Welcome to the Brand New & Revised Camera Settings Challenge 2015
Do some of the camera settings intimidate you? Do you want to learn how to develop your photography skills and learn how to use your camera effectively without always going back to the “auto” function? These challenges are for you!
We are going to walk you through various camera settings starting with the basics and build upon them as we move forward. They will no longer be a competition but rather a type of 365 class room community. You can join in and follow which ever challenges interest you.
These are designed for those experienced photographers to share their knowledge with others who are anxious to learn and improve their skills.
This week’s challenge is: Using slow shutter speeds in Shutter Priority.
Explanation:
We have explored hand-held and fast shutter speeds – now it is time to explore slow shutter speeds, when and why to use them, what to shoot with them, and how to make it work.
When and why:
Just as in the last challenge we needed good light in order to keep our shutter speed extremely fast, a slow shutter speed allows light in for a much longer time, so it can be very useful in low or fading light. Instead of freezing movement and minimizing blur like in the last two challenges, this time you will likely either want to choose static subjects, or use movement blur creatively.
How – camera settings:
Working in Shutter Priority, we are looking for shutter speeds longer than you can hand-hold successfully. If you are wanting to produce strong motion blur, aim for a second or longer. Most DSLRs should allow you to go all the way up to 30 seconds, but keep in mind, the longer the shutter speed, the less ambient light you will need to keep it open that long without overexposing. If your camera does not have an Auto ISO option, start with 100 and see how you go. (As with last week, keep an eye on the warnings in your viewfinder, or try to keep the indicator around “0” on your scale (-2..-1..0..1..2) – more on that in future challenges).
How – stabling the camera:
As you will have learnt from Challenge #1, keeping the camera still is a priority, so if you have a tripod, now is the time to get it out. If you don’t, there are many makeshift ways to stable your camera, usually by resting it on a stable surface, like a table, a railing (with the strap around your neck!), even the ground etc. Various other props could be used to angle your camera satisfactorily. Personally I have used all kinds of things! If your surface is uneven, something soft but sturdy can be really helpful to minimize wobble – such as a folded tea towel, a small bean bag or even a sock filled with rice (great travel tip! Thanks Taffy!)
Another tip (another camera setting) to keep your camera still, is to find the 2- or 10-second timer, so that you can press the shutter, and allow the camera to still before it takes the shot. A shutter release cable can also be useful as you don’t need to touch the camera at all, but again not a necessity.
What to shoot:
Following are some suggestions of subjects where long exposures are typically used – just some examples to hopefully get your creative juices flowing :). (NB Night photography techniques will be covered separately a little down the track.)
• Waterfalls and beaches (or any moving water) are classic, although I realise that some folks in the northern hemisphere will have trouble finding any at present that isn’t frozen!
• Landscapes around dawn/dusk
• Still subjects in poor light
• Deliberate motion blur e.g. street, sport
• “Blue hour” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_hour
• Ghostly images http://blog.muddyboots.org/2010/02/ghostly-effect-using-slow-shutter-speed.html; http://www.lightstalking.com/ghost-photography/
• If you are feeling particularly adventurous, you could try some Intentional Camera Movement (ICM) – ditch the tripod! http://digital-photography-school.com/intentional-camera-movement-landscape/
I don't have examples for all of these in my project but here are a few. Others on the CSC team please add more!
1.6sec f/11 ISO 100
30sec f/14 ISO 100
5sec f/22 ISO 100
1/5sec f/2.8 ISO 4000 This guy was really sitting still enough that I might have tried a longer exposure but I think I was worried about frightening him with a camera and tripod in his face!
6sec f/5.6 ISO 100. Stabled on a bar table
1/15sec f/4.5 ISO 2000. This was actually handheld but ideally would have been shot with a tripod. I took a few frames so that hopefully (?) one would be sharp enough, and the street movement was fast enough to still create some blur.
Critiquing your shot:
• Was your camera still enough?
• Did you get the kind of motion blur you expected? Could you try again with a faster or slower shutter speed?
• Do you notice anything about the apertures your camera is selecting? (Aperture features in our next challenge, so if you are getting comfortable with shutter speed it’s worth keeping a little eye on what the F-numbers are doing)
Experienced photographers who are knowledgeable in this particular setting are encouraged to offer “kind and constructive” suggestions on the posted entries. Those entering this challenge want to learn and improve.
This challenge starts today, Monday, February 2 and lasts until Sunday, February 8. Please use the tag: camerasavvy-slowshutterspeed
For these challenges we encourage you to post your photo(s) in this thread to receive feedback and/or tips on what could be done to possibly improve the image (based on this specific challenge). We will not have a voting but we will select a few honorable mentions at the end of the challenge.
ASK QUESTIONS we are all here to help you learn!
Expect to receive constructive suggestions on how to improve your skills.
How to post your photo on this link:
1) Go to your page that has the photo you wish to post.
2) Click on the three dots, and copy the code from the pop up box
3) Return to this thread and paste the code under comments
If you have a neutral density filter they can help you with slower shutter speeds if it is still too light outside. Not saying you need to go out and buy one but if you have one this is the time to use it. This was taken using one of those filters
@miata2u Yes for a Canon it is TV and for Nikon it is S
Don't apologize for your question at all! That is what this is all about those who want to learn!!
Can you please tell me what the setting should be for my canon to get the bike and the blur on these images? If, I have a starting point my subject might not get as tired of riding backwards and forwards!
@weebindi2 1/25 second or .04 ?
It will depend on how light it is but that may be a good place to start. @aliha@Northy you may have a better suggestion of what would be a good starting point. I don't do a lot of photos during daytime slow shutter speed. Northy I think you are the queen of these type of shots.
@weebindi2 Yes this is definitely a challenge that requires a little experimenting to find what you like best! Personally I think your second shot top-left is definitely in the ball-park, what do you think? For me it gives enough form to easily identify the subject, but also plenty of blur. What was the shutter speed on that one? I agree with @myhrhelper's suggestion of around 1/25s, and you may also compare my last shot above (in the challenge explanation) of the bicycle which was 1/15s. It really depends on how fast your subject is moving and how much blur you like personally, but does that give you a better idea?
Here's a night shot example. Tripod. 100 ISO, 8 seconds, tight aperture (sorry, it didn't register, but probably 22). The timer button is great to remove any hand shake.
It really is just trial and error... Here's a series I did with my kid skateboarding... Shows the shutterspeed which may help as a gauge... But of course, a lot depends on the speed of your subject :)
ISO 100 F4.2 S/S 5.0 The first one I took only had S/S 2.0 and it was hard to see the colour of Bud's fur. I thought this one was a little better - advice please...
I have always wanted to try ghost photography. Here's my best from todays efforts.
We played around a lot with the length of exposure and 4s seemed to give us the best results overall. Using a tripod is a must! Learned so much from this attempt!
I am not sure what constitutes proper ICM or if too much detail makes it look like a blurred photo even though it was intentional. The middle one was on here in May and I loved it with the bluebell wood washing in to the trees. Yesterday I took a few more trees in a wood and was not sure which of the left or right would be ;proper ICM. The right looks quite nice with slight movement and detail but does it look ICM'd enough; or does the left one look scabby? I would be interested to know. Thanks.
Not sure if this is right or not for slow shutter. Others seem to be doing ghost themes. Anyway, is his slow shutter? Settings were EXp. 1/16 Aper. F/29 Iso 200
@miata2u It looks to me like you have the beginnings of that "silky" effect that comes with a long exposure. Are you using a tripod or a stationary place to take the shot? If so, you can lengthen the exposure time (shutter) and tighten the aperture some. The water will appear more silky and flowy and the other parts will stay still and be in perfect focus (hopes this makes sense!).
@miata2u what Daryl said :) only i think the first thing is to take down the ISO to 100... i'm guessing you won't be able to tighten the aperture much beyond f/29... alternatives are to wait for lower light, or use an ND filter if you have one... or, sunglasses in a pinch... but yes - silky water is a great way to use a slower shutter speed...
This shows three speeds but unfortunately I didn't write down the shutter speeds. I was using a tripod and the ranged probably from about 1/20 to 1 second. F-stop was probably around 7.1 or so.
@darylo@northy When I went different on F/29 it was to light. Did not use a tripod, but I will. Will take ISO to 100 and try the shot later in the day. But not sure what you mean by tighten up aperature. (Bigger #)? I am just learning my settings off of manual.
@miata2u aperture is darned confusing... The bigger the f number, the smaller the aperture... F/29 is pretty small for aperture... Possibly you can get to f/32 w your lens, but I'm guessing not likely... But working in lower light and ISO of 100 shld allow you to slow the shutters own a bit more :)
@miata2u yes, the bigger the number the tighter/smaller the aperture. Technically the number is a fraction and therefore smaller but I think of it this way: tight has more digits (29, for example) and wide has less (5, for example). Tight allows less light but more precision broadly. Wide allows more light but focus on a precise point. Long shutters allow more light so you can afford to tighten up the aperture AND lower the ISO. You have a great place to visit. Try the tripod when there is not so much direct light! You're going to love the results. Keep up the good work!
@miata2u The other thing that makes shots of creeks etc really stand out is a bit of white water (if you can find any) and looking up the creek not down. A pretty fantastic shot that came up in my feed recently was this one by @abhijit:
He has used a shutter speed of 8 seconds - so he was working with considerably less light than you have here. The direct sunlight in your shot will be making it quite difficult to get your shutter speed any slower so as @northy suggested, you could try for a time of day with less light, or if you are able to walk the creek a little you may find a more sheltered spot - it's amazing how different the light can be in an open spot compared to underneath a bunch of trees.
@alinz Nice shot Ali. Seems well exposed and fairly sharp. Keep in mind that since your lovely moggy is alive, his belly will probably rise and fall a few times in that 5 seconds, so you will get some softness there or anywhere else he happens to twitch a little.
