Join ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Nightscape
Nightscape by PatrickSmith
It was a clear and warm night last week with a nearly full moon at a 45 degree angle, perfect for heading out to the beach for a super long exposure.
I hiked about 1/2 mile down the beach in the dark to an unusual collection of sea stacks and cliffs. It was difficult to compose this because not only could I barely see through the viewfinder, but I wanted to get close to where the waves were breaking. Since I knew it would be at least a 1/2 hour exposure, I wanted to be just out of reach of the biggest wave that would hit during that time.
After watching the waves for about 10 minutes, I set things up, opened the shutter and sat on the beach to wait it out. It was about 28c at 10pm, but it was difficult to enjoy it completely because I was worried about a big wave hitting. I barely got away with this as some waves came very close.
This is exactly what I saw in the viewfinder. Bright as day, and when I looked out, there was in fact the same colours, but very faint to my eye. I actually did no processing to the raw file at all. I just converted it to a TIFF.
The big problem was noise. There were individual pixels that were easily handled with the 'Despeckle' option. But then some areas had these blue and orange blobs that were about 5 pixels in radius. I assume these are heat related blobs. They could only be removed by cloning each of them out. It was not too difficult.
I know that noise reduction involves taking a second exposure of the same length so the camera can compare them. Is there another way to reduce noise?
30 minute exposure @F5. No filters.
| Date Added: | 29 Oct 2007 - 14:53 |
| Camera: | Canon 5D |
| Lens: | Canon 17-40L @18 |
| Film: | RAW (digital) ISO 50 |
| Categories: | Landscape / Travel General |
| Geo Data: | Show Map Position |
| Tags: | coyote beach, long exposure, california, star trails |
| Readers' Votes: | 203 |

![]() ![]() | ![]() ![]() |
Steve!

Patrick
Mike


As far as the noise goes, I was just discussing that issue with a knowledgeable camera person this weekend and he said that shooting very long exposures with digital does not work well because of the way the (not sure) pixels heat up. He told me that film works out much better for long exposures. Of course there is no way I’m going back to film. LOL
Eric
and wow 30 mins man thats nutz

and its pinsharp aswell well done buddy



Cheers, Sean

Thanks Clint, I may try it.
Hi Mike, I'm using C1 but haven't used their noise reduction options. But I'll have a look at it tonight after work. That might do the trick so thanks!
Eric, he is probably right about film. But like you, I'd rather figure out an easy way to use digital.
True Keith, I think that a 1/2 full moon (1/4 moon) might be a better choice. The sky will be a bit darker and the trails brighter. I just wanted there to be lots of light on the sea and rocks.
True Phil, it was rather crazy out there!
Almost Sean. I did a 2 hour shot once with my 350D. Far fewer hot pixels too I might add!
Patrick
its truly beautifully in every way.. pure harmony in nature and envious of the 28 c @ night...!!!
Stunning !!
Nikki !
leave the technical side to the Boys..! winks


Yes Nikki, it was a hot evening. It was the first day of the fires that put 1 million people out of their homes!
Patrick

I also advocate the use of Noise Ninja, it takes a bit of trial and error to get it right without loosing detail. I apply different amounts to different areas, obviously the sky will stand a lot more than the rocks for example.
HTH Alan

I may try it Alan. The problem is that the software thinks that the star trails ARE noise!
Patrick
)Opening it up offers a really nice surprise with the star trails.
Excellent shot
Mike
john

Regards Ken
I am so glad you suffer like this for us to enjoy your magic


LOL Mike, it could be either or both at times!
John I have C1 so I'll give it a try.
Well Neil, I do have one where..... doh.... I only made one exposure that night! Actually there are lots more trails near the top that you can't see here. But we will see what happens next time.
Patrick
Is there another way to reduce noise?
Oh, I wish I knew. It's the problem that irritates me most.
Scott
A wonderful shot that i would be proud to have taken.
Rushing out to buy me a half-hour glow in the dark egg timer.


