The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
How to Shoot Gorgeous Light Trails [w/PICS]
digital-photography-school.com — I ’d seen this type of shot in a photography magazine and was impressed by the eye catching results.
msaleem- 1401 diggs
- digg it
- IDIDID, on 08/13/2008, -10/+14I love photos like these, it's surprisingly easy to capture them compared to how awesome they look
- strangewill, on 08/13/2008, -4/+6They're interesting but get old very quickly when every so called "photographer" is doing it, much like high contract grayscale images.
- quomen, on 08/13/2008, -4/+10Photography is never easy.
- jasz, on 08/13/2008, -2/+4Longexposure FTW!
Here are some of mine, taken in Atlanta
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaszed/tags/longexpos ... - WiretapStudios, on 08/13/2008, -1/+2Why are people digging you down? I dugg you back up. This IS easy to do. Sure, you have to plan and compose the shot, but the process itself is easy enough.
#1 Find traffic, put camera on tripod
#2 Leave shutter open
- ansatsu29, on 08/13/2008, -11/+4wow..fantastic!
- mabllo, on 08/13/2008, -9/+4Excellent guide. :)
- digmark, on 08/13/2008, -6/+68Now I can join the arty elite. BRING ME MY TURTLENECK.
- D14BL0, on 08/13/2008, -1/+7Your beret and scarf will be shipped separately.
- PabloMac, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Will they be shipped at night?
- Lutremi, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3You need a Mac now too, it has an extra port that hooks up to your brain and feeds it creative juice
- roadnottaken, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1LOL :-> Don't forget the glass of wine!
- D14BL0, on 08/13/2008, -1/+7Your beret and scarf will be shipped separately.
- fiftycenthead, on 08/13/2008, -10/+3Gorgeous! Really digg the images and the tips!
- supermom2005, on 08/13/2008, -10/+5Love the pics! Makes me want to take up the hobby again :)
- MrGadget777, on 08/13/2008, -7/+8These shots are one of the reasons why I chose to finally buy a DSLR. Thanks for sharing!
- dcinmich, on 08/13/2008, -9/+4An amazing technique and an equally amazing tutorial. Time to dust off the digital camera.
- Bamboolemur, on 08/13/2008, -1/+1Are people bored and just randomly digging down comments?
- Bamboolemur, on 08/13/2008, -1/+1Are people bored and just randomly digging down comments?
- joycevdb, on 08/13/2008, -10/+5This is a very thorough and well-written tutorial on creating amazing light trail photos.
Love it -- I'll have to try this over the weekend. - rjmarmol, on 08/13/2008, -9/+4whoa! light trails are awesome subjects in photography..and these tips are very good..
- MobRule, on 08/13/2008, -8/+3Beautiful photo - it looks like it glows!
- quomen, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3Wow. Are you guys all tools or what, is he paying you to say this?
- Rotzooi, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1they're all the same person, gaming Digg.
- acleversheep, on 08/13/2008, -8/+0A really useful and thorough tutorial with lots of illustrations and sharp advice.
- BoonSaibot, on 08/13/2008, -13/+1protip: apply motion blur
- mtdshn, on 08/13/2008, -6/+7One thing to note is that if you use a digital camera and you still use a low ISO setting (like 100) you'll get a good amount of pixelation. For some real nice results try a film camera with film ISOs of 50-100. Slide film works the best as it starts off black and then goes light and there's much less chance of it overexposing.
- ldkronos, on 08/13/2008, -0/+4Huh? What the heck are you talking about? Pixelation? Do you mean noise? If so, you get that more at higher ISO (like 1600). And I'll take almost any DSLR with ISO 100 over ISO 50 (or even ISO 25) film any day. The DSLR is going to have less noise than the film has grain.
- asa400, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1I agree, but would qualify that statement depending on the SLR you're talking about. Some, like the Nikon D3, have excellent noise reduction built in and can compare against 25 ISO film. But a lot of older SLRs didn't have very good noise reduction capacity.
This becomes an issue in this type of photography because of reciprocity failure. Basically, under long exposures both film and digital sensors suffer from increased grain. See the following link for a full explanation, as it takes a bit to properly explain it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(photogra ... - ldkronos, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1Actually, digital doesn't suffer from reciprocity failure. And I think you misunderstand what reciprocity failure is.
