3 ms·
I took some pictures when my (then) wife got her first DSLR using long exposure times at night of some buildings in Mexico, e.g., https://share.icloud.com/photo
by dhosek 3y ago
I took some pictures when my (then) wife got her first DSLR using long exposure times at night of some buildings in Mexico, e.g., https://share.icloud.com/photos/0ccsqWIBoU-CmT60CaZMopaLA https://share.icloud.com/photos/0ccsqWIBoU-CmT60CaZMopaLA
What surprised me was that with enough exposure time, the sky was blue, not black (I’d also note that this being 2008, the color change cannot be attributed to algorithmic processing of the image in camera).
- jandrese 3y agoThis shouldn't be that big of a surprise. The atmosphere is still there, it does the same thing to incoming light that it always does, your eye normally can't see it because the total amount of light drops the color filtering below the detection threshold of a human eyeball.
- dhosek 3y agoIt’s the sort of surprise that seems obvious once you see it, but isn’t so easy to predict. Without this experience, most people would guess that in a long exposure picture of the night, you would see a black sky with perhaps brighter luminaries and more easily seen objects on the ground, not a blue sky.
- aaronbrethorst 3y agohttps://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/
- dylan604 3y agoIf that was surprising to you, have you seen full moon long exposure images? It looks just like the day time. I have long exposures during a full moon, where at first glance it just looks like a random daytime shot, but when you look more closely, you can clearly make out the stars/milky way/etc. The water also has that telltale smoothing. I actually enjoy this style of photography, but it is so constrained by the short availability window. Essentially, it's a golden hour type thing. Once the moon gets too high, it's just overpowering. So just before/after moon rise is best.