@callymazoo I think they are great Cally! I agree I think with @darylo in that the left and middle look more intentional than the third, but I quite like it too. To be honest I have very little experience myself with ICM but definitely wanted to include in this challenge. You can find a stack of examples here on 365 by searching other images tagged with ICM. In my (very humble) opinion (since I haven't given it much of a serious go myself!) there seems to be a bit of a balancing act between getting an image with that dreamy impressionist look about it and something that just makes your eyes hurt! :) You seem to be on the right track if you ask me :)
@aliha I live where we have 11 lakes but they mainly are very still. No spill ways etc. This was run off into a drain from one of the lakes was all he running water I could find. Go figure. lol I will try it later in the day. Thank you for help and photo.
@miata2u No problem. If you go to one of your lakes and wait until dusk, you should be able to experiment with smoothing out all ripples on the surface, and still achieve that silky effect. My second top image in the examples (of the water under the jetty) was taken just after sunset (facing away from the sun) and I was able to get 30 seconds. It's taken on a bay, so quite calm but probably a little more movement in the water than your lakes. You can only give it a go and see what you get!
@aliha@miata2u the waterfall shot above was taken in the afternoon with lots of light bouncing around. an ND filter helped me slow the shutter down. i have shared another shot as an example of long exposure that was taken during the day, around midday. Again used an ND filter (a few actually) to reduce the light. it was a bright sunny day.
Help please..... I'm really desperate to try and master this technique, and I'm really struggling with the landscapes, sunsets and silky water.
I took this shot about a week ago and can't quite understand why the sky is really washed out at the top. The sun had just set and there was some beautiful colours in the sky.
Camera setting were:
ISO 100 35mm -0.3EV f/22 1.0
Lumix DMC-GH4
@deborah63 Lovely idea Debbie. The sky is so much brighter than the bottom two thirds of the frame so that, out of the camera it will always be much more heavily exposed than the rest of the frame. To keep the same shutter speed or longer, the point of the shot of course, you will have to resort to stopping out the light with an ND (Neutral Density) filter. Here's a link explaining them. Skip the physics in the middle. :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_density_filter
A graduated one would be best here, more blockage at the top than the bottom, see towards the bottom of the Wikipedia link. Look for them on line or at any reputable camera store. Look a few entries up in this thread to a similar idea from @abhijit, although his image was easier than yours, bright across the whole frame it seems, not needing the graduated/graded idea. Others above might also have mentioned this way to get long exposures in the brightest scenes. Perhaps they would care to explain a little more what they did.
A technique that I seem to remember being discussed here, I can't find the link, has you half blocking the top part of the lens with a piece of opaque paper/cardboard for part of the exposure and then taking it away for the last part. I've never tried the technique, seems a bit hit-or-miss getting the blockage positioned correctly, but the long horizontal black silhouette between the bands of light probably makes it a little easier to get the positioning right after a try or two. And you are on a tripod after all, so you can take your time hand holding on the front and positioning it through the viewfinder.
Whatever way you go on this, shooting raw and bringing the image into an editor to adjust the tones I would also heartily recommend. Nothing much you can do with this image as shot though, the sky highlights are blown almost completely.
A rather specialized technique I know, but rewarding when you nail it. Best of luck.
Just wanted to say thanks to all of you for posting these. I haven't been shooting as much as I'd hoped but I do print them out and read them so that when life slows down a little I can revisit them and work on them again.
@miata2u Hi Peggy. Slow shutter? Certainly slow enough to get the "smooth water" effect. You won't be able to get a good exposure much slower than this without the assistance of ND filters in this light. Even if you can stop down the lens even more, I wouldn't. You get into the "softness" of the effects of lens diffraction that you can Google if you want to find out more about this quirk of very narrow apertures. See just above as well where I talked about ND filters with Debbie.
I like the result of what you did very much, just as is.
@abhijit Thank you for advice. The camera shop sold me one filter to put on my canon t3i and said they don't make a hood for it for the flare spots I am geting. Said this filter would take care of it but I guess it was just to light.
OK, so I figured since there's no moving water around these parts at this time of year I'd do a "pour" shot and capture the coffee filling up my mug. The pour looked great at 1/8s, with that sort of silky effect, but the splashing coffee in the mug just looked blurry and gross.
I took this one at 1/200s, and it worked out much better than the slower speeds:
Totally not a long exposure, so I didn't tag it for the challenge. I'll have to try another subject later this week. At least I learned something in the attempt!
First time posting on a camera settings thread and wasn't sure it would work ... But it does :) Thanks for the info and the challenge. I learnt a lot and got a bit cold, and suspect my neighbours may think I've joined MI5. Interesting to see the change in ISO depending on the shot. I don't like the noise on this. It was F6.3 at 1/2 and ISO 1250 (on automatic), with a tripod. I was trying out my new ND filter to be able to slow down the shutter speed but don't think it was working properly.
@pistache A good ND filter should have no visible effect, hence the neutral, not so good ones can introduce a colour cast to your shot. If you set your ISO at 100 you'll get a shutter speed closer to 4 seconds. Was it just your ISO that was on auto or were you shooting in a fully automatic mode ?
@miata2u A UV filter will have no visible effect on this shot. not sure who might have told you otherwise. A digital camera already comes equipped with UV cut-off filters placed over the sensor inside the camera, along with IR (infra red) ones too that cut the other end of the spectrum. You don't need more . It's the *visible* light you need to cut, all wavelengths equally. And that's where ND comes in. "Neutral" here meaning that no one wavelength is favored more than others, all in the visible spectrum should be cut equally.
Film cameras is where the UV filter did find a place where there is no such filtering in front of the film, and thus can react with the film, usually adversely. Not on all film, and not equally on those that are affected. On digital cameras, a UV filter is used primarily as reasonably high quality glass at a reasonable price over the front of the lens to protect the front lens element from accidental bumps and scrapes.
@miata2u You're getting the flare because you are shooting into the light, the sun looks like it's just out of the frame at the top right. A lens hood might help but the sun looks like it's directly hitting the lens, any sort of filter, even ND, will just make the flare worse by adding an extra surface for light to bounce off.
Just try at a different time of day when the sun has moved out of the frame.
You should be able to get a Canon lens hood or if it's expensive get a screw in rubber hood. Alternatively you could use a piece of card to shield the lens from the sun, just make sure to keep it out of shot :)
@iqscotland Thanks for your input. I was on shutter speed priority, and just had the ISO on automatic, as suggested in the info at the top of this thread. The ND filter I have is a variable one but when I turned it to make it darker, it went darker only in certain areas, like I was looking through the spokes of a wheel. When I took it off the lens and looked through it normally, it worked fine. Hmmm. Not sure I've explained that very well.
@deborah63 Hi Debbie, great work, really love that effect on the water! Did you stay as the light faded to get some slightly longer exposures?
Wrt the sky, @frankhymus is bang on (as always), and I must admit that in my first shot in the examples above, I did use a graduated ND filter as the sunrise was far brighter than the waves and rocks in the foreground. Mine is a fairly cheap Cokin one, and I actually don't have a holder ring for it to fit this lens, I just used blu-tack!
I do have a couple of other ideas you could try for the sake of this exercise. While the GND is the best method for getting it right "in camera", another option is to deliberately under-expose a little, so that less of your sky is blown-out and therefore lost. I'm not sure how familiar you are with your camera etc but this basically means, on your scale in the viewfinder (-2..-1..0..1..2), your camera assumes "0" is correct exposure. We'll go into plenty of depth on this later as to how it measures that etc. But one of your dials (you may have to check your manual for how to do it in Shutter Priority) should allow you to move that indicator down to say, -1 (let's call that, "slightly underexposed"). This means your whole image, not just the sky, will be darker, and if you are using software for post-production, there should be a way to make the darker, lower part of the image a little brighter. It may compromise on image quality, but it's an experiment to try nonetheless if you're up for it.
My other suggestion won't help you capture this shot specifically, but it will help you get a lovely long exposure with no blow-outs. That being ... turn away from the sunset. My second shot above is an example of this, taken a little while after sunset. The sky is nowhere near as bright over here, so the exposure is more even across the whole frame. Nowhere near as colourful either, but it was still a shot worth taking :) (To compare, here is another I took a little earlier of the same jetty, facing into the sunset, and probably using the post-production technique I described above. http://365project.org/aliha/365/2014-04-03)
@snz Nice shot :) Did you get a shot of it moving too? With that light, you should also be able easily to get longer exposures if you want them - 2, 4 or even 8 seconds - did you have a play around?
@sarahsthreads Totally, Sarah, that's what these are all about :) I remember saying to someone last week that it's often a matter of taste, or subject, as to whether stopping the motion or blurring it is more effective. In some cases maybe both can be equally as cool!
Great idea to try this on pouring coffee. One thing to keep in mind is that in traditional moving-water shots (e.g. waterfalls), the rest of what's in the frame is completely still. If you are pouring coffee, a human (I assume) is holding that jug, so you will very likely get a bit of movement there too which may or may not look good.
OK Julie said to stay on TV setting and use wheel for shutter. But could not do just that wit;h the suggestions, sooooo. Tried all different things. And they are all still bad. My F # goes up to 34. so I tried to get it higher by trying to set it in M mode and then going back to TV. Bad, so then I just tried different things. I waited until the sun was almost gone,(darker) Used a good tripod. Tried ISO from 200 to 100 like suggested. And good news, I did order a med. priced ND filter to help me in the future. At any rate, maybe some of us should just stay on auto lol. Not sure. Thanks for the help. But I will keep trying.
Taken at f18 for 2 seconds at ISO 100.
