Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 32 of 32

Thread: Which is better for long exposure shot?

  1. #21
    Senior Member SilverPine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,539

    Default Re: Which is better for long exposure shot?

    In addition to which one produces better image quality as well as sharpness, please consider if you shoot in f/22 unless your camera is free of dusts. Many small dusts will appear in f/22.
    Canon 5D II, 20-35 f/2.8L, 28-80 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/4L IS, 100-300 f/5.6L, 100 f/2.8 Macro

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilverPine View Post
    In addition to which one produces better image quality as well as sharpness, please consider if you shoot in f/22 unless your camera is free of dusts. Many small dusts will appear in f/22.
    Not to mention diffraction...
    Alpha

  3. #23
    Moderator rhino123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NA
    Posts
    5,247

    Default Re: Which is better for long exposure shot?

    Quote Originally Posted by SilverPine View Post
    In addition to which one produces better image quality as well as sharpness, please consider if you shoot in f/22 unless your camera is free of dusts. Many small dusts will appear in f/22.
    Huh... like you say, unless your camera is free of dust. However, if really got dust, even at f16, you will start seeing small dust... don't really need to go down to f22. I believe the main problem here is that at f22, your image will become softer because of light diffraction.
    I am not a photographer, just someone who happened to have a couple of cameras.
    My lousy shots

  4. #24
    Senior Member edutilos-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    The Universe
    Posts
    5,991

    Default Re: Which is better for long exposure shot?

    Quote Originally Posted by rhino123 View Post
    Huh... like you say, unless your camera is free of dust. However, if really got dust, even at f16, you will start seeing small dust... don't really need to go down to f22. I believe the main problem here is that at f22, your image will become softer because of light diffraction.
    At 10mm (before crop), F/8 will have dust showing up already.

    In any case, one should keep their camera relatively dust-free.. It's cheap and easy to DIY clean anyways. I don't let the dust bunnies multiply to anything more than 2 spots at any point in time. Even on holiday.

  5. #25
    Member Mythmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Buangkok MRT
    Posts
    1,011

    Default Re: Which is better for long exposure shot?

    It depends on your foreground. If your foreground have alot of texture and details (like rocks), using ND is better. Sharpening cannot solve diffraction.

    If your foreground is something big like a small boat where there's not much fine details, either wont matter. But personally I'll take f22 in this case for simplicity sake (no colour cast issues, etc).
    Last edited by Mythmaker; 25th July 2013 at 09:54 AM.

  6. #26

    Default

    I would avoid using anything smaller than f/11. Using really small apertures such as f/22 and f/32 is likely to led to serious diffraction issues.

    Dust should not be an issue. Keep the sensor clean via regular maintenance and clone out the couple of dust spots that occasionally appear.

    There are few situations where you can cut down 10 stops of light without using a ND filter. Just use a good filter.
    KF Photography
    Thanks for viewing!

  7. #27

    Default Re: Which is better for long exposure shot?

    i am abit confused.

    does that mean if i use f22 and add 10stop ND filter i get some exposure similar to f32?
    Last edited by inflammation; 25th July 2013 at 10:36 PM.

  8. #28
    Senior Member denniskee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    bukit batok
    Posts
    5,468

    Default Re: Which is better for long exposure shot?

    maybe can tell us what u shooting n when u r shooting it n what u want to achieve?
    photography makes one sees things from all angles.

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inflammation View Post
    i am abit confused.

    does that mean if i use f22 and add 10stop ND filter i get some exposure similar to f32?
    It isn't 22 + 10 = 32

    2 stops is equivalent to x2 of the f-stop number.

    Between f/1.4 and f/2.8 is 2 stops
    Between f/2 and f/4 is also 2 stops.

    Hence, if we start at f/1.4, then
    2 stops less light is f/2.8
    4 stops less light is f/5.6
    6 stops less light is f/11
    8 stops less light is f/22
    10 stops less light is f/44

    The formula is x * 2^(n/2)

    Where x is the aperture without the filter, and n is the number of stops of light.
    KF Photography
    Thanks for viewing!

  10. #30
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inflammation View Post
    i am abit confused.

    does that mean if i use f22 and add 10stop ND filter i get some exposure similar to f32?
    For each stop you multiply the f-number by 1.4. So if you use a 10 stop nd filter at f22, you will get an exposure equivalent to f636

  11. #31

    Default Re: Which is better for long exposure shot?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blur Shadow View Post
    It isn't 22 + 10 = 32

    2 stops is equivalent to x2 of the f-stop number.

    Between f/1.4 and f/2.8 is 2 stops
    Between f/2 and f/4 is also 2 stops.

    Hence, if we start at f/1.4, then
    2 stops less light is f/2.8
    4 stops less light is f/5.6
    6 stops less light is f/11
    8 stops less light is f/22
    10 stops less light is f/44

    The formula is x * 2^(n/2)

    Where x is the aperture without the filter, and n is the number of stops of light.
    Quote Originally Posted by daredevil123 View Post
    For each stop you multiply the f-number by 1.4. So if you use a 10 stop nd filter at f22, you will get an exposure equivalent to f636
    thanks alot. now i get the idea of it.

  12. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inflammation View Post

    thanks alot. now i get the idea of it.
    Technically, Daredevil is more accurate. 1.4^2 = 1.96. But I'm glad you got the picture.
    KF Photography
    Thanks for viewing!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •