What is Digg?174 Comments
- rickyisawesome, on 01/20/2009, -5/+90dugg for lack of HDR
- cmallinson, on 01/20/2009, -0/+78Yes, a tripod is essential. Also, use the timer or remote to start the exposure. using the button on the camera is enough to blur the photo.
- donalddraper, on 01/20/2009, -12/+90Dugg for accurate title. Thanks for not using the HDR acronym.
- WafflePirate, on 01/20/2009, -11/+63Wow, these are really awesome. Thanks for the awesome submission.
- muxaulo, on 01/20/2009, -0/+46Try using a tripod for stability and you should have better success.
- Canadaa, on 01/20/2009, -2/+39maybe i'm the only one... but i'm wondering what lightsource caused that electric looking shot around the rock?
- impedance101, on 01/20/2009, -0/+32The rock generates some weird lightning every once in 656 secs.
- RunDiggMC, on 01/20/2009, -4/+33Those are some beautiful shots. Unfortunately, I've never managed to "get it right." My long-exposure attempts have always resulted in abstract blurs.
- emt1451, on 01/20/2009, -0/+25No, and if you do, they will find you, sue you, and kill you.
- jggube, on 01/20/2009, -5/+27For those scratching their heads wondering what "long exposure" photography means, it basically means the shutter speed that's set on the camera is longer (i.e. the lens closes slower). What happens then is that more light is able to come through, so as you can see, a lot of pictures have light blurred together.
- zanarkan, on 01/20/2009, -1/+23HDR stands for High dynamic range. Long exposure shots are a single photo over a long period of time using a tripod.
- TaterSalad77, on 01/20/2009, -0/+19That's what the digg button is for.
- friday04, on 01/20/2009, -4/+22Beautiful. I nailed one of these myself but it was a bit of an accident. I was trying to focus on the moon but my tripod head was loose and the camera dipped just as I took the shot. My exposure was 30 seconds in the black of night. The sky has so much more color than your naked eye could ever see and the moon just peeking in at the top-center of the photo makes it look surreal. I love this kind of photography.
Anyway, link to my shot:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/friday04/3211378973/ - inactive, on 01/20/2009, -0/+17I wonder how you could incorporate this into porn?
- nighthawk8713, on 01/20/2009, -0/+15http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0901/Bridgeview_co ...
photo by Justin Quinnell - Exposure ≈ 16,243,200 seconds - digidelia, on 01/20/2009, -1/+15a guy with a flashlight climbing around the rock while the shutter was open
you don't see him because he doesn't stand still long enough to be caught by the camera - MrWally, on 01/20/2009, -2/+16Awesome!
- inactive, on 01/20/2009, -3/+16Yeah....I really wonder if anyone didn't get what it meant.
- InitialDMP5, on 01/20/2009, -1/+13the aliens, duh. next question.
(serious answer: most likely a flashlight being carried by someone for the purpose of this shot.) - zanarkan, on 01/20/2009, -1/+13recent one I made and like
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bfournier/2916692321/ - asdffdas1234, on 01/20/2009, -1/+1316,243,200 seconds => 188 days. I find it hard to believe that there is a flim that can handle this long exposure. More believable that it is composite of some type.
- Zandarrr, on 01/20/2009, -1/+12I believe I said "wow" out loud about 8 times.
- davidrools, on 01/20/2009, -0/+11i love how long exposure photography can allow you to see things that your naked eyes can't.
i once took a shot of a meadow at night, only faintly lit by the reflections of the nearby city lights. the next day when I was reviewing the shots (mostly of the cityscape), I noticed that a deer had been lying in the meadow the whole hour or so I was shooting!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3262/2908566787_a15 ... - crazzy88ss, on 01/20/2009, -0/+11Also, if your camera has a delayed exposure option, use that. This is only on DSLRs; it'll flip up the mirror, wait half a second, and THEN start the exposure. The motion from the mirror can sometimes cause movement.
- WhiteHamster, on 01/20/2009, -0/+10Long story, but that's how i have one testicle.
- yuanzhoulu, on 01/20/2009, -0/+9HDR sucks dude, it's like "let's make unrealistic images using photoshop"
let's try using one exposure with the camera alone - GamerX, on 01/20/2009, -1/+10You can tell from the pixels, right?