Try it Scott. Do it with the moon up a bit in the sky. Point away from the moon and all lights. Do it on a completely clear evening. Try it with less than a full moon, but not a crescent moon. If yo do it wiht a 1/4 moon, you may need a 1 hour exposure I woudl guess. It is 1/2 hour with a nearly full moon @F5 focused to infinity with a wide angle.
LOL John, I used my cell phone to time it!
Thanks Paul
Patrick

Rob

John


Just love this Micky Mouse (read Microsoft) software policy......it´s sooo deeeeeep

NO possibilty to change my Vista in Finnish any more!!
Hasta la Vista, Bill.......
Jouko

David

Steve

A pleasure as always

Yes Rob, C1 is better than CS3 for now I think.
Jouko, what happened to give you those scratches? There must be a way to convert it to Finnish!
I wish Bert!
LOL Edgar, then you will just have to take a trip to California!
Patrick


Martin

I love the depth and dof of this image,the lighting and detail of this is fantastic. I don't know too much about all that they are talking about so won't try getting into it.........lol.Sorry i can't help.
A tremendous shot in my eyes.
Take care,Ann


Ron



.......but down here not seen any more
So many C&C...LOL.......
NO WAY! Only IF you have Vista Ultimate version!!! Mine is Home Premium, which came with the GX700 Intel Core 2 Duo T7100...
Jouko

No Martin, I may give it a try though.
I know what you mean Lisa!
Chris, I just sat on the beach, enjoyed the warm breeze and watched the waves come in. Or at least I could hear them come in and see them at the last moment! Rather unnerving. It was nice because this is usually a foggy and cool beach on the end of a penninsula.
It's okay Ann.
Ron, the feet were quite wet, but that was fine as it was so warm.
Thanks John, I mean Paul (Chinny)!
LOL Jouko, I see what you mean now! I could use the clone tool to get rid of the scratches. Can you take back the computer and get the correct version?
Patrick

Simply put.....outstanding!!
Debbie

Patrick
Ian.

Best wishes,
Ron.
Mo.






Ted

Yes, Ted, it was a bit nervewracking. I had it up on a rock with the tripod legs pushed in to keep it low. The water would go around the rock but it never got to the point where I had to rescue the camera!
Patrick

Great image
Robin



A Cornifornia of a shot if I may say so

gill


LOL Robin, I think from outer space you could get that shot!
I think you're right Gill, though you will have to do one over there before we can know for sure!
Debbie? Perfect? No.
Famous? No... I'm flying under the radar for now....
Terry, Last month under the same lunar conditions, I took a 10 minute shot at F5 and it was dark, so I tried 30 minutes. It had good a exposure range, so I tried it again this month and got it right the first time!
Patrick

Al the very best
Dougie


Yes Dougie, it was a bit of a scramble, waiting for the waves to pull back so I can get around the cliff's edge. It was high tide.
Patrick
bill

Di
Your work is spectacular - I have nothing to add to the above comments. Thank you for taking the time to tell about the shot.
Anne


Bill, just keep trying. It takes a few attempts (several hours) at F5 and clear skies to get it right!
Patrick



Nigel

Thanks for the info Nigel. Sometimes I'll use 2 ND soft grad 0.9's but it comes down to watching for what the sun does in the clouds. I wait for the light to become even before I take the shot, then I can pull down the grads to just below the horizon and the sky looks even with the sea or land. And I sometimes avoid cliffs or darker areas where a grad would be a problem. I don't know what a sunrise/sunet strip is though.
No problem Leigh!
Patrick


I'm not even sure what my white balance is set to. It usually looks just right so I leave it alone. Yes, the shadow moved during the half hour!
Did you feel the earthquake? It was actually like two of them. The first one made me feel dizzy and then the big one hit and a few things fell off of shelves. Nothing that fell broke and I have things nailed to the walls so no standing things fell over. It lasted about 30 seconds and had an amplitude of about 1 foot as it shook! I am about 50 miles from the epicenter, so down there in San Jose it was quite bad. I don't think any freeway overpasses fell though.
Patrick