I was really having the most trouble with this lesson - everything I tried turned out way to bright. I've used slow shutter speed on a waterfall in the past and it did well, but there are none of those around here! In fact, very little running water. This lesson did remind me of the fact that I really should use a tripod more often. I would have given up on this sunset by the time it was this dark handholding because my ISO would have been so high I would have hideous noise! Glad I didn't give up.
@mdcteasers Use shutter priority setting. I used the 4 second exposure. Had my daughter dress in flowing white. Use a tripod. Press the shutter release. Have your model count to 5 ( although we experimented with longer/shorter times) and then they quickly exit the picture. We experimented with 6, 4, and 2 second exposures depending on the background we got varying results. It was fun to play around with. Good luck!
@milaniet Hi Milanie, if everything is turning out too bright it just may be that there is too much ambient light for a slow shutter speed (or as slow as you are trying to go). As I mentioned in the challenge description, try to keep an eye on that scale in your viewfinder (-2..-1..0..1..2) - if your indicator is above zero, you will likely end up with a very bright image, and if it's flashing above the 2, your image will likely be very over-exposed. If it's doing this, you need to either increase your shutter speed until it's back in the ballpark (around 0) or wait for less light. A few people have also suggested ND filters (which block light, enabling slow shutter speeds in almost any lighting conditions) but they can be very pricy and are really not necessary imo, especially if you are in the early stages of figuring this stuff out. (I still don't own one!)
Wrt the image you have posted, it's beautiful! Looks like you got a lovely still evening too and those flowers in the foreground and branches on the right are really sharp, framing your sunset beautifully. Well done :)
Tonight's picture was taken by moonlight (well sort of, the moon was out but covered by clouds). 30 sec, f/3.5, ISO 160, on tripod. InTv mode with all other settings auto. Converted to B&W in LR.
@cdean1956 Cool idea Charles and I think it's quite effective. Must have been a pretty still night too judging by the lack of movement in the branches? If you are feeling confident (and the conditions are right again) you may like to experiment with a little give-and-take with aperture and ISO, although you may need to switch to M for this. What I mean by that is, upping the ISO to 400 should still give you a clean image, and it would enable you to close your aperture to say f/8 or thereabouts, which might give a little better clarity in those branches. Just keep an eye on that exposure scale if you are in M (keep it as close to 0 as possible - see above) (More on the hows and whys of aperture next week :))
Shutter speed was 8 seconds; f8.0; ISO 100.
This is the first time I've tried a shot of water with a slow shutter speed and tripod so am interested in any feedback.
@iqscotland I would really like to try a slow shutter speed with a shallow depth of field. Presumably for that I would need it to be dusk/dawn or an ND filter to cut down on light? Grateful for your help!
@snz Oh that is very cool! I love how most of your spectators have stood still for the 2 seconds but I like the ghostly one on the left too :) Shame it's a bit blown-out in the middle of the image (because that part is so much brighter than the rest of the frame - same problem @deborah63 had above with her sunset) - if you happened to be able to try again here (I understand that may not be possible) you could also try dialling down the exposure a little - get that indicator around -1 or so and see if you get some more detail in the bright parts and hopefully not lose too much in the darker parts.
@adayinmallacoota Yeah! Very nice! I love the bluish but almost-monochrome look to this too. I know we're not really here to talk about composition but I wonder if I might have cropped the extra bits off the left? (I can't decide, so I'm definitely not saying you should have!) I also wish the white painted bits didn't merge so much with the water but that's no fault of yours :) Love the silhouette of the reeds in the bottom corner, must have been a very still evening as they are so sharp, no movement at all in that 8 seconds!
@pistache Yeah I think you are on the right track Clare, that's why I mentioned in the challenge description to keep a little eye on what's going on with aperture, because presumably (and always depending on light), the longer the shutter, the smaller the aperture and therefore the larger the depth of field. My frog in the examples above is shot at f/2.8 and has a very narrow DOF, but he was outside at night with just one light at the back door. Had I been game to risk him moving (or more patient so late at night!) I could have dialled the ISO down to 100-odd and got my shutter up to around 6 seconds or so while still keeping that shallow DOF. Point is though, it was VERY low light - so that's the kind of light you need to work with (or need to create with a ND filter).
@aliha
Thanks for the feedback Alison. I did stay after the sun had set and tried a few shots in the other direction. They had a much more subtle look to them, and although the colours in the sky weren't as vibrant as real life they were certainly much better than the one I submitted above. I'll definitely try your recommendations, but unfortunately I've just had to fly back to work for a week in the middle of the bush, so no more beautiful beaches for me for over a week.
Canon 650D camera
S/s 1.3 sec, F29, ISO 100, fl135mm. (1st shot)
S\s 5sec, F36, ISO 100, FL135mm
Shot these on tripod, behind glass. Bit limited to getting shots at moment but see the difference in light that longer exposure gives. Interesting that the aperture narrows down more and Iso stays the same, to keep light down as shutter more open? I am not actually sure about the sharpness between them, difficult to tell, probably not the best shots for the subject.
S\speed 1/3, F24, Iso 100 85mm
s/speed f\5 F18 Iso 100
These were just taken hand held at the same time as frozen water challenge. Just tried a slower speed to see if I could achieve smoother water. Can see that slower starts to produce more silky look. Need to take tripod and try this somewhere at much slower speed to get silky effect. Not sure if I will achieve this before Sunday.
Many thanks to all those helping with the challenge, one without competition and just learning is just what we needed.
just captured this shot this morning; 1/4000; f/3.5; ISO 100 i had some others at other f-stops but like this one because it shows so much more but what do you think, should i have gone with a different one or a different shutter speed? I am not happy with it AT ALL.
@aliha That's a good point - I did crop out my hand & most of the coffee pot, but yeah, on the longer exposure that was blurry too! At some point when the weather is warmer I definitely need to find a waterfall. :)
Here's a better try - my dog napping on the couch. 0.4s exposure on Tv mode. I feel like he's a bit overexposed, and I probably should have used the exposure compensation setting to help with that. In manual mode I could have set the ISO lower or changed the aperture to f/3.5 or so.
@catsmeowb The image has potential it is just too fast, especially since this is challenge for slow shutter speeds. Try putting it on a tripod ( or resting on something and take the photo after sunset but before it is completely dark try the shot at 2 seconds (2"). If too bright or too dark tweak it.
@pistache If the spoked effect you are seeing isn't evident in your photos or when you look through the filter off the camera it may just be interference in the viewfinder, I think yours is electronic. Variable ND filters work like putting two polarising filters in front of the lens so the light hitting the sensor is fine but it's not displaying correctly in the electronic viewfinder. I'm pretty much guessing but if there's no weird patchy exposure going on in your images it's probably OK.
You can check it actually works by putting your camera into aperture priority, setting the the ISO to 100 then turn the filter. As it goes from light to dark you'll see the shutter speed get longer.
You're quite right about needing an ND filter if you want to do long exposures with shallow depth of field during the day. Even on a not so bright day like it was here in the West of Scotland I'd still have needed about six stops of ND just to get down to 1sec at f/5.6.
I've tried for this shot for several years, never realizing how long I needed to expose it. Shot this at f-10 for 10 seconds and really like what it did - ISO100
@jennywren Yes Jenny you are right, the ISO is already as low as it can go and can't adjust any further, and the aperture was already very close to its minimum opening in the first and could only adjust slightly even though your shutter speed lengthened significantly, hence the second image is much brighter. Imo though the first one is a little dark anyway (interesting your camera exposed it that way?), so I don't really think the second is necessarily over-exposed. I do think the second has some very slight blur to it, which makes me think maybe the tripod had a little wobble somewhere in that 5 seconds? I only have cheap tripods but my old one (a hand-me-down) is particularly flimsy and I would often need to hold it down for a long exposure!
@jennywren PS nice fountain shots too! This would be a great one to come back to with your tripod when the light is lower. I'm also happy for you to post anything you get after Sunday, I'll keep stopping by for a few more days to give feedback if people want it :)
@catsmeowb Hi Camille, can I ask what it is you are not happy with? @myhrhelper's suggestion is a good one, and I can see that you have taken this shot in very bright light, which just won't allow a slow shutter. Even if you were to close your aperture all the way down to f/22 (which your camera will do for you in Shutter Priority when you choose a slower shutter), the slowest shutter speed you could get would be about 1/100s.
Another option for finding lower light (other than waiting for a darker time of day as Kathy advised) would be to perhaps get under that tree in deep shade and see if you can find something interesting to photograph :) See what your camera settings will allow there.
@miata2u So I think it's really important, for me to be able to give you useful feedback or suggestions, to know exactly what you like about even your mistakes, or want to be able to do better, or why it is that you don't like your work. It may be that you are getting the techniques EXACTLY right, but your subject just doesn't inspire you? If you're describing it as a muddy ditch, I'm not sure how you will get a result that you love even with all the right gear and the right settings, does that make sense? I realise we are all limited by our surroundings and circumstances etc, but perhaps it is worth trying some of the other ideas listed above in the meantime, you may even discover something you are really pleased with even if it isn't the particular vision you have in mind. I hope this helps.
@aliha i do not enjoy how dark and dreary the shot is. i forget that with all the snow around, it is bright out even with very little sun - it was just peeking through the clouds. thank you for your advice. i wish i could get under that tree but it is on the side of hill. only looks like it is right in my yard but really sits in our lower drive.
@miata2u My point is, I think you have actually nailed the technique in the third of your three shots. As far as I'm concerned, the numbers look right, and the effect on the water looks right. The point of this exercise is to learn how to use your camera's settings to produce a particular look, and I think you have done that here. So this isn't the most spectacular body of water. But next time you come across one, you will know exactly what to do with your camera to get this look again, and exactly what kind of light you need to achieve it. As far as I can tell (feel free to set me straight), the thing you don't like about all three shots is your muddy ditch :)
@miata2u thank you, i love the scene because it is what i see all the time but believe it is a bit dark. knew i had not done something right for this challenge, though. i got all mixed with my shutter speeds, had them backwards, with the fast as slow and slow as fast. think i am back on track.