- WhiteHamster, on 01/20/2009, -0/+8He is probably wearing something dark. The exposure time was 656 seconds, that's nearly 11 minutes, meaning it's very very dark out, so the guy probably just did a minute or two of running around, and the light is the only thing that showed up since the guy was not really illuminated. Also, it looks like an LED flashlight, that's why is so electric-looking.
/professor - crazzy88ss, on 01/20/2009, -0/+8Did you click on them to go to their pages on flickr...?
- kerouac906, on 01/20/2009, -0/+8I like to do long exposures on the street corner while wearing a trenchcoat, but after too long of exposing myself the cops come... I can only usually get about a 60 second exposure in these cases.
- stealth45, on 01/20/2009, -1/+9No. And congratulations on being the first person ever to abbreviate "long exposure."
- schwab002, on 01/20/2009, -0/+8In this particular case, I would mind a circle with a huge red arrow.
...can't find it. - raustin, on 01/20/2009, -2/+10amazing photos... i want to do that!
- SethG911, on 01/20/2009, -1/+8I find your awesome comment equally awesome.
- friday04, on 01/20/2009, -0/+7I agree. But like I said in my original post; this was an accident. I wish I were as awesome as the people who purposely created their shots. I am trying to recreate but the reality is that this kind of photography is hard. Patience is key.
- drgmdp, on 01/20/2009, -1/+8my opinion is that the framing could've been better
- davidemm, on 01/20/2009, -1/+7Rochester Institute does this on a larger scale. Students fly out to an interesting location and take long-exposure shots of objects, illuminating certain features with flash lights. The "Big Shot."
http://www.rit.edu/cias/bigshot/ - himey, on 01/20/2009, -0/+6Here is one that I took myself. It was taken at around midnight but you can see the blue in the sky from the bright moon. You can also see the big dipper.
http://www.sleepless.net/?q=gallery&g2_itemId= ... - theJoelReyes, on 01/20/2009, -3/+9Simply beautiful!
- emt1451, on 01/20/2009, -0/+6I question whether that lighthouse picture was actually long exposure or just a series of photographs put together. Do lighthouses flicker on and off like that?
- Kyan, on 01/20/2009, -0/+6My God, I certainly hope you weren't in a library!
- benzzene, on 01/20/2009, -0/+6It's also on some film SLRs.
- Chalks777, on 01/20/2009, -0/+6Here is the deer.
http://i39.tinypic.com/120jhxf.jpg - zanarkan, on 01/20/2009, -0/+5yeah its much better now, most camera now uses CMOS sensors wich are better for long exposure photos. (canon is all CMOS, Nikon mostly now exept D40, D60)
- ilikeeggs8877, on 01/20/2009, -0/+5hint as to where the deer are....?
- iLEZ, on 01/20/2009, -1/+6Easy!
Tripod tripod tripod, lets you use a low ISO rather than a less long exposure.
Try different locations. Take many pics and experiment with lots of different settings and get to know your camera.
Quick example from a few days ago, sorry, but relevant blogspam:
http://trastfolk.blogspot.com/2009/01/kullholen-by ...
Notice the big dipper. ;)
It is taken in moonlight with a ten second exposure (if my exif is correct!)
I did not use a remote or delayed exposure, just a cheap-ass tripod and a consumer Canon 400D camera. - shyla, on 01/20/2009, -0/+5I like the example of the traffic moving down the winding road. I find that the moving traffic pictures can become a little cliche, but that one specific picture seemed to do something a little different then usual, and almost transformed the road into something that seemed alive.
- xer0five, on 01/20/2009, -2/+7whoa, this is the trippiest photography i've ever seen.. and im pretty high.
- Murrabbit, on 01/20/2009, -0/+5If they made a game that looked like this I would buy it.
- BrianOl, on 01/20/2009, -0/+5If done correctly HDR is actually supposed to attempt to be a depiction of how things really look. The sensors of current digital cameras have a relatively limited dynamic range (ability to capture details in the darkest darks to the lightest lights in a single exposure) in comparison with the human eye. This is why often times when you take a picture in the shade outside the sky tends to be too bright. The camera isn't able to reproduce the full dynamic range of the scene, even if your eyes can. The idea of HDR is to take multiple exposures at various settings as to capture the details in the dark sections as well as the bright sections and then combine the, hoping to cover the full dynamic range of the scene. Some people are just retarded and screw it up.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 180 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
