Leviticus From New Zealand, joined Oct 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 901 times:
This is actually not about aviation but digital photography in general, anyway. I have a problem with a disturbing (but sometimes nice) "effect" that confuses me, and I would like to have some things sorted out. Basically it ruins night shots, it looks like a ghost have been running around in front of the camera with a flash light.
Now this might be something that probably everyone knows about except me, I have only been shooting digital for three months but have a couple of hundred regular SLR night shots behind be and this have never occurred before.
Now to the examples.
This picture is the first one I have seen the effect on, my girlfriend took it in Egypt, and neither she or me can explain what causes the light-lines in the picture (nope not a single airplane passing by). 3 second exposure and the camera was not moved.
And tonight I was out taking some "artsy" night pictures at my former high school and I got this, also here the camera was not moved during the 13 second exposure (ISO 50, on every). I find it very strange, like if an invisible man was runing around with some lights (Well now I am silly).
Can somebody explain what causes the effect ? Is it some kind of "bug" because I do not have a fancy DSLR ? Or is it just something that I do wrong. Please share your opinion / experience on the subject, and maybe even some examples.
By the way, please do not complain about the quality of the picture I was just playing around
AvroArrow From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 1041 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 833 times:
Very strange looking indeed. What make and model digicam do you have? The light trails do seem to have some tie in with the light sources in the pics, but the pattern certainly is confusing.
Give me a mile of road and I can take you a mile. Give me a mile of runway and I can show you the world.
Leviticus From New Zealand, joined Oct 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 808 times:
Fotodj, sometimes people ask questions about regular digital photography I was just looking for some help since people here usually have a high level of knowledge.
ArmitageShanks, I have no Idea what is going on but I suspect that these semi-good cameras are sensitive to something, maybe a special kind of light. I Do not know what.
AvroArrow, I have a Minolta Dimage Z1. My girlfriends picture is taken by (what I think is) a Fuji Finepix s5000. That is the strange thing, the connection to the light sources and that the trails also seem to have a "deep" in the picture, that is not 2 dimensional.
Andrewuber, Nope ! I was ten feet away and nobody else was close either
Futterman From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1301 posts, RR: 49 Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 787 times:
Perhaps fire-flys were doing their thing (seriously)? Really odd patterns, and they seem to start and stop in the middle of nowhere. I can't see how it would have anything to do with extra sensitivity towards a specific kind of light, unless you had a filter on...even then, it's a long shot.
Leviticus From New Zealand, joined Oct 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 742 times:
Mr Futt, I did not have any filters on and joke aside, do not know how it is at your place in the US but in Europe fire-flies are only "on fire" (what is it called ? Anyway when they are glowing) during August or late summer/early fall depending on the weather. And I took those pictures yesterday
HaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2073 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 624 times:
Leviticus,
I do photography for a living, and though that doesn't make me an expert I'll take my stab at it.
The 2nd picture is telling. The light string eminates from the lights on the poles and the window, and the trails all follow the same trajectory. You say the camera didn't move... I say it did. I have experimented and have a passion for night time photography with the shutter opened to create an artistic affect, and this seems to be that.
If the camera was moved, as in putting it on the tripod, with the shutter open... while the lights with their intensity would expose the film, the background would not as it is dimly lit and not bright enough to be exposed that quick at night. After the camera settles for a few seconds, the scenery exposes itself and a rather normal picture appears but with the burned in images of the light transitting the view. I have used this purposely on many many occassions for a desired affect.
In a dimly lit situation or dark, I can open the shutter via a cable release, walk to a point in front of the camera, stand still long enough to expose the film, walk to another point and linger long enough again, than walk back to the camera to shut the shutter. Any of my movements will be 'ghosted' away for lack of exposure, but the long standing movements will expose the film.
Hope that helps. I don't see the 2nd pix in particuliar as being anything but what I've described.
Sponsor Message: 
From New Zealand, joined Oct 2007, 0 posts, 
(Well now I am silly).
? Or is it just something that I do wrong. Please share your opinion / experience on the subject, and maybe even some examples.
From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 87 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Dec 2003, 3366 posts, 
From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 1041 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Sweden, joined Apr 2002, 320 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20901 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
