters and was a 10 minute exposure, so with a 9 stop filter you'd need a shutter time of over 42 hours to capture the same amount of light -- except long before then the sun will have risen!
As you'll therefore be mostly using this filter when the sun is up, it's pretty easy to calculate the required exposure -- simply measure the exposure required with the filter off, and then either in your head or with one of the many smartphone apps, increase the exposure time by 9 stops. You will be best to shoot in manual mode rather than relying on the camera's metering system, as it typically isn't very accurate when that level of filtration is applied (and in many cases you will be over a 30 second exposure anyway, requiring bulb mode and a remote shutter release). You should also remember to cover the viewfinder, as light entering here can leak through to the sensor and spoil the shot. Canon DSLRs have a rubber cover for this purpose on the strap, and Nikon cameras have a switch by the viewfinder to do this (take the hint, Canon...)
One other thing I would highly recommend is working out how many stops your 9 stop filter *actually* reduces your exposure by. Making filters that are accurately this dark is very difficult -- I have a Lee filter, pretty much the gold standard in 10-stop filters, and that comes with a note saying that it will be between 9 and 1/3rd stops and 10 and 2/3rd stops, due to manufacturing variances. I have a cheap 10-stop filter that was actually 12 and 1/3rd stops! These errors, especially in the case of the cheaper filter I have, can have a significant effect -- if you treat my cheap 10-stop filter as a 10-stop filter, you'll always underexpose by almost 3 stops -- a huge amount to correct for, even in RAW.
Measuring the filter is relatively easy -- on a bright day with constant light (not close to dawn or dusk, or with the sun going behind clouds intermittently), simply take a shot without the filter, then fit the filter, adjust your exposure by 9 stops, and take another shot. Then compare the histogram of the second shot to the first -- if it's more left-shifted, increase the exposure by a third of a stop, and if it's more right-shifted, decrease the exposure by a third of a stop, and repeat. Once you get the shot with the filter on to have an identical histogram as the shot without the filter, work out the exposure difference, and that's the actual strength of your ND filter. If you use that value when calculating your exposure times, you'll always get perfect exposures. (I'd recommend labelling the filter with the actual strength so you don't forget, but then I'm very forgetful!)
Sir you are a legend. This is a massive
Help. Got an app now to calculate and just need a sunny day to have a test and some fun. Its actual nice to know there is some trial amd error with this method. I guess every scene if different. Thanks so much for your help
this is scrumptious! love the low pov sweeping the eye over the rock stuff in the foreground and the light in the bottom left... i need to print off your explanations about stops, exposure and aperture... it's all sort of stuff i "get", but only ever get right by luck and guesswork... i find it really helpful to understand the specifics because that increases the likelihood of my getting the settings right the first time :)
In terms of setup, do you mean camera settings?
For this shot, I knew I would need a large depth of field, to capture the detail sharply all the way from the foreground rocks to the distant peninsula. However, it wasn't desirable to simply set the aperture to the smallest diameter, as this would both extend the shutter time more than necessary (and I knew it would already be quite long), and lose sharpness due to diffraction.
I therefore used Live View, along with the depth of field preview button, to determine the required aperture. I did this by zooming in to 10x on the peninsula, setting an approximate aperture value (I started at f/11), holding down the DOF preview button on the camera, and then manually bringing the focus as close to me as possible while still keeping the distance peninsula sharp. Once I'd reached that point (with the lens focus set as near as possible while keeping the furthest point in focus when stopped down), I then moved the Live View zoom to the nearest rocks, and checked if they were sharp. They weren't quite, so I repeated the setting at f/14, and then f/16, which was the sweet spot.
For shutter speed, I started quite early with relatively short speeds, so I was able to watch as the light evolved and the shutter time increased. I've written a bit more detail on how I did this in a comment on yesterday's photo for someone else who asked.
One problem with shooting at times like this is that you are chasing a moving target. It's very easy to take a 2 minute exposure, decide it's a stop underexposed, take another exposure at 4 minutes, and find it's just as bad -- in the time it took to take the second shot, the scene has darkened by a stop as the light fades! So there is certainly an amount of 'guesswork' and experience that comes into determining how much you need to increase an exposure by, when combined with rapidly-changing light levels. When you are beginning with this type of photography, this really benefits from using RAW files, as you have a lot more ability to correct underexposed shots.
For your 9-stop ND filter, you won't typically be using this after sunset, as the shutter times will simply be too long -- this shot was taken without any filters and was a 10 minute exposure, so with a 9 stop filter you'd need a shutter time of over 42 hours to capture the same amount of light -- except long before then the sun will have risen!
As you'll therefore be mostly using this filter when the sun is up, it's pretty easy to calculate the required exposure -- simply measure the exposure required with the filter off, and then either in your head or with one of the many smartphone apps, increase the exposure time by 9 stops. You will be best to shoot in manual mode rather than relying on the camera's metering system, as it typically isn't very accurate when that level of filtration is applied (and in many cases you will be over a 30 second exposure anyway, requiring bulb mode and a remote shutter release). You should also remember to cover the viewfinder, as light entering here can leak through to the sensor and spoil the shot. Canon DSLRs have a rubber cover for this purpose on the strap, and Nikon cameras have a switch by the viewfinder to do this (take the hint, Canon...)
One other thing I would highly recommend is working out how many stops your 9 stop filter *actually* reduces your exposure by. Making filters that are accurately this dark is very difficult -- I have a Lee filter, pretty much the gold standard in 10-stop filters, and that comes with a note saying that it will be between 9 and 1/3rd stops and 10 and 2/3rd stops, due to manufacturing variances. I have a cheap 10-stop filter that was actually 12 and 1/3rd stops! These errors, especially in the case of the cheaper filter I have, can have a significant effect -- if you treat my cheap 10-stop filter as a 10-stop filter, you'll always underexpose by almost 3 stops -- a huge amount to correct for, even in RAW.
Measuring the filter is relatively easy -- on a bright day with constant light (not close to dawn or dusk, or with the sun going behind clouds intermittently), simply take a shot without the filter, then fit the filter, adjust your exposure by 9 stops, and take another shot. Then compare the histogram of the second shot to the first -- if it's more left-shifted, increase the exposure by a third of a stop, and if it's more right-shifted, decrease the exposure by a third of a stop, and repeat. Once you get the shot with the filter on to have an identical histogram as the shot without the filter, work out the exposure difference, and that's the actual strength of your ND filter. If you use that value when calculating your exposure times, you'll always get perfect exposures. (I'd recommend labelling the filter with the actual strength so you don't forget, but then I'm very forgetful!)
Questions, as always, welcome :)
Help. Got an app now to calculate and just need a sunny day to have a test and some fun. Its actual nice to know there is some trial amd error with this method. I guess every scene if different. Thanks so much for your help