Posted by DawnPatrol f/3.5 2 seconds ISO 400 on camera flash fired flickr shows the exif data. I was a little confused as to why the interior of the building was sharper than the scenery outside the window. Until I realized you used a flash. Basically, there's A LOT of camera shake in this photo, so much so that I'm wondering if you attempted this handheld. The flash went off and got you a decent exposure of the interior and then the rest of the 2 second exposure exposed for what was happening outside the window. My suggestion is that if you're not using a tripod, get a tripod. I wouldn't really attempt anything slower than 1/60 or MAYBE 1/40 (if I had something to lean against) handheld. If you are using a tripod, get a shutter release cable. You can get a wired one pretty cheap on amazon (under $10). It prevents you from physically having to touch the camera and shake it to open the shutter and allows you to shoot in bulb mode which you might be interested in if you want to do longer exposures. |
Posted by Jeff_ The camera shake is making it tough to see the image. What was your shutter speed? For long exposure shots I will often switch to a timed shot, this prevents any shake due to finger movement and allows the tripod to settle. Beyond that, I would say a shallower DOF would enhance the window (if that was your intent). And aligning the camera with the window edges is always a nice tough IMO. |
Posted by DawnPatrol haha, I'm not really sure where the logic that two people holding a piece of wood would be sturdier than one person holding a camera came from... You really should just get a taller tripod. Your camera is light so you can go with a cheap one. Years ago I bought a dynex on amazon for $40 that was 60", you could probably find one even cheaper that would be fine for your uses. Then once you've used it long enough, you'll figure out what you might want to look for should you decide to upgrade to a nicer sturdier one. |
Posted by tiffers Tripod is a definite must. I also am not sure that a 2 second exposure would be considered 'long exposure', but perhaps for some. It looks to me like there was a flash or a flash light? It's reflecting in the window...and also lighting up the inside wall...? I would also advise straightening your images, if you can't take them straight, straighten them in post. Good luck. |
Posted by antuna We figured two people braced against the wood made for a good surface for the photographer to use as an extra point of contact, in addition to his hands and head. It didn't seem like such a bad idea If we decide to get more serious with shots like this, a new tripod will be one of the first things we pick up. |
Posted by blackhawk Many times tripods are over rated and not worth the trouble. |
Posted by blackhawk Many times tripods are over rated and not worth the trouble. Use a towel in between to brace to any hard surface. The real trick is getting the shot square; this shot is not. For exposures over 1/8 a second a tripod is nice with a remote shutter control. Going with a smaller aperture setting like f/8 would yield a better shot if you can kill the shake. Most lens are sharpest between f5.6-8.0 however there are exceptions. Determine where your lens is sharpest by referring to online interactive blur charts for that lense. Don't stray from its optimum f/ setting without good reason. A higher ISO setting would have been a fair trade off as well for a smaller aperture setting or shorter exposure time. |
Posted by sirpsychosexy The idea is very good! Execution could be a lot better. Most has been said about it already; use a tripod and a remote or the timer on your camera to eliminate shake. The tripod also helps with getting a shot straight, especially if you buy one with a bubble level. If you for some reason can't or don't want to use a tripod (although you absolutely should, don't be lazy ) you can check out what the maximum ISO setting of your camera is. Setting it higher will result in a shorter exposure needed at the expense of more noise. In terms of aperture f/3.5 is already pretty wide, but if you can lower that number even more (thus widen the aperture - letting in more light) it also shortens the exposure time needed. If you have a cheap compact camera these settings might not be available, in this case start saving for a DSLR ;) The flash isn't looking bad in this one, but an on-camera flash is a risky thing to use. Often it eliminates all shadows and you'll end up with very adynamic photos. The better way is lightpainting with (a) flashlight(s), or doing some pops with a handheld off-camera flash. |
Posted by antuna Thanks for this. A lot of that can be confusing for a new photographer. |
Posted by Rinzler How has nobody mentioned his Flickr name Lolol. |
This thread is in a public category, and can't be made private. |