@catsmeowb Oh dang, have just written a long reply and lost it! :( Take two ...
Yes, gotcha. Yes it is quite underexposed. The reasons for this are twofold: 1/ snow is white! But our cameras think that somewhere in the ballpark of 12% grey (I forget exactly, I'm sure @frankhymus will know?) is "correct" exposure. So usually when we are shooting something with lots of colour, variety, skin tones, whatever, that works out, but when we are shooting something that should be white it just turns out looking grey. 2/ You are also shooting directly towards the sun. So your camera is also taking a VERY bright patch in your frame, and trying to achieve this 12% grey by making the rest of your image darker to compensate. Making sense so far???
I have a couple of suggestions. (They pretty much have nothing to do with achieving a slow shutter speed for this challenge, but I do hope they help in general!) The first would be, shoot away from rather than into the sun. The second is to figure out how on your camera, to get that indicator over the scale I mentioned (-2..-1..0..1..2) to move away from "0" (which it thinks is correctly exposed). In S, the idea is that you control the shutter speed, and the camera does everything else to get to (or as close as possible to) "0". For snow to be nice and white, get into your plus-numbers - in THEORY, you are over-exposing your shot, but in reality, you are overriding the fact that your camera doesn't realise it's meant to be taking a photo of something white.
This was 10 seconds at f3.5. Didn't have much time as the clouds were about to cover the moon. Not a great photo but I was glad to have tried out slow shutter speed at night with my gorilla pod (first time I'd used it). Thanks so much to @iqscotland and @aliha for your patient help and all the time you spend here helping us out :)
@aliha thanks - i have been trying to figure out how that +/- button works but have not been able to do it. will keep at it. i have not found my manual for the nikon 3100d to be very helpful but perhaps that is just me.
@aliha@catsmeowb Alison is exactly right, most cameras are designed to meter assuming that the average "reflectivity" of the scene in front of it is between 12 and 14 percent, depending on the manufacturer, 12 to 14 percent of the light reflecting back into the camera. So with lots of snow (sand at the beach too) more is reflected back so the camera stops down too much. This is exactly what your scene mode Sun/Sand will correct for, but of course in other modes you can correct manually (as much as 1 to 1/3 EV might be needed). You can always correct in post editing as well if you forget.
Less reflective objects - big expanses of black, a large ebony statue for instance - will reflect back much less and so the camera will stop up and overexpose, so you probably need to go the negative side of compensation, sometimes as much as -1 to -1 1/2 EV.
*Go on only if you are someone who really wants to know some history.* :)
Many, too many, "experts" say 18% and they are wrong. The misunderstanding comes because Kodak manufacture a "standard" Gray Card of 18% that can be used to meter a homogeneous "color." Back in the 1970's Kodak in their instructions left off the fact that most cameras and light meters use the 12% number, and that an adjustment of +1/2 from an exposure metered from this card should be made for an "average" scene. In 1987 they added the instructions back, but the damage was done.
@aliha That does help alot and I want you to be honest with me. Just seems like my colors are never very good. I tried to darken them and still dont like them. So maybe I need to find more things that are more appealing to me. I did order an ND filter with pretty good glass and one in three different shades. Frank suggested this and I do think it will help. appreciate everyones help and I am not giving up. It is only 12 degrees out and way to cold to be out long. But taking notes so I can learn.
@catsmeowb I think I know the shutter speeds etc. until I go out and then I go brain dead lol. Have to stop that. I am my worst enemy on learning these settings and they really should not be that hard.
I know this is not a true slow shutter speed - but as slow as I could get it on a bright sky day. I was intrigued with the slowed water and blurred dam yet the good focus on the bridge and fencing. Shot at f/36 for 1/10 sec at ISO100
@aliha Thanks for the kind offer re the fountain shot. I tried some more shots with the tripod today, it is quite a solid one. I did shots with and without the timer and was careful around the tripod and noticed a difference. I am finding that my shots are dark in the tv mode, I will try again and will post some more tomorrow.
@catsmeowb Yes I'm not sure how it works on your Nikon, on my old Canon it was maybe to hold that button down while scrolling the dial, I'm not sure. Manuals are very difficult things to read, I agree! You could always ask in a discussion, or maybe there's an old discussion here where someone has already got an answer?
Also just to clarify, the EV numbers Frank is talking about are the scale I was talking about in the viewfinder. So he's suggesting +1 1/3 should give you a better image for snow (assuming you're not shooting into the sun). If you do shoot into the sun you may need even more than this, but keep in mind you will have just a big patch of bright nothing in the sky which by this time will be well and truly blown out (lost) - it's all a matter of give and take.
This was such a fun experiment! This was shot at 30" f/9.0 ISO 100. I also did several of cars passing by and they turned out great, but I was fascinated by how it was able to capture the light on the leaves from the light pole just behind the palm in the center
I took this shot last night as part of the long exposure exercise. Shutter speed was 6 seconds; f3.5; ISO100. I am not that happy with the processing and would welcome any feedback.
Still at it with the slow shutter speed. I took this one this morning at dawn in the Aussie Bush. As you can see, I'm still having a little trouble with over exposure in the top section but thanks to previous feedback from @aliha and @frankhymus I think I'll get on the right track with a ND Filter and to play around with the Exposure Bracket.
Shutter Speed 1 second; ISO 200, f/9
Tried several shutter speeds and one control shot on 'auto'. The 'auto' shot turned out but only the center glass was in clear focus. This one turned out the best. Shutter speed 15 seconds; f/13; ISO 100; 120mm. Cropped only.
Exposure 2 sec f/8.4 ISO 80
This a first attempt and as always I learnt a lot. This included the fact that that this area of rather wet marshy bushy trees was not a very good choice of subject! I need to find some better established older trees. Thank you all for your help and advice. You are great to give up your time to help the rest of us.
@frankhymus thank you so much for the feedback. i also take many photos of my dogs, both have much white on them so this will help me a great deal. i also have a question about photos - can we edit our photos?
@adayinmallacoota Hi Belinda. As you must have realized, you will have to shoot about the exposure you did, otherwise you will blow out the moon and the strong light reflections, but then you have to recover the shadow detail. So here's sort of what you might be able to achieve. I was only operating on a jpeg, not the raw file, but I hope you get the idea. For exercises like this, you need the large raw file for best results, not a small jpeg.
In Lightroom on the Basic Panel, pull the shadows way up, increase the exposure just a little and maybe drop the highlights some. Some clarity too. You will want to examine the result for Noise in the shadows and go to the Detail panel and apply some Noise Reduction. Not too much or you will smooth it out too much. Pulling shadows up so high will always give you this induced noise and there is nothing you can really do about it in the camera. We'll talk about noise when we get to talk about high ISO. You'll be left with an image that (probably) has detail, but some nasty edge artifacts. If you take that into Photoshop, you can, with a small clone stamp brush (1 or two pixels) and some patience get rid of them. I did some to show you what you might be able to do. Sharpen it up a little, and then, perhaps, put a mild layer of Gaussian Blur over it to take away some harshness but leave the detail. That's what I did in the link above. I hope that's the sort of thing you wanted to know.
@catsmeowb Of course! They are your images after all, and don't you want them to look their best? ;) The camera does a lot of "editing" work to produce a jpeg SOOC, so why should you not do an even better job in Lightroom, Photoshop, Picmonkey or something similar?
A small crop, shutter speed 10 sec, f/11, ISO 100, focal length 50 mm
Small crop, Shutter speed - 10 sec, f/14, ISO 100, focal length 130 mm, heightened the clarity just a smidge when converted from Camera Raw.
I'm tickled with these. They were fun! The camera was still enough because I used a tripod. The biggest problem I had was because I was in them and I was in a hall. I needed to have a way to get out of the photo (at a right angle from the camera, as one of the articles suggested), I was in a doorway which made it a little hard to focus. (It was on manual focus). I think I did ok with that. I really didn't get a blur, but I got a translucent effect that was expected based on the amount of light I had. I should try this again at a different shutter speed. I was surprised the aperture was different (f/11 vs f/14) since I was standing in the same place and I had not moved the camera. I'm not sure what that means. I do need to do some more, when time allows.
@frankhymus Thanks Frank, for your detailed and helpful reply. I realise that it is probably beyond the boundaries of the actual exercise so I thank you for your time and effort. I am now going to start shooting in RAW. I feel I have learnt more in the last 3 weeks than the last 3 years. Really enjoying these challenges. Thanks again.
@randystreat As for the camera changing some settings around (aperture in your case) even though you are mounted on a tripod and kept the same frame, cameras are simply like that. It can sometimes depend on when the camera grabs Auto Focus and on what and at what distance the focus is.
It's one of the reasons you might elect to shoot "M" (when we get there, so let's not jump ahead of ourselves yet and spoil the fun) rather than S (Tv) or A (Av). A/Av coming next week. That will ensure you get *exactly* the same metering. Cool shots, by the way.