- asa400, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1I agree, but would qualify that statement depending on the SLR you're talking about. Some, like the Nikon D3, have excellent noise reduction built in and can compare against 25 ISO film. But a lot of older SLRs didn't have very good noise reduction capacity.
- AeonTorpor, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3@mtdshn
Who's digging you up? ISO 100 isn't close to any noise problems. 'pixelation'? wtf? - ldkronos, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1You know, before I was just concentrating on your comments about ISO and "pixelation" that I neglected to notice the other big problem with your post.
"Slide film works the best as it starts off black and then goes light and there's much less chance of it overexposing."
Huh? Care to run that one by me again? It is well know that slide film typically has much less dynamic range than negative film and are extremely unforgiving of overexposure.
- ldkronos, on 08/13/2008, -0/+4Huh? What the heck are you talking about? Pixelation? Do you mean noise? If so, you get that more at higher ISO (like 1600). And I'll take almost any DSLR with ISO 100 over ISO 50 (or even ISO 25) film any day. The DSLR is going to have less noise than the film has grain.
- hockeymandave, on 08/13/2008, -5/+6http://www.flickr.com/photos/hockeymandave/2008309 ...
taken by south coast plaza in orange county. shot with a 30second exposure, iso at 100 and at f/14. used a canon 17-40 at 17mm to get as wide a shot as possible.- quomen, on 08/13/2008, -2/+3Nothing new.
- Snottlebocket, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2Nothing new but that doesn't mean it's not a very nice shot. I'm particularly fond of these types of photo's where cars crossed paths so the red trails start to mingle.
- D14BL0, on 08/13/2008, -1/+59Short version:
Long exposure. - habbofresh, on 08/13/2008, -0/+9fun fact. the bulb setting has always existed in photography.
- EtherGnat, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1...but I'll bet it wasn't called "bulb setting" prior to the invention of the light bulb. ;)
- borez, on 08/13/2008, -0/+26Tripod, long exposure time..it's not rocket science.
Works lovely with water too, especially waterfalls for that " Just been to pixie land on holiday " feeling.- Coffeedemon, on 08/13/2008, -3/+3Yeah of all the things to do a photo tutorial on this is one of the easiest. It does make nice images though when used sparingly and with an eye to composition (IE: corners, hills, curves instead of just standing at any old street corner).
- borez, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1True
- Coffeedemon, on 08/13/2008, -3/+3Yeah of all the things to do a photo tutorial on this is one of the easiest. It does make nice images though when used sparingly and with an eye to composition (IE: corners, hills, curves instead of just standing at any old street corner).
- freezerburn666, on 08/13/2008, -2/+3whats with the last one? a boat? why is there no ***** up water because of the wake?
- johnomaz, on 08/13/2008, -1/+2I was wondering the same thing.
- belly917, on 08/13/2008, -0/+4The long exposure blurs all the motion of the water. The captured imagery becomes an "average" of the water's position for the exposure.
Also, this appears to be a ferry. Which would mean slow speeds.. not that much wake.
- johnomaz, on 08/13/2008, -5/+2One question. How does he get rid of the actual car? Does the car itself not come through because its dark. I know the long exposure of will make a dark scene seem like daylight (not bright, but not night either).
- quomen, on 08/13/2008, -0/+4It's because the car doesn't reflect enough light to be exposed at such a narrow aperture. Only the light trail from the taillights and headlights are bright enough to expose the sensor.
- Narcism, on 08/13/2008, -8/+4I'm always wary of 10 positive comments at the beginning of a digg article. Buried just in case.
- GhandicapXRS, on 08/13/2008, -1/+4Just a question for all you photographers on here... How come prolonging the exposure captures the cars lights over time but not (it seems)the car itself.
Like instead of invisible space in between the head/tail lights, one would think it would just be a blob of color from he car stretching from point A to B?- Coffeedemon, on 08/13/2008, -0/+4If the car itself is not illuminated for long enough it will not register on a longer (multi second) exposure. If the car were slow moving or the exposure not long enough there would be more visible signs of the car in the picture.
