Long-Exposure Landscapes......you like?

[uhoh7]

Long-exposure landscapes are the rage.....thoughts?

Should have added:
"I like a good landscape, long-exposure or not." Oh well.

 

[kxl]

I dabble in it, although I wouldn't say that I necessarily love long-exposure landscapes. I DO like landscapes in general.

This was about a 40 second exposure, lit with a gel-covered flashlight and graduated orange ND

 

[craygc]

When they're done well...

1) Kent Mercurio
2) Hironori Nakamura
3) Moises Levy
4) Gavin Dunbar

 

[Harry S.]

Poll options are inadequate.

I like landscapes but dislike long exposure. I live in a coastal area and every other photographer has a folio of identical looking "smoky-water" beach shots. So not only has it been done to death round these parts, but I dislike the overly saturated look that comes with it.

 

[YYV_146]

Sometimes the best way to capture a scene is exactly how you see it...

 

[uhoh7]

Poll options are inadequate.

I like landscapes but dislike long exposure. I live in a coastal area and every other photographer has a folio of identical looking "smoky-water" beach shots. So not only has it been done to death round these parts, but I dislike the overly saturated look that comes with it.

Sorry about the Poll options, Harry. I always pull he trigger too soon...that's why I have too many lenses LOL

I basically agree with your sentiments, but I do amend my views as I learn more: sometimes.

It seems that a very high percentage of "award winning" landscape shots have water and long exposure.

The surreal effect has me looking for unicorns. LOL

I shoot a ton of landscapes because I love the mountains where I live, the huge variety of features, aspects and interplay with light.

I'm looking to document some part of that.

for example, two shots

L1019960 by unoh7, on Flickr


L1020011 by unoh7, on Flickr

I love the water like this because it takes me back to the place. The human eye sees every bubble and the SEM 21 is not bad either.

I guess I should try LE sometime and see what happens.

Another part of me says: Charlie, spend that time exploring the angles and trying various lenses.

 

[maddoc]

I do. For example those taken by my friend Tomo Ota in Hokkaido in winter after dusk:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tomootaphotos/

 

[uhoh7]

I do. For example those taken by my friend Tomo Ota in Hokkaido in winter after dusk:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tomootaphotos/

TY for that link, I'm not crazy about his water stuff, but the snow and dead trees are spectacular...inspiring really.

Also makes me think I should try LE some time with blowing snow.

 

[maddoc]

I also not a big fan of long time exposures with water in it, the large format photography forum was loaded with those and after some time the effect gets a little boring, IMO.

 

[thegman]

Yes and no. I used to be really interested in long exposure landscapes, but now I'm probably more interested in 'straight' photography, i.e. just capture what you can see as best you can.

 

[btgc]

Is LE landscape restricted to creamy water? There are other processes which could be depicted in a way, allowing to step off beaten track. Subtle changes of sky during dawn or dusk (think of those video sequences, showing change of sky during 24hr) or rotting fruit. We just need better gear for this to capture uninterrupted process instead of stacking together several exposures. In this case artistic moment would be also to choose initial and final points of exposure. This isn't new - in beginnings of photography normal exposure spanned seconds and minutes but I'm talking hours and days.

p.s. I'm almost sure in some specialized fields there's already such technology, even if for practical purposes multiple exposures or just video is more suited.

 

[zuiko85]

Couldn't vote as none of those apply. The poll need one that said;

"Practically mandatory with a pin hole camera"

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Love. But none above.

 

[Sid836]

I like long exposures on landscapes a lot. Unfortunately it has never worked out as expected for me.

 

[robert blu]

There are some very good pictures around taken with this technique, where subject, aesthetic, com position, colors or B&W tones all come together to make an enjoyable photo.
But there are also many photos with same technique where some of other elements are missing and are just an exercise of technique: I do not like these, I find just a calligraphy exercise.
robert
PS: having said this I have to admit that I'm not able to make such a photo and envy a little the one who're able to master them 🙂

 

[lynnb]

I tend not to use them, unless
a) there isn't enough light and I can't avoid a long exposure
b) I specifically want to show movement
c) I want to achieve a level of abstraction that a long exposure will deliver

other than these circumstances, I tend not to use them, as they became "overdone", as already mentioned.

example of a)

example of b) and c):

example of c)

 

[peterm1]

I tend not to use them, unless
a) there isn't enough light and I can't avoid a long exposure
b) I specifically want to show movement
c) I want to achieve a level of abstraction that a long exposure will deliver

other than these circumstances, I tend not to use them, as they became "overdone", as already mentioned.

example of a)

example of b) and c):

example of c)

Wonderful shots. Love them. Well done.

 

[ottluuk]

I like a tasteful mix of approaches. Always using long exposures on moving stuff is pretty much as lame as always shooting a fast lens wide open.

I like photographers who are able to choose a suitable effect based on the scene and its expected interpretation by the viewer. Lets take a mountain stream as an example. Light and gear permitting, you have three broad choices:

a) very long exposure to abstract the flow out completely – looks static but motion is implied; reduces visual complexity and contrasts the smoothness of the water to the texture of the rocks;
b) very short exposure to produce a hyperrealistic "frozen bubbles" look – to me, it gives the strange impression of a paused HD movie – as if the water would resume its rushing flow the second I avert my eye; adds visual complexity.
c) an intermediary setting which balances motion blur with some detail, usually in the range of 1 to 1/60s (depending on the flow rate) – this was commonly advised in old photography textbooks; easiest to use effectively.

 

[lynnb]

thanks, Peter!

 

[taemo]

I tend not to use them, unless
a) there isn't enough light and I can't avoid a long exposure
b) I specifically want to show movement
c) I want to achieve a level of abstraction that a long exposure will deliver

other than these circumstances, I tend not to use them, as they became "overdone", as already mentioned.

example of a)

example of b) and c):

example of c)

love these! great usage of long-exposure.