@kauaikris Yes it is fun to see how your camera picks up the light in dark environments! Has it inspired other locations/subjects to try? Would love to see some of your light trails too :)
@adayinmallacoota Nice shot. I know that @frankhymus is a great non-fan of any blown-out highlights, but I'm a bit of a fence-sitter I have to say and I guess in the end it's up to you how you want to approach them. I did a workshop with a very decorated landscape photographer last year and her words were that your SUBJECT needs to be correctly exposed, she wasn't so worried about a little blow-out here or there. I guess it changed my thinking a bit to be a little more open-minded. So yes, you basically have two options - one is to take the shot a bit darker than it really should be, in order to keep your highlights down, and work on it in post-production as Frank suggests, with the drawbacks he has outlined. The other is to experiment with taking a brighter shot (eg. a longer exposure with other settings the same), and yes you will lose the detail in your highlights, but you may prefer the "look" you get in the rest of the image. Personally I believe photography is very often about compromise and figuring out YOUR personal preference as to what drawbacks you are willing to live with. This could even change image to image, depending what you are shooting. I say keep having fun experimenting! :)
@deborah63 Two very nice images! Love the colours and tones in the first, even if you have lost a little of the highlights. I must say I have very little experience with ICM, but it looks like the camera has been more still at one end of the movement than the other, if that makes sense, just by the way the lines are quite thick at the right-hand end and taper off at the left? Kind of like a pen on paper - that has been put down heavily, then dragged across and gradually lifted off, if that makes sense? I'm thinking it would be worth starting the camera movement BEFORE pressing the shutter, which might give you a little more evenness across the movement? Any of this make sense?
And yes, your second image has much more even exposure across the frame (although you could still try to brighten the ground a little if you wanted). I'm noticing though that your ISO is very high (and your aperture very wide) so you could have gone for a much longer exposure if you had wanted. Amazing scenery, hey? Whereabouts are you?
@catsmeowb Great idea! Looks like he has only moved a fraction though in that 4 seconds - did you manage to get one with a little more movement? Can be a tedious exercise at times :) I do feel the image is a little soft which makes me think the camera has had a little wobble in there somewhere? Both my tripods are fairly inexpensive but my old one (a hand-me-down) is particularly flimsy and was very prone to movement, I would always have to hold it down hard! Was it windy at all?
@milaniet True, it's not really a long enough exposure to produce a noticeable "effect" on the water, although probably enough to warrant the use of a tripod. And you are right - your aperture is at its smallest and ISO at its lowest so definitely too much light. I feel like you have the beginnings of some nice smoothed reflections in the top part of the water (these will get smoother as the exposure gets longer) so I'd love to see what you can produce in lower light :)
@oly What lovely light! I really like the way the edges of the bottles are catching the light. So it sounds like in your Auto shot, the camera has elected for a much wider aperture in order to let enough light in (and perhaps a higher ISO too), rather than a long shutter speed which you have chosen for this shot. The wider aperture is what would be producing the much narrower depth of field and hence only the middle bottle looking sharp, everything in front or behind much softer. This is not necessarily a bad thing! (More on aperture next week.) Just a good example of the many options you have available to you for "correct exposure", depending on the look you want to produce :)
@thistle I don't have a problem with it! I think it's very dreamy and lovely tones. I'm actually very intrigued with the way your movement appears to be vertical, yet you have these lovely clear horizontalish lines - almost like a worn, vintage-look texture?? I would be pretty happy with it if I were you :)
@aliha Thanks Aiison I'm not sure about the horizontal lines either. They were a few stems of dried reeds. I think it could have partly been that I focused through them onto the trees which were 2 or 3 metres down the bank and the reeds were just in front of me therefore well out of focus. I would still have expected more blur on them though. Thank you for taking the time to look and comment.
This was taken with a 10 second exposure; f8.0; ISO 100. During this slow shutter speed challenge I have learnt a lot about my camera. In Shutter priority mode, the camera longest shutter speed I can set is 8 seconds. However, in Manual mode with manual focus, the longest shutter speed is 60 seconds. So this was shot in Manual mode.
Ok, so I tried some other shots too, but with a toddler jumping on my back, they came out all blurry. Once he was being strapped in the car though, I got this resting the camera on a wall. ISO 100 Aperture f/9.0 Shutter speed 3 seconds. Any tips?
@adayinmallacoota Btw I have given details above on how to take a brighter or darker shot in camera, in a reply to @catsmeowb and another to @deborah63.
@randystreat Hehe yes they look great! Nailed that one I think! My guess re the aperture would be to do with the way your camera measures the light (more on that in a later challenge on metering modes). Basically your first image appears to have more dark areas in it around the outer parts; your second image is focused in on a slightly brighter area. So your camera has decided there's more light in the second frame and consequently closed the aperture slightly. Just my guess. More intriguing for me is that I think both images are quite dark, perhaps slightly underexposed, and I don't have a guess for that one! If you feel that is the case also, you could try 1/ brightening a little in your editing software, or 2/ attempting the shot again, and overriding your camera's assessment of "correct exposure" by getting your indicator to move from where it is (presumably above the "0") toward the right. I can't remember exactly how to do this on a Rebel in TV, perhaps by holding down the -/+ button and scrolling your dial? Up to you of course, as a dark image for this kind of shot is actually quite effective too :)
Oh look @adayinmallacoota ... I have explained it again after all :) Was just feeling lazy before ...
@aliha thank you so much for all of your time in giving me this wonderful feedback. i thougt that picking up a digital, after doing b&w for years, was going to be easy-peasy, that is would all just come back to me, that is would all be the same. not so. some is so similar, but some is so not and i do not see some colors so i have slight issues but the editing programs assist with those, i have found and here, people have told me when i have put blue where i have thought i have put green, you know?
@adayinmallacoota AND have just seen your new jetty shot. Fantastic! By that I mean great shot, how good is that smooth reflection under the jetty and that light in the distance! (Which is actually an aperture thing, the smaller the aperture the more "starry" the appearance of lights like that.) AND, I'm so pleased this challenge has enabled some discoveries for you and good on you delving into Manual! Fabulous work :)
@whimsicalgrateful Hahaha yes I can sympathise on the toddler front! :) Well, the wall has certainly done the trick, the image is very sharp and doesn't appear to have any movement so well done. And the exposure looks good to me, your silhouettes are rich black and you've retained all the colour in the sky (no blow-outs) so I'm not seeing any problems. If you wanted (and had the time) you should have been able to get a longer shutter speed (around 15 seconds or so) because your aperture had room to close down a fair bit yet (to f/22 or more depending on your lens), and this should result in even smoother water - but you definitely have this effect happening already. I think it's a really lovely image.
@aliha
Thanks for feedback Alison. I hadn't noticed the tapering off the lines before, but now that you mention it your right. And yes I did start to move the camera after I clicked the shutter. Good tip... I'll definitely try to start moving first on the next try. I also love the colours.
These pictures are taken where I work in the middle of Western Australia, North East of Kalgoorlie... (The Gold Fields area) Very harsh hot conditions, but the colouring of the ground is just amazing.
In the second picture, I did want to lighten the foreground, but I don't yet have a photoshop program to do this, and for the life of me I can't figure out the editing program that came with my camera.... so hence my inability to do much editing with my images.... yet, ha ha. I'm just procrastinating over which one to invest in. I'm thinking maybe Photoshop Elements.... any suggestions?
@deborah63 I've got no idea to be honest. I use Lightroom, but don't really have any experience in any of the others to compare. I'm sure what you have will have a some kind of slider for raising shadows though?
I have never visited WA or NT, but I kind of feel like it's an important thing to experience. Will get there eventually :)
@aliha@frankhymus Thank you for the feedback. I'm learning, learning, learning from these experiences. Since they involve multiple types of situations, I will have to do more on my own to try them. Seems to be hard for me to do them in one week (some weeks). Thank you for taking your time to help us.
@catsmeowb I'm not sure if anyone ever told you how to use your Exposure Compensation button, the +/- thing.
If you press and hold the little +/- button just behind the shutter release and look through the viewfinder you'll see a +/- icon bottom right with a 0.0 beside it. Still holding the button down if you scroll the thumb wheel on the back of the camera the camera the 0.0 will change in steps representing a third of a stop. At the same time your meter readout will appear in bottom centre of the viewfinder and indicate whether you are over or underexposing from the cameras recommendation. In shutter priority it will do this by adjusting the aperture and in aperture priority it will adjust the shutter speed. hth
Top left: 1/5, f1.8, ISO 800
Top left: 10, f3.5, ISO 100
Bottom: 30, F5.6,.6, ISO 100
Wishing I had more time (and a tripod) this week, but in spite of the less than exciting shots, I learned a lot from this. I'm anxious to get out and try more of this!
For the Slow Shutter Speed Challenge I went to the local National Park & used the water flowing over the rocks.
1st Image is the fastest the Camera would go on TV, 2nd image is around the middle, 3rd image is the slowest the Camera would go on TV. For the 4th image I put the ND Filter on.
As the Shutter Speed slowed down the ISO decreased and the aperture got smaller due to the extra light that was coming in.
I prefer the 2nd image the water is blurred but still has definition in the Whirl Pools. The 3rd image is too 'streaky' for my liking. I do like the 4th image where the water has turned 'milky' but I don't understand why the colour has changed. Should I have changed the White Balance from Auto to Shady / Cloudy? If I had done that would the colour match the other three photos? I couldn't test this because I didn't realise the colour had changed until I got home & uploaded the photos.
@aliha Thank you for the feedback. I did realise I should have narrowed my aperture some more (my camera would have allowed me to go down to f/22) only once I was home. I'll definitely keep playing with long exposures as it is something I'd never done before. Thank you for putting this tutorials out there and being there to support all of us learning about our cameras. You're doing a wonderful job!
@whimsicalgrateful Thanks Marta. Glad you are enjoying them :) Tbh I don't think we ever really stop getting home and thinking ... why didn't I try this other setting?? Haha. Which I guess means we never stop learning :)
@jennymallett Hi Jenny. Your colour cast has most likely been introduced by your ND filter. In an ideal world they would be truly neutral but in reality they often aren't. You might be able to get rid of it to some degree in post processing.
The easy fix is to shoot or convert to black and white, shots like this work well as B&W, and colour casts won't be an issue. It looks like it might also be a little darker than the rest once the cast is removed but not much and also straightforward to sort out.
You could also try setting a custom white balance. This just means taking a photograph of a neutral gray or white card in similar lighting and saving it as a preset to use later.