- brummers, on 08/13/2008, -0/+6Its because the intensity of the lights is magnitudes higher than the reflected light from the car. You will set up for the correct exposure on the headlight and/or tail light so the camera doesnt really see the reflected light from the car's body since its so dim.
You will get the dimmer background in the shot since its there the entire time of the exposure. The car is there for a much shorter amount of time. - WiretapStudios, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Short version: because there isn't a source of light pointed at the car.
- EtherGnat, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1What everybody else said; plus if you look closely at some of the images you can detect ghostly images of vehicles.
- darny, on 08/13/2008, -4/+4this is a great guide for people that have no idea what the fstuck they're doing.
- liuite, on 08/13/2008, -0/+4for elliptical light trails, shine a flash light at a bicycle wheel's reflector.
- diggB, on 08/13/2008, -1/+6If you're camera has a noise reduction feature for long exposures, use it. Often, this is even more effective than using noise reduction techniques found in post processing (such as noise ninja) since the camera algorithm uses a "dark-frame subtraction" to remove the noise. That is, the camera takes an additional shot after the one you just took to find the noisy hot pixels to subtract out the noise. This additional noise information is normally not available in post processing (though, you could take an additional noise frame and do your own noise removal, but that's more of pain).
My 2 cents. - kappuru, on 08/13/2008, -1/+2Any decent camera on AE program mode will capture great images. I actually shot a series using this technique a few years ago, check it out!
http://flickr.com/photos/kappuru/sets/1391703/
The lights were just an old remote control and nothing more than a simple DSLR was used. - mach32, on 08/13/2008, -4/+0average at best. sorry but that's a fact
- Coffeedemon, on 08/13/2008, -1/+2Its a tutorial not a photo contest. As long as the photos illustrate the topic its all fine.
- Cpt2Slow, on 08/13/2008, -4/+0tripod + long exposure time. this is still new to people?
- iammatt00, on 08/13/2008, -5/+2How about let's try some original photography next time?
- AlaskaLoneWolf, on 08/13/2008, -2/+3I always wanted to know how to do that. Thanks.
- SAMzabar, on 08/13/2008, -1/+2i have some of these.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/samzabar/2720983131/i ... - ographer, on 08/13/2008, -3/+3Oh wow. I wonder what's next? OMFG look how he froze that runner in motion! It's like the opposite of creating light streaks.
Submit to digg. - mufffin, on 08/13/2008, -3/+2protip: If your shots are overexposed - close your aperture down (increase the f stop number) or if your shots are underexposed open it up (decrease the f stop numbers).
- sirmasterboy, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1This is also how you capture shots of lightning.
- Bamboolemur, on 08/13/2008, -1/+2Here's some of mine on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ziadchatila/sets/7215 ...
and a time lapse video I did at night:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldiXOI3b_MQ - TiE23, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2This is a repost. I made the 5th comment on that page months ago.
- SarahC, on 08/13/2008, -1/+1Mine too... =)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/80912889@N00/19697506 ...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/80912889@N00/19705757 ... - Philbert, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Don't forget safety. Standing along side the road in the dark can be dangerous. Maybe get some reflective tape for you or your tripod, or better yet, both!
Another tech nique for shooting still lit objects is to zoom in, open the shutter, then zoom out and close the shutter. One of my teachers did this qwith a great shot for Boathouse Row in Philly.
http://thefuturemingrones.com/images/boathouse%20r ... - EtherGnat, on 08/14/2008, -0/+2The best light trails image ever: http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/646/ninjahy6.jp ...
The original no longer seems to be on airliners.net, but I found a mirror. It's been on Digg before: http://digg.com/odd_stuff/Long_exposure_picture_of ... - malsandoval, on 08/14/2008, -0/+0Shoot gorgeous light trails... from what? There was nothing in the article that taught me about shooting gorgeous light. Needs more mana.
- Whitey07, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1I've been wanting to do this for a while, now I know how to!
- jd33, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1I'd rather shoot gorgeous end-trails.
- sylaw, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1Just starting photography as a hobby. Thanks for the info!
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is 
