Images of Canberra - Danman does traffic

“Also because the long exposure time “sucks in” more light the objects that are “dim” become more visible.”
-Sounds like a comment on our dear Politburo?

Thumper – thats called depth of field – shallow implies only subject is focussed – long depth of field means a lot more of the picture is focussed. Lower f-stops (wide open arpeture) = only main subject in focus

read teh text – if you have manual settings – chances are you can

multiply the amount of light by the time in frame

Ah – that makes sense. Wonder if I can do this sort of thing with my new Canon IXUS 60?

Absolutely fantastic images, Danman!

basically the static objects are there long enough to reflect enough light back to show their position.

The cars are not, but their lights are bright enough to register in a short time.

multiply the amount of light by the time in frame

They are all stationary objects and as such do not get blurred when filming. Also because the long exposure time “sucks in” more light the objects that are “dim” become more visible.

So why does the grass, the road and the bridge show up? I can’t see how they’d be brighter than a car under the same lights. Or does the light emnating from the car’s headlights “wash out” the lower levels of light coming from the car?

Additionally – the car itself is not still or bright enough to register on the film/ccd – however things like light etc are so bright they burn an image into the film/ccd.

Static things are best for low light exposures – but movement cqan be spectacular as well.

If it was a shorter exposure with more available light the cars would come up – as blurry with shorter trails but we are talking about 1/60 shutter instead of 30 seconds.

Can some scienmutific person explain why long exposures show long streams of light, and not long streams of cars, or cars stretched out like sausages? It’s like the light reflecting from the cars never make it to the film / CCD, but the light from the headlights does.