looooong exposures / bulb

DoctorIt

So how do you guys that have the awesome star trail pics do it? I think I've picked up this: tiny aperture, very long exposure, right? Well, the only problem is, for bulb, I have to hold the shutter open. Not only does my finger want to fall off, but i make the camera shake as I adjust. I've been contemplating rigging up some zip ties to hold it down for 10-20 minutes, but then, with my luck, I'm sure as I go to cut the zip tie and release the shutter, I'll give it a big shake, and ruin 20 minutes of exposure. I'm pretty sure there is no way to override this in my camera (canon 300D) to make it a click open / click shut kind of operation. Is this different on other cameras (nikons?)?

Here is one I did where i managed to hold it open for 89 seconds w/o too much shake. A start at least (need a pretty bright monitor):

fish

DoctorIt wrote:

I'm pretty sure there is no way to override this in my camera (canon 300D) to make it a click open / click shut kind of operation. Is this different on other cameras (nikons?)?

You need remote control with RS-60E3 terminal or wireless Remote Controller RC-1 and RC-5.

cletus

fish wrote:

You need remote control with RS-60E3 terminal or wireless Remote Controller RC-1 and RC-5.

Don't you miss the good ol' days of cable releases???

DoctorIt wrote:

I'm pretty sure there is no way to override this in my camera (canon 300D) to make it a click open / click shut kind of operation. Is this different on other cameras (nikons?)?

I seem to remember at least one of the Nikons I've had could work that way. It might have been my N-90 with the multi-control back. I don't know about the D series though.

lynnma

DoctorIt wrote:

So how do you guys that have the awesome star trail pics do it? I think I've picked up this: tiny aperture, very long exposure, right? Well, the only problem is, for bulb, I have to hold the shutter open. Not only does my finger want to fall off, but i make the camera shake as I adjust. I've been contemplating rigging up some zip ties to hold it down for 10-20 minutes, but then, with my luck, I'm sure as I go to cut the zip tie and release the shutter, I'll give it a big shake, and ruin 20 minutes of exposure. I'm pretty sure there is no way to override this in my camera (canon 300D) to make it a click open / click shut kind of operation. Is this different on other cameras (nikons?)?

Here is one I did where i managed to hold it open for 89 seconds w/o too much shake. A start at least (need a pretty bright monitor):

Hey Eric go to Hunts in Hadley and get a remote! they are very inexpensive and you can lock the shutter button down for long shots. Don't get the wireless, get the old fashion plug in, works wonders.
Lynn

DoctorIt

fish wrote:

You need remote control with RS-60E3 terminal or wireless Remote Controller RC-1 and RC-5.

I have the RC5, its the cheapo one, don't think it will work on bulb. I'll check it out though.

DoctorIt

just found it in the camera manual - says it works with bulb, one click to open, next click shuts, up to 2.5 hours bulb with full charged battery.

Should work.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious!

fish

DoctorIt wrote:

I have the RC5, its the cheapo one, don't think it will work on bulb. I'll check it out though.

From your manual:

DoctorIt

fish wrote:

From your manual:

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. Again.

I had read that same line right after I read your first post.

fish

DoctorIt wrote:

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. Again.

I had read that same line right after I read your first post.

ain't the internet a wonderful thing?




and yes, I do miss the days of when you could just buy a $5 cable release.

GREAPER

The Nikon N90 requires a 125 dollar electronic release.

The nikon D100 digital takes the old style mechanical releases, kind ironic huh.

wxwax

GREAPER wrote:

The Nikon N90 requires a 125 dollar electronic release.

The nikon D100 digital takes the old style mechanical releases, kind ironic huh.

Yes, that is ironic.

OK, dr, let's see your bub shots.

peachmaan

It seems the Problem has been solved ....
Another thing that could have been done is, while taping the button down, and after desired exposure releasing/untaping the button is
---> to cover the lens....

