On Sep 6, 2011, at 10:17 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: > John Francis <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Well, as in all things, you can go too far either way. > > Nonsense! Live for the extremes, I say! > ;-)
Why not go for both extremes? Do the long shutter speed in low light, to about half exposure, then hit it with a flash, about 1 stop under, to get a double exposure with the water frozen in place. :-) Seriously though, when I first looked at the photo, I looked at it before noticing the technical details, and just looking at the length of the star tracks I knew it was a *really* _long_ exposure. While I think that overly blurred water is an effect that is way over used, there are times where that is what you're going to get, and this was one of them. And, to me, it works. I don't know what the geographic limitations you were working under were. I think that the composition of the background is just about perfect, but would prefer it if the foreground ere shifted a bit to the right. It's hard to tell scale with that wide of a lens, but I suspect that with the camera a meter or so to the left the overly prominent bush on the right would be mostly out of the frame. However, there's a really good chance that moving the camera a meter or so to the left would put it in the middle of the stream. I think I've seen you do light painting with your maglight before. Why not use a speedlight? With a 100 second exposure, you could get plenty of targeted flashes. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- Larry Colen [email protected] sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