@aliha thank you for the suggestion. I tried to convert to b&w in picmonkey but prefer the color. Much thanks for tne look and tips. Best part of this shot was fun with grandson and peaking his I terest Iin photography.
@miata2u Thanks Peggy. It was a lot of trial and error, but I was pleased with the end result. I used a BBQ gas lighter (the extension type), set the camera to 30" timer and just tried waving the flame in front of the bottle. Each shot I varied the amount of flame, direction, pattern etc until I found a shot I liked.
I feel like I was just getting started with long exposures at 1.0 and 5.0s. I also photographed running water at speeds of 10 and 20 seconds, but chose not to show the longer shutters as they weren't the best. I forgot about holding the camera still, so I'm sure there was some camera shake, especially on the 5s shot. Unfortunately, I don't have a ND filter. Will have to get back to you on aperture. Thoughts?
@jewelofdenial Great experiment Julie. Did you manage to find the 2-second timer on your camera so that your hands were free when the shutter opened? There seems to be just a slight bit of camera-wobble blur going on, although I'm sure your dresser is very sturdy (and a great makeshift tripod, I have used mine once or twice before!) - maybe just from your hand as you pressed the shutter? I actually think your 30 second image is the sharpest - even though 30 seconds is a long time for something to be still, any slight amount of shake at the beginning (if there had been any) would probably have become insignificant when averaged over the 30 seconds, if that makes sense? Also interesting to note the increase in background and foreground detail as your aperture got smaller.
@jennymallett Hi Jenny, what a lovely set of images you have posted, I think it's great you've been able to create all four and decide for yourself your personal preference. Nice work :)
I agree 100% with @iqscotland's answer about the colour on the fourth image. I had the same problem the only time I've ever used an ND filter (borrowed from a photographer I did a workshop with) - and consequently converted to black and white. I was also using a GND to darken the sky on this shot and the colour was pretty awful!
Personally I'm still a big fan of your fourth image. I'm not sure if iqscotland's link shows you how to get rid of the colour cast - I'm not sure what software you have but you could try playing with the white balance adjusters, if there's a slider, to maybe move away from the pink a bit. Just as a start. Or perhaps desaturating the reds, if that's a capability for that.
@weebindi2 Ha, clever choice of subject! Yes, not truly a "long exposure" and really far too much light for that, but you have chosen a subject that is moving plenty fast enough to capture a decent amount of motion blur. Even if you were to get him to move into a shaded area you could probably decrease your shutter speed a fair bit, but still a good result. And at this speed, he is still nice and sharp and the movement is only in the sprinkler and water, so that's a good thing too.
@dtigani Oh yes!! Light painting!! Fantastic :) I left that one off the list of suggestions as I figured it was a bit more involved than just learning how to use slow shutter speed but this is great, nice work :)
@aponi Oh, great work. I have seen this done too (or explained in a blog post or something) - never tried it myself. But very effective and well executed! I do think the image is not quite as sharp as it could be, any slight camera wobble in there by any chance?
@gratefulness Nice work Julie. While there is definitely a fair bit of noticeable movement blur in these, I'm pretty impressed you were able to hold the camera as still as you did. Maybe you have some very good Vibration Reduction or Image Stabilisation in your lens or camera? And yes they do show very strongly the effect of the different shutter speeds. If you want to keep experimenting I'm happy to drop by this thread occasionally to comment if you like.
@iqscotland Hi, Thanks for your comments. I have just looked at the info you linked in on setting a Custom White Balance. I am going to get a card next time I am down the coast, then I will go back to the same spot and give it a go. Thanks for the help. Jenny
@aliha Hi Alison, Thanks for the comments & advice. I just had a bit of a play with my Photo Editing Program that came with the camera and I worked out how to desaturate the Red. The colour wasn't perfect to the other shots, but it was very close. Thanks for the help. Jenny
@camerasavvy wow, things are making sense to me and it is a monday morning! all i can say is thank you and thank you again to all the helpers here on this challenge. have found out how to work my exposure compensation button - you guys rock. looking forward to this week's posting.
@aliha yes, i have not taken any shots yet but was able to the see the settings change it never made sense to me before. am heading out now to try and take some shots.
@aliha I'm going to have to pull out my manual and figure out the timer! The wobble-blur, I'm sure, is because in the first two I had the camera up on its end, and the third was sitting flat and much more stable. Made a huge difference!
This is the only chance I had to attempt the challenge this week. I took this photo at sunrise. Since I couldn't find my tripod I had to shoot handheld. Super blurry, but I can make out the trees, mountains and fog. As soon as I locate my tripod I will try again, maybe I will even be able to find moving water... right now everything is frozen.
@jennymallett You don't particularly need to buy a card. An A4 sheet of paper will do as long as it's bright white and not any sort of off white shade.
I took a set of cheap ND filters out with me yesterday and as you can see from the wee picture below the colour cast on the left is quite purple compared to the right hand side.
I used the white balance/tint adjustment in Lightroom, you'll probably have more success if you shoot in RAW.
They were pretty bad filters in a lot of ways, I wasn't even bothered when I dropped them in the water :)
Shutter speed 2.5, the longer I tried to make the exposure, the bigger the aperture got...I had troubles--the camera wouldn't take the pic? So for now, this is the closest I got to a "ghost" image:
@aliha Thanks Alison, yes the camera opened the aperature to f/4 and upped the ISO to 400. It is amazing, I have learned more in this last six weeks of the 365 project than since I purchased my first SLR. Not only taking photos and learning how the camera works, but getting feedback and reading the posts on other photos. Thanks again!
@jewelofdenial Yes, it will definitely be less stable standing up on its end. Anything you can use to prop the camera up or absorb any wobbles is valuable - like Taffy's suggestion I mentioned in the challenge description of a little bean-bag or filling a sock with rice etc - so you can nestle the camera down and make it as steady as possible. Or a book to rest the lens on, etc etc. I was taking 8-second shots of lightning just the other night propped on a stone path, trying to angle the camera slightly upwards and even using the lens cap for a touch of extra height!
@kalm Yes it really is much too blurry to really be a "successful" shot, but even without a tripod, you can try stabling your camera on anything you can find ... a bench or railing, or if you're out in nature, a rock, log, or even hand-held and jammed against a tree. I've used many of these successfully :) Also I'm feeling the shot is a little over-exposed (you've lost a chunk of detail through the middle as it's too bright) - I'm not sure why your camera has done this if you were in Shutter Priority, as it should have been able to close down the aperture further than f/8, to lessen the light coming in. If you do find you have this problem in future though, try using your Exposure Compensation (-/+) button to manually darken the shot (below "0" on your -2..-1..0..1..2) scale in your viewfinder.
The other option without a tripod, which a couple of people have had a go at above, is ICM (intentional camera movement) - making the most of that movement blur, which can look really cool.
@gratefulness Yes I'm not sure why your camera wasn't letting you do a longer exposure, and by bigger aperture do you mean a bigger number (this is a smaller opening)? The reason of course is if you want the same amount of light coming in, if you double the time, your camera needs to halve the size of the opening. So your aperture in this shot is pretty wide (f/6.3) and should have been able to close down plenty to allow a longer exposure.
Anyway, yes the camera shake is very problematic and you really do need to find a way to steady it. If your camera had let you take a longer exposure I don't think the image would have looked like very much! Even positioning yourself in a doorway, camera jammed up against the frame might be enough stability for an exposure shorter than 1 second, but longer than that you really need to rest it on something sturdy.
Also did you have someone holding your angel and moving it out of the frame halfway through the exposure? I haven't played with this a great deal myself but this is how the "ghostly", transparent look is created. If your hands are free you can do it yourself of course but if you are hand-holding the camera you will need a volunteer to help you out :)
@aliha@iqscotland@frankhymus So many thanks to all of you - and anyone else who offered advice and encouragement - for your input into this thread. I'm really grateful for the time you give. It's helped me to understand a lot more about my camera. Was tending to use M mode all the time but I have grasped more about when to use S - and I now look forward to a similar journey with A on the new settings challenge :)
@pistache I think you can continue to use M if you understand or prefer it ... you can do all the same things in M as you can in S or A. Ie if you want to play with long exposures in M ... you will still be choosing your shutter speed, you will just have to also choose an appropriate aperture and ISO to match, rather than letting the camera do it for you. The point of this exercise (and the previous two) was to really get to understand shutter speed and how to use it to your greatest advantage, without having to worry about understand how everything else works at the same time - particularly for those folks probably newer to photography than you who might have found all of that far too overwhelming in one go. So as you can see, this week (and next, I believe) is all about aperture, and for the sake of keeping it simple, we are working in A, but you can still do all the same things in M if you prefer it or are up for the extra challenge of also choosing your shutter and ISO.
@aliha Yes, by bigger aperture number I mean a smaller opening, thanks for clarifying! Still throws me for a loop sometimes-seems that as the numbers get smaller, so should the aperture opening--but it doesn't work that way...Interesting tip about doubling the time (shutter speed) and halving the size of the opening (aperture). I tried a stack of pillows to study the camera, but next time may try a ladder until a tripod comes my way....Appreciate the doorway tip...Did NOT move the angel, that must be the secret. Thank you! I do have a helper, and we can possibly try again. I had difficulty copying and pasting the link on my iPad, so have yet to read the article on ghosting. Can't get my iPad to select all of the text at once. Thanks so much for the feedback!
@gratefulness Gotcha. Yeah I think pillows would be a bit too soft and bouncy, but any sturdy flat surface will do (do you have a tall stool perhaps?), and perhaps a folded tshirt or something just to cushion any wobble.
Yes the idea for the ghost images is to have your subject there for half the time, so it's half-exposed, if that makes sense, and then take it out so the background behind it is also half-exposed, making it look like it's only half there. I look forward to seeing what you can create :)
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Don't apologize for your question at all! That is what this is all about those who want to learn!!
this is the manual for your camera. On page 94 shows the TV mode on your camera. Put it on TV and use the dial to turn the shutter speed faster or slower. So glad you are taking this step forward Peggy you will be so glad you did! @miata2u
It will depend on how light it is but that may be a good place to start.
