How to make speeding traffic lights

[mamamiya]

How to make speeding traffic lights as shown http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa308/mamamiya7/070608224559_by_EntrezSansFrappe-1.jpg

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa308/mamamiya7/button.gif.jpg:confused::confused::confused::confu sed:

[tokenuser]

Thats not photshop. That is a camera set to a long exposure time. The first photo also uses a fisheye style lens (convex though - the opposite of a fisheye).

Photo stats are:

Image input equipment manufacturer: Canon
Image input equipment model: Canon EOS 5D
Software used: Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows <= There MIGHT be some post processing to up the contrast, intensify the colour
Exposure time: 30
F number: 16
Exposure program: 3
ISO speed rating: 50

The key points are the exposure time (30 seconds is a long exposure - typical daylight exposure is a fraction of a second), F number (the size of the camera apeture - ie how much light is being let in - again, 16 is quite large so a lot of light is being allowed in), ISO rating (the film speed - even digital photographs use this metric. 50 is quite low).

There is more to digital photography than post production manipulation in photoshop ... but it does bring up an idea for interesting set of episode for Bert - taking better digital photos for use in Photoshop.

[masherscf]

Thats not photshop. That is a camera set to a long exposure time. The first photo also uses a fisheye lens.

There is more to digital photography than post production manipulation in photoshop ... but it does bring up an idea for interesting set of episode for Bert - taking better digital photos for use in Photoshop.

Those might not even be digital photos. One thing that digital camera don't do well is long exposures. Random discharges inside the CCD cause a lot of noise. My D50 has a noise reduction capability. But, it is not the same.

[tokenuser]

Those might not even be digital photos.I was checking the EXIF data on the image while you were posting. Check the camera :) ... not that its not possible for someone to edit the EXIF data, but unlikely.

[masherscf]

I was checking the EXIF data on the image while you were posting. Check the camera :) ... not that its not possible for someone to edit the EXIF data, but unlikely.

You're right. But, people often strip out the EXIF data. Especially, if the touched up the picture with photoshop. However, that Canon is a mighty kick-ass peice of kit. It must have some fine anti-noise technology. It's also certainly a converted RAW image. I bet the photographer did color balance in PS. All my photos, even simple snapshots, are color corrected. My Nikon has great color balancing, but theres no substitute for a human touch.

[tokenuser]

You're right. But, people often strip out the EXIF data. Especially, if the touched up the picture with photoshop. However, that Canon is a mighty kick-ass peice of kit. It must have some fine anti-noise technology. It's also certainly a converted RAW image. I bet the photographer did color balance in PS. All my photos, even simple snapshots, are color corrected. My Nikon has great color balancing, but theres no substitute for a human touch.I agree. Any photo I put up online is generally touched up just a little using Picassa (so its nothing real fancy).

I didn't get to take the trip to Prague (long story - we literally cancelled the trip AT THE GATE to board the airplane), so I didn't get a chance to test out the new Cybershot camera and see its performance vs the stolen Canon Powershot I had. I have a wedding to attend in Illinois this weekend - will test it out then :)

BUT - who DOESN'T use a RAW image these days? Memory is cheap enough. One feature I am starting to play with allows a 3 shot run with different exposure settings. Time for some HDR experimentation that wasn't possible (easily) with the Canon.

[masherscf]

BUT - who DOESN'T use a RAW image these days?

Day-to-day, I don't use RAW. Although, the fine JPEG compression of the D50 only gets you twice as many shots. Since most consumer photo management software is set up to handle JPEGS, it saves an extra step. The internal WB of the camera is good enough for almost all snap shots.

On my recent trip to Virgina, I took 1600 photos. When I'm at a zoo or something, I can easily blow through 250 frames. Not only that, my camera's internal memory is limited. It can only take 4 frame bursts in RAW and 9 frames in fine compression or 19 at basic. Heck, if I turn up the compression and down MP size I can get 50 frame bursts. Continuous burst mode is one of the most useful things for taking pictures of parties, sports, children and animals.

Shooting RAW in those situations would require a much more expensive camera without that much benifit.

[chevmalfet]

Depends on what you want to do with the photos. For production quality—or if you want to edit heavily, like reproducing various film/darkroom effects—RAW is definitely the way to go. One issue that I find a bit dissappointing with my D70 is Nikon's Lossy RAW compression. I've run into a couple of instances where it appears to have a detrimental effect.

But for snapshots etc, and obviously for a faster finished image, in camera JPEG is good for most people. The most common gotcha is that RAW images upscale much more cleanly than in camera JPEGs do because of the in-camera sharpening.

And as far as long exposure noise goes, Digital Cameras, especially SLRs, don't have near the issues with long exposures they once had. I've taken photos with quite long exposures on my D70 that aren't noticeably noisier than a similar scene well lit.

[masherscf]

My only real issue with shooting RAW is the limited internal memory of my Nikon D50. I can only get 4-frame continuous bursts in RAW mode.

They've spent a lot of time solving the long exposure noise problems.

[chevmalfet]

I know it's not much of an improvement, but I've found I get an extra frame in burst from Sandisk's faster CF cards (Extreme III, IV) on the D70, before it hits the slower burst rate. I haven't tested JPEG burst, but as the Nikons write to CF before the burst is finished I suspect JPEG burst is improved as well.

[masherscf]

I know it's not much of an improvement, but I've found I get an extra frame in burst from Sandisk's faster CF cards (Extreme III, IV) on the D70, before it hits the slower burst rate. I haven't tested JPEG burst, but as the Nikons write to CF before the burst is finished I suspect JPEG burst is improved as well.

I get about a 9:4 ratio from 6.1 MP JPEGs on fine compression. to 6.1 MP RAW. Same ratio after they save to the memory card. The faster memory card might give me a few more. The D50 has a much slower burst rate than the D70 anyway, only 2.5 per second. It's usually enough to get nice pictures of the kids who don't sit still.

[whoisscott]

this would be a cool effect to learn... I'm sure there is a way to do it, but i don't have a clue

[masherscf]

this would be a cool effect to learn... I'm sure there is a way to do it, but i don't have a clue

1. Get a tripod.

2. Put your camera on it.

3. turn the flash off

4. point the camera at come steets

5. set the timer and stand back.

[whoisscott]

how about a photoshop way....

[masherscf]

how about a photoshop way....

Well, that's Bert's specialty.

[tokenuser]

.... and doing it without the post procesing makes for a much cooler shot.

[noclip]

Geez, what lens was that first photo taken with? It looks to be something thoroughly ridiculous like a 7mm (full frame) fisheye.

[chevmalfet]

15mm fisheye according to the EXIF on a full frame (35mm) Canon. As far as I know 10mm is the widest digital compatible lens, and many that will work that wide do so poorly on a digital.