| Page 1 of 1 |
|
|
 Posted: Tue, 1st Feb 2011 00:17 Post subject: Photos taken at night, really |
|
 |
Thought this was really cool. How the exposure time works is pretty neat. I never knew that before.
These are all pics that were taken at night. Captured some great stuff.
http://gizmodo.com/5742383/175-photos-of-day-taken-at-night
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 1st Feb 2011 00:21 Post subject: |
|
|
Would have liked to have seen more conversation about how they pulled that off, but very neat, thanks fer sharin.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 1st Feb 2011 00:27 Post subject: |
|
|
| Spazmotic wrote: | | Would have liked to have seen more conversation about how they pulled that off, but very neat, thanks fer sharin. |
I think they have how they did it in the comments below each pic?
"Nikon D3 17mm, f2.8, 6 seconds, ASA 4000" for the Lead Shot Lifeguard. I don't know "camera speak" but I think that's explaining how it was taken/done?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 1st Feb 2011 00:27 Post subject: |
|
|
Great stuff!
Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ixigia
[Moderator] Consigliere
Posts: 65085
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Tue, 1st Feb 2011 00:27 Post subject: |
|
|
I want those photos in HD :/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garus
VIP Member
Posts: 34200
|
| Posted: Tue, 1st Feb 2011 00:29 Post subject: |
|
|
snip
Last edited by garus on Tue, 27th Aug 2024 21:42; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zipfero
Posts: 8938
Location: White Shaft
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 1st Feb 2011 01:37 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikey5449 wrote: | | Spazmotic wrote: | | Would have liked to have seen more conversation about how they pulled that off, but very neat, thanks fer sharin. |
I think they have how they did it in the comments below each pic?
"Nikon D3 17mm, f2.8, 6 seconds, ASA 4000" for the Lead Shot Lifeguard. I don't know "camera speak" but I think that's explaining how it was taken/done? |
ISO:200, f/11, 121s exposure, 50mm on my 18-200mm nikkor lens. Taken at around 11pm. Shot with my Nikon D70s.
ISO = Roughly the quality of the picture. Lower ISO = better picture at the expense of needing really good light. Higher ISO can lighten up the photo at the cost of having noise in the picture. f# is your aperature which controls how open the IRIS is on the lense allowing more light into the camera
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number
It also helps with adding depth of focus to the picture.
The stated number of seconds is how long the eye is left open. During night photo's, if you use a normal camera, you click button, it snaps, you get picture, that doesn't work at night cause all you get a picture of is black. The darker it is the more time you want the iris to stay open so it allows as much possible light into the lense as possible. The trade off for this is you'll gain ghosting or camera shake so you'll need a tripod or a still sturdy surface for the camera to lay on.
ASA4000 that you showed in your post I'm assuming to be another term for ISO. Fisk is really good in this department if he'd like to chime in.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
_SiN_
Megatron
Posts: 12108
Location: Cybertron
|
| Posted: Tue, 1st Feb 2011 09:18 Post subject: |
|
|
Basically, back in the days when you used cameras that used rolls of film, the ISO number meant how sensitive to light a particular roll of film was. The higher the ISO number, the larger the silver crystals in the film were - the larger they were, the more they reacted to light, meaning they didn't need as much light as a lower ISO (smaller crystals one) would. The downside of this was that since they were larger, they were more visible when you developed the picture, thus creating grain.
So a lower ISO - less grain, needs more light/longer exposure.
Watercooled 5950X | AORUS Master X570 | Asus RTX 3090 TUF Gaming OC | 64Gb RAM | 1Tb 970 Evo Plus + 2Tb 660p | etc etc
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 1st Feb 2011 10:17 Post subject: |
|
|
Nice pics!
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 1st Feb 2011 15:38 Post subject: |
|
|
Beautiful!
Why is the thread in the Useless Void?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Tue, 1st Feb 2011 15:46 Post subject: |
|
|
cause skypez posted in it 
because uv is more active than other threads...
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garus
VIP Member
Posts: 34200
|
| Posted: Tue, 1st Feb 2011 16:03 Post subject: |
|
|
snip
Last edited by garus on Tue, 27th Aug 2024 21:42; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Tue, 1st Feb 2011 16:10 Post subject: |
|
|
| garus wrote: | | WaldoJ wrote: | | because uv is more active than other threads... |
UV is NOT a thread  |
as a section is more active than other threads. nog!
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 1st Feb 2011 16:41 Post subject: |
|
|
| WaldoJ wrote: | | garus wrote: | | WaldoJ wrote: | | because uv is more active than other threads... |
UV is NOT a thread |
as a section is more active than other threads. nog! |
Yeah, but you can't compare two different things, duh!
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