@aliha @Northy you may have a better suggestion of what would be a good starting point. I don't do a lot of photos during daytime slow shutter speed. Northy I think you are the queen of these type of shots.
It really is just trial and error... Here's a series I did with my kid skateboarding... Shows the shutterspeed which may help as a gauge... But of course, a lot depends on the speed of your subject :)
We played around a lot with the length of exposure and 4s seemed to give us the best results overall. Using a tripod is a must! Learned so much from this attempt!
I am not sure what constitutes proper ICM or if too much detail makes it look like a blurred photo even though it was intentional. The middle one was on here in May and I loved it with the bluebell wood washing in to the trees. Yesterday I took a few more trees in a wood and was not sure which of the left or right would be ;proper ICM. The right looks quite nice with slight movement and detail but does it look ICM'd enough; or does the left one look scabby? I would be interested to know. Thanks.
He has used a shutter speed of 8 seconds - so he was working with considerably less light than you have here. The direct sunlight in your shot will be making it quite difficult to get your shutter speed any slower so as @northy suggested, you could try for a time of day with less light, or if you are able to walk the creek a little you may find a more sheltered spot - it's amazing how different the light can be in an open spot compared to underneath a bunch of trees.
Shutter speed 1.0 second; ISO 100; f4.5.
Handheld. Intentional camera movement.
I took this shot about a week ago and can't quite understand why the sky is really washed out at the top. The sun had just set and there was some beautiful colours in the sky.
Camera setting were:
ISO 100 35mm -0.3EV f/22 1.0
Lumix DMC-GH4
A graduated one would be best here, more blockage at the top than the bottom, see towards the bottom of the Wikipedia link. Look for them on line or at any reputable camera store. Look a few entries up in this thread to a similar idea from @abhijit, although his image was easier than yours, bright across the whole frame it seems, not needing the graduated/graded idea. Others above might also have mentioned this way to get long exposures in the brightest scenes. Perhaps they would care to explain a little more what they did.
A technique that I seem to remember being discussed here, I can't find the link, has you half blocking the top part of the lens with a piece of opaque paper/cardboard for part of the exposure and then taking it away for the last part. I've never tried the technique, seems a bit hit-or-miss getting the blockage positioned correctly, but the long horizontal black silhouette between the bands of light probably makes it a little easier to get the positioning right after a try or two. And you are on a tripod after all, so you can take your time hand holding on the front and positioning it through the viewfinder.
Whatever way you go on this, shooting raw and bringing the image into an editor to adjust the tones I would also heartily recommend. Nothing much you can do with this image as shot though, the sky highlights are blown almost completely.
A rather specialized technique I know, but rewarding when you nail it. Best of luck.
I like the result of what you did very much, just as is.
Aperture: f/4.8
ISO Speed: 100
I took this one at 1/200s, and it worked out much better than the slower speeds:
Totally not a long exposure, so I didn't tag it for the challenge. I'll have to try another subject later this week. At least I learned something in the attempt!
Film cameras is where the UV filter did find a place where there is no such filtering in front of the film, and thus can react with the film, usually adversely. Not on all film, and not equally on those that are affected. On digital cameras, a UV filter is used primarily as reasonably high quality glass at a reasonable price over the front of the lens to protect the front lens element from accidental bumps and scrapes.
Just try at a different time of day when the sun has moved out of the frame.
You should be able to get a Canon lens hood or if it's expensive get a screw in rubber hood. Alternatively you could use a piece of card to shield the lens from the sun, just make sure to keep it out of shot :)
Wrt the sky, @frankhymus is bang on (as always), and I must admit that in my first shot in the examples above, I did use a graduated ND filter as the sunrise was far brighter than the waves and rocks in the foreground. Mine is a fairly cheap Cokin one, and I actually don't have a holder ring for it to fit this lens, I just used blu-tack!
I do have a couple of other ideas you could try for the sake of this exercise. While the GND is the best method for getting it right "in camera", another option is to deliberately under-expose a little, so that less of your sky is blown-out and therefore lost. I'm not sure how familiar you are with your camera etc but this basically means, on your scale in the viewfinder (-2..-1..0..1..2), your camera assumes "0" is correct exposure. We'll go into plenty of depth on this later as to how it measures that etc. But one of your dials (you may have to check your manual for how to do it in Shutter Priority) should allow you to move that indicator down to say, -1 (let's call that, "slightly underexposed"). This means your whole image, not just the sky, will be darker, and if you are using software for post-production, there should be a way to make the darker, lower part of the image a little brighter. It may compromise on image quality, but it's an experiment to try nonetheless if you're up for it.
My other suggestion won't help you capture this shot specifically, but it will help you get a lovely long exposure with no blow-outs. That being ... turn away from the sunset. My second shot above is an example of this, taken a little while after sunset. The sky is nowhere near as bright over here, so the exposure is more even across the whole frame. Nowhere near as colourful either, but it was still a shot worth taking :) (To compare, here is another I took a little earlier of the same jetty, facing into the sunset, and probably using the post-production technique I described above. http://365project.org/aliha/365/2014-04-03)
Great idea to try this on pouring coffee. One thing to keep in mind is that in traditional moving-water shots (e.g. waterfalls), the rest of what's in the frame is completely still. If you are pouring coffee, a human (I assume) is holding that jug, so you will very likely get a bit of movement there too which may or may not look good.
Taken at f18 for 2 seconds at ISO 100.
I was really having the most trouble with this lesson - everything I tried turned out way to bright. I've used slow shutter speed on a waterfall in the past and it did well, but there are none of those around here! In fact, very little running water. This lesson did remind me of the fact that I really should use a tripod more often. I would have given up on this sunset by the time it was this dark handholding because my ISO would have been so high I would have hideous noise! Glad I didn't give up.
Wrt the image you have posted, it's beautiful! Looks like you got a lovely still evening too and those flowers in the foreground and branches on the right are really sharp, framing your sunset beautifully. Well done :)
Untitled by sinziana_2002 on 500px
Shutter speed was 8 seconds; f8.0; ISO 100.
This is the first time I've tried a shot of water with a slow shutter speed and tripod so am interested in any feedback.
Thanks for the feedback Alison. I did stay after the sun had set and tried a few shots in the other direction. They had a much more subtle look to them, and although the colours in the sky weren't as vibrant as real life they were certainly much better than the one I submitted above. I'll definitely try your recommendations, but unfortunately I've just had to fly back to work for a week in the middle of the bush, so no more beautiful beaches for me for over a week.
Canon 650D camera
S/s 1.3 sec, F29, ISO 100, fl135mm. (1st shot)
S\s 5sec, F36, ISO 100, FL135mm
Shot these on tripod, behind glass. Bit limited to getting shots at moment but see the difference in light that longer exposure gives. Interesting that the aperture narrows down more and Iso stays the same, to keep light down as shutter more open? I am not actually sure about the sharpness between them, difficult to tell, probably not the best shots for the subject.
S\speed 1/3, F24, Iso 100 85mm
s/speed f\5 F18 Iso 100
These were just taken hand held at the same time as frozen water challenge. Just tried a slower speed to see if I could achieve smoother water. Can see that slower starts to produce more silky look. Need to take tripod and try this somewhere at much slower speed to get silky effect. Not sure if I will achieve this before Sunday.
Many thanks to all those helping with the challenge, one without competition and just learning is just what we needed.
just captured this shot this morning; 1/4000; f/3.5; ISO 100 i had some others at other f-stops but like this one because it shows so much more but what do you think, should i have gone with a different one or a different shutter speed? I am not happy with it AT ALL.
Here's a better try - my dog napping on the couch. 0.4s exposure on Tv mode. I feel like he's a bit overexposed, and I probably should have used the exposure compensation setting to help with that. In manual mode I could have set the ISO lower or changed the aperture to f/3.5 or so.
You can check it actually works by putting your camera into aperture priority, setting the the ISO to 100 then turn the filter. As it goes from light to dark you'll see the shutter speed get longer.
You're quite right about needing an ND filter if you want to do long exposures with shallow depth of field during the day. Even on a not so bright day like it was here in the West of Scotland I'd still have needed about six stops of ND just to get down to 1sec at f/5.6.
I've tried for this shot for several years, never realizing how long I needed to expose it. Shot this at f-10 for 10 seconds and really like what it did - ISO100
Another option for finding lower light (other than waiting for a darker time of day as Kathy advised) would be to perhaps get under that tree in deep shade and see if you can find something interesting to photograph :) See what your camera settings will allow there.
Yes, gotcha. Yes it is quite underexposed. The reasons for this are twofold: 1/ snow is white! But our cameras think that somewhere in the ballpark of 12% grey (I forget exactly, I'm sure @frankhymus will know?) is "correct" exposure. So usually when we are shooting something with lots of colour, variety, skin tones, whatever, that works out, but when we are shooting something that should be white it just turns out looking grey. 2/ You are also shooting directly towards the sun. So your camera is also taking a VERY bright patch in your frame, and trying to achieve this 12% grey by making the rest of your image darker to compensate. Making sense so far???
I have a couple of suggestions. (They pretty much have nothing to do with achieving a slow shutter speed for this challenge, but I do hope they help in general!) The first would be, shoot away from rather than into the sun. The second is to figure out how on your camera, to get that indicator over the scale I mentioned (-2..-1..0..1..2) to move away from "0" (which it thinks is correctly exposed). In S, the idea is that you control the shutter speed, and the camera does everything else to get to (or as close as possible to) "0". For snow to be nice and white, get into your plus-numbers - in THEORY, you are over-exposing your shot, but in reality, you are overriding the fact that your camera doesn't realise it's meant to be taking a photo of something white.