A stunning image, but in my view slightly overexposed - a night shot is allowed to look slightly dark! Would love to see how this looks a stop darker (maybe even a tad more)
With reguard to noise this is simply a fact with night photography. You have done well to minimise noise by shooting when the moon is nearly full.
I don't bother with 'noise reduction' - beacuse this will double the exposure time. For a 30 min exposure, you would need enouph battery power for a 60 min exposure - if the battery dumped after 59 min, you would loose the shot (and from experience, the 5D battery is good for about 90 minutes shooting from fresh - more if you have the grip).
I have done back to back tests with noise reduction on and off - and to be honest I got best results from shooting without noise reduction and converting in C1. Oftern for night shots, I turn the noise compensation in C1 up.

I've been playing with it and it can easily be darkened with no problems. I will try another one with a little less moonlight and more exposure time as well. Thanks for the info on these details. It always seems as though it is better to let software do things than what is built into the camera so I didn't set up the camera to do anything. 90 minutes? That should be enough. I don't have a grip, though I may get one if I really go for the super-long exposures. I;ll see about the C1 noise reduction. I usually wait until I'm in PS to do most of the processing.
How are things going for you now???
Thanks!
Patrick
Scotty



I read somewhere that noice in long exposure is heat and that some experiments have been done with "kryo"technology? I imagine that at 28C and1/2 hr exposure heat would be an issue.
I wonder what would happen if you were to somehow attach an ice bag wrapped in cloth on the rear surface of the camera? Then when the pictures taken you can use the ice to cool something to drink before the trek home

I'll try some long exposure up here in the north this winter when we have temps down around-15C



Do you want some of my melting watches ?

Brian.


OL Ken, well usually it is cool and foggy. I'm not sure if the hot night affected this, as it might be just that some pixels are relatively hotter and that effect would still show up in cold conditions. I will have to experiment. Interesting theory though. Let me know how your experiments go!
Sorry you missed the earthquake Terry, it was a big one! 1 foot horizontal movement with a full cycle every second.
Sure Sal... I mean Brian. And throw in a few skinny legged elephants too!
I know what you mean Maggie. I'll be trying some with a lower amount of moonlight vs. starlight to get a little more contrast in the sky. It might mean more noise though.
Patrick


Jacqueline

Man...
A...

No fooling Jacqueline, this is straight from the camera. Notice the movement of the shadow of the foreground rock, or the smoothness of the ocean? That can only be done with a very long exposure!
Thanks Andrew, the more surreal the better. And it was 30 minutes!
Patrick



Teresa.

Great image Patrick.
Ian.


It is amazing Teresa, definitely try it on the waterfall, though it may just look like a daytime shot. Let me know.
Be careful Ian, you really have to be out there the whole time just in case a big wave hits. But you can st up a bit higher, but the image may be less exciting.
Patrick

Allie



Allie, it did take a lot of fussing around to compose this. I could just barely make things out through the viewfinder!
Patrick

LOL!
Anyways.....Yep, this is really quite lovely, P.....But how does one get a shot like this when you can barely make things out in the viewfinder....Let alone leaving it undisturbed for 30 minutes??

Have a wonderful day,
Suz

PS: Just noticed the toddler shot, you ARE a young'n, looks to be shot somewhere in the 1930's or 40's, 'eh??
LOL!!!

"You're Da Man!"

You have to fool around with it Suzie, looking just to the side as you move the lens around since you can see slightly more light off to the side than looking directly ahead. And on my baby shot.... I converted to to B&W...perhaps.... My mom says that she is 27 so you figure it out!
Patrick

Lovely stuff.
Howard

Yes Howard, with a slightly darker moon and a longer exposure, the sky will be darker with the land and sea still having detail.. I will be back!
Patrick

Charlotte

I'm not quite sure how I did it either Charlotte. Fortunately the moon was bright enough to see a bit, but the viewfinder was really dark! It took a while to get it right.
Patrick
Rgds/Sidd




































Martin