(I love my cable release!! )

Here's a pict and link to an addicting site..... danger......time will fly,IMO.

peachmaan

I 4got to post this....:

Explanation: Positioning his camera and tripod on planet Earth, near Maricopa, Arizona, USA, astrophotographer Joe Orman created this trailing display of the ongoing sky-full-of-planets on May 3rd. He initially captured the grouping in a 20 second long time exposure recording the positions of the bright planets and stars. Covering the camera lens for five minutes, he then exposed the same frame for 45 minutes, tracing the gentle arcs of the celestial wanderers as the Earth's rotation carried them toward the western horizon. Of course these planets, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn all still dazzle in western skies near sunset, but sky gazers who want to see Mercury should look soon. Mercury starts the evening closest to the horizon - visible here above the wide bright trail left by Venus - and in the coming days Mercury will be the first to leave the evening sky entirely as it moves closer to the setting Sun. Tonight Venus and Mars will appear very close together, separated by only one third of a degree.



Found on : This Site

DoctorIt

wxwax wrote:

Yes, that is ironic.

OK, dr, let's see your bub shots.

Bub shots, eh?

It was, of course, completely overcast last night.

zero-zero

Image stacker is just the ticket.

http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/cgi-bin/image.pl?gallery=8

DoctorIt

It was clear last night, not very clear, but enough to give it a go, so here's the result:



Not bad, but not great. I shot this at f/16 ISO100 for 25 minutes (at which point, my only partially charged battery gave up the ghost). Further suggestions?

Also took some moon shots that i haven't posted. Fixed up my previous error, and shot it at sunny f/16 1/125 and it looked good, but very small and grainy when i zoomed in to crop. Fish, how the hell did you get those really nice ones a while back? My main point of contention is I have no idea how you got the moon to fill so much of the frame. Am I wrong in thinking that your 200mm is your longest lens?

lynnma

DoctorIt wrote:

It was clear last night, not very clear, but enough to give it a go, so here's the result:



Not bad, but not great. I shot this at f/16 ISO100 for 25 minutes (at which point, my only partially charged battery gave up the ghost). Further suggestions?

Also took some moon shots that i haven't posted. Fixed up my previous error, and shot it at sunny f/16 1/125 and it looked good, but very small and grainy when i zoomed in to crop. Fish, how the hell did you get those really nice ones a while back? My main point of contention is I have no idea how you got the moon to fill so much of the frame. Am I wrong in thinking that your 200mm is your longest lens?

Hey Erik thats pretty good.. I must try all this...and remember to recharge my battery....:D

wxwax

zero-zero wrote:

Image stacker is just the ticket.

http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/cgi-bin/image.pl?gallery=8

What a coincidence that you should post that. Thanks. For the last week I've been thinking about ways to duplicate a film camera's ability to do multiple exposures on a single frame. I have a completely different reason for wanting to do it... but this product must be a lot easier to use than shooting multiple, carefully underexposed digital frames, and then combining them.

Seamaiden

I've been wanting to give these things a try, but we're currently experiencing our typica June gloom in March. Hrm. I've also wanted to try a long exposure (but not that long) to capture the jets approaching LAX (we live right under the flight path for the westbound traffic), but the low ceiling has made it impossible. Argh.

Btw, I really love the sky/planetary/star shots!

ian408

wxwax wrote:

What a coincidence that you should post that. Thanks. For the last week I've been thinking about ways to duplicate a film camera's ability to do multiple exposures on a single frame. I have a completely different reason for wanting to do it... but this product must be a lot easier to use than shooting multiple, carefully underexposed digital frames, and then combining them.

Take a look at www.astrostack.com too.

Ian

wxwax

ian408 wrote:

Take a look at www.astrostack.com too.

Ian

Thanks Ian, have you tried it?

ian408

wxwax wrote:

Thanks Ian, have you tried it?

Yes. Pretty easy to use. But I've never tried to stack anything
like the other guy has (starfields and badlands).

ian

wxwax

Think it would work for street shots? Low light, traffic trails, a way to avoid over exposing some parts of the shot to get long exposures for traffic trails?