Hope this helps :)
This was 10 seconds at f3.5. Didn't have much time as the clouds were about to cover the moon. Not a great photo but I was glad to have tried out slow shutter speed at night with my gorilla pod (first time I'd used it). Thanks so much to @iqscotland and @aliha for your patient help and all the time you spend here helping us out :)
think i am sort of getting this? 4.0; f/ 22; ISO 100 - my son backing into our yard this morning.
Less reflective objects - big expanses of black, a large ebony statue for instance - will reflect back much less and so the camera will stop up and overexpose, so you probably need to go the negative side of compensation, sometimes as much as -1 to -1 1/2 EV.
*Go on only if you are someone who really wants to know some history.* :)
Many, too many, "experts" say 18% and they are wrong. The misunderstanding comes because Kodak manufacture a "standard" Gray Card of 18% that can be used to meter a homogeneous "color." Back in the 1970's Kodak in their instructions left off the fact that most cameras and light meters use the 12% number, and that an adjustment of +1/2 from an exposure metered from this card should be made for an "average" scene. In 1987 they added the instructions back, but the damage was done.
I know this is not a true slow shutter speed - but as slow as I could get it on a bright sky day. I was intrigued with the slowed water and blurred dam yet the good focus on the bridge and fencing. Shot at f/36 for 1/10 sec at ISO100
Also just to clarify, the EV numbers Frank is talking about are the scale I was talking about in the viewfinder. So he's suggesting +1 1/3 should give you a better image for snow (assuming you're not shooting into the sun). If you do shoot into the sun you may need even more than this, but keep in mind you will have just a big patch of bright nothing in the sky which by this time will be well and truly blown out (lost) - it's all a matter of give and take.
I took this shot last night as part of the long exposure exercise. Shutter speed was 6 seconds; f3.5; ISO100. I am not that happy with the processing and would welcome any feedback.
Shutter Speed 1 second; ISO 200, f/9
This a first attempt and as always I learnt a lot. This included the fact that that this area of rather wet marshy bushy trees was not a very good choice of subject! I need to find some better established older trees. Thank you all for your help and advice. You are great to give up your time to help the rest of us.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4jcvl05v3d6rh80/Moon%20and%20Water.jpg?dl=0
In Lightroom on the Basic Panel, pull the shadows way up, increase the exposure just a little and maybe drop the highlights some. Some clarity too. You will want to examine the result for Noise in the shadows and go to the Detail panel and apply some Noise Reduction. Not too much or you will smooth it out too much. Pulling shadows up so high will always give you this induced noise and there is nothing you can really do about it in the camera. We'll talk about noise when we get to talk about high ISO. You'll be left with an image that (probably) has detail, but some nasty edge artifacts. If you take that into Photoshop, you can, with a small clone stamp brush (1 or two pixels) and some patience get rid of them. I did some to show you what you might be able to do. Sharpen it up a little, and then, perhaps, put a mild layer of Gaussian Blur over it to take away some harshness but leave the detail. That's what I did in the link above. I hope that's the sort of thing you wanted to know.
i did a small crop to this; 4.0; f/6.3; ISO 100. i like this shot very much, am quite happy with how it came out. what do you think?
A small crop, shutter speed 10 sec, f/11, ISO 100, focal length 50 mm
Small crop, Shutter speed - 10 sec, f/14, ISO 100, focal length 130 mm, heightened the clarity just a smidge when converted from Camera Raw.
I'm tickled with these. They were fun! The camera was still enough because I used a tripod. The biggest problem I had was because I was in them and I was in a hall. I needed to have a way to get out of the photo (at a right angle from the camera, as one of the articles suggested), I was in a doorway which made it a little hard to focus. (It was on manual focus). I think I did ok with that. I really didn't get a blur, but I got a translucent effect that was expected based on the amount of light I had. I should try this again at a different shutter speed. I was surprised the aperture was different (f/11 vs f/14) since I was standing in the same place and I had not moved the camera. I'm not sure what that means. I do need to do some more, when time allows.
It's one of the reasons you might elect to shoot "M" (when we get there, so let's not jump ahead of ourselves yet and spoil the fun) rather than S (Tv) or A (Av). A/Av coming next week. That will ensure you get *exactly* the same metering. Cool shots, by the way.
And yes, your second image has much more even exposure across the frame (although you could still try to brighten the ground a little if you wanted). I'm noticing though that your ISO is very high (and your aperture very wide) so you could have gone for a much longer exposure if you had wanted. Amazing scenery, hey? Whereabouts are you?
This was taken with a 10 second exposure; f8.0; ISO 100. During this slow shutter speed challenge I have learnt a lot about my camera. In Shutter priority mode, the camera longest shutter speed I can set is 8 seconds. However, in Manual mode with manual focus, the longest shutter speed is 60 seconds. So this was shot in Manual mode.
Oh look @adayinmallacoota ... I have explained it again after all :) Was just feeling lazy before ...
Thanks for feedback Alison. I hadn't noticed the tapering off the lines before, but now that you mention it your right. And yes I did start to move the camera after I clicked the shutter. Good tip... I'll definitely try to start moving first on the next try. I also love the colours.
These pictures are taken where I work in the middle of Western Australia, North East of Kalgoorlie... (The Gold Fields area) Very harsh hot conditions, but the colouring of the ground is just amazing.
In the second picture, I did want to lighten the foreground, but I don't yet have a photoshop program to do this, and for the life of me I can't figure out the editing program that came with my camera.... so hence my inability to do much editing with my images.... yet, ha ha. I'm just procrastinating over which one to invest in. I'm thinking maybe Photoshop Elements.... any suggestions?
I have never visited WA or NT, but I kind of feel like it's an important thing to experience. Will get there eventually :)
If you press and hold the little +/- button just behind the shutter release and look through the viewfinder you'll see a +/- icon bottom right with a 0.0 beside it. Still holding the button down if you scroll the thumb wheel on the back of the camera the camera the 0.0 will change in steps representing a third of a stop. At the same time your meter readout will appear in bottom centre of the viewfinder and indicate whether you are over or underexposing from the cameras recommendation. In shutter priority it will do this by adjusting the aperture and in aperture priority it will adjust the shutter speed. hth
Top left: 1/5, f1.8, ISO 800
Top left: 10, f3.5, ISO 100
Bottom: 30, F5.6,.6, ISO 100
Wishing I had more time (and a tripod) this week, but in spite of the less than exciting shots, I learned a lot from this. I'm anxious to get out and try more of this!
1st Image is the fastest the Camera would go on TV, 2nd image is around the middle, 3rd image is the slowest the Camera would go on TV. For the 4th image I put the ND Filter on.
As the Shutter Speed slowed down the ISO decreased and the aperture got smaller due to the extra light that was coming in.
I prefer the 2nd image the water is blurred but still has definition in the Whirl Pools. The 3rd image is too 'streaky' for my liking. I do like the 4th image where the water has turned 'milky' but I don't understand why the colour has changed. Should I have changed the White Balance from Auto to Shady / Cloudy? If I had done that would the colour match the other three photos? I couldn't test this because I didn't realise the colour had changed until I got home & uploaded the photos.
Any cc's welcome.
The easy fix is to shoot or convert to black and white, shots like this work well as B&W, and colour casts won't be an issue. It looks like it might also be a little darker than the rest once the cast is removed but not much and also straightforward to sort out.
You could also try setting a custom white balance. This just means taking a photograph of a neutral gray or white card in similar lighting and saving it as a preset to use later.
Like this.
Didn't like this much at first but a b&w version seemed better.
I agree 100% with @iqscotland's answer about the colour on the fourth image. I had the same problem the only time I've ever used an ND filter (borrowed from a photographer I did a workshop with) - and consequently converted to black and white. I was also using a GND to darken the sky on this shot and the colour was pretty awful!
Personally I'm still a big fan of your fourth image. I'm not sure if iqscotland's link shows you how to get rid of the colour cast - I'm not sure what software you have but you could try playing with the white balance adjusters, if there's a slider, to maybe move away from the pink a bit. Just as a start. Or perhaps desaturating the reds, if that's a capability for that.
Camera: Nikon Coolpix P520
Setting: S Mode
Focal Length 33mm
1 sec...f8...ISO-80
This is the only chance I had to attempt the challenge this week. I took this photo at sunrise. Since I couldn't find my tripod I had to shoot handheld. Super blurry, but I can make out the trees, mountains and fog. As soon as I locate my tripod I will try again, maybe I will even be able to find moving water... right now everything is frozen.
I took a set of cheap ND filters out with me yesterday and as you can see from the wee picture below the colour cast on the left is quite purple compared to the right hand side.
I used the white balance/tint adjustment in Lightroom, you'll probably have more success if you shoot in RAW.
They were pretty bad filters in a lot of ways, I wasn't even bothered when I dropped them in the water :)
The other option without a tripod, which a couple of people have had a go at above, is ICM (intentional camera movement) - making the most of that movement blur, which can look really cool.
Anyway, yes the camera shake is very problematic and you really do need to find a way to steady it. If your camera had let you take a longer exposure I don't think the image would have looked like very much! Even positioning yourself in a doorway, camera jammed up against the frame might be enough stability for an exposure shorter than 1 second, but longer than that you really need to rest it on something sturdy.
Also did you have someone holding your angel and moving it out of the frame halfway through the exposure? I haven't played with this a great deal myself but this is how the "ghostly", transparent look is created. If your hands are free you can do it yourself of course but if you are hand-holding the camera you will need a volunteer to help you out :)
And, no problem, I've had a great time :)
Yes the idea for the ghost images is to have your subject there for half the time, so it's half-exposed, if that makes sense, and then take it out so the background behind it is also half-exposed, making it look like it's only half there. I look forward to seeing what you can create :)