I only had one chance to get a good exposure of this shot early this morning before the sky began to lighten up and the stars faded. Good thing I used my special nighttime light meter to get it right!
I love that old barn just off the highway. I gaze at it everytime I pass by (and have even stopped a few times) wondering how/when would be the best time to shoot it. Nice star trails and you did a great job painting with a light source. I'm wondering if you used one of those high-dollar lights, and if they're worth the extra expense.
I just counted eleven different lights in my light bag that I have been using for light painting work (thank goodness they are not called "heavy" or I would have a heavy bag in addition to my normal camera gear!). I'm teaching myself how to do this correctly and have learned a great deal about it over the years. Like most things, you don't just walk out and take the photo - there is quite a bit that goes into it, much more than I ever realized. I started doing light painting back in the 1980's while shooting with my big Pentax 6 x 7 - each exposure cost me a $7 battery! (when I did a star trail photo - they only had enough juice for a single long exposure) We've come a long way baby. I'll probably start teaching some of this in the workshops, perhaps even an entire workshop devoted to light painting.
Is that special light worth it (costs over $1,000, but you get free shipping!) - I guess that all depends. Quality of light certainly is an issue here, just as it is with all photography. I can produce a nice image with a mag light, but I can produce a much better image with better lights.
Speaking of light, here is a second and quite different image I made this morning - this one was with my baby 35mm camera and Zeiss glass:
While I would be happy with either one, I'm with Rob and like the 2nd image better.
Posted by Glenn Carter on June 13, 2008 at 6:00 AM
Nice star trails Tim! I used to do star trails with my 6x6 many moons ago. It does take a lot of work. I never knew anything about painting light. (and still don't) Thanks for sharing.
Hi Tim both shots are very nice. I have been wanting to do some star trail shots but haven't gotten out and taken the time yet. What special light is it you use (a link would be good) and how is it different than some other spotlight? The painting with light is one I tired haven't at all either. Looks like you need a fairly strong light to reach the barn that is quite a long ways from you. Thanks for sharing as always.
Posted by Wayne Rhodus on June 13, 2008 at 9:21 AM
I like the Stars by Zeiss much better personally. The uniform distribution of light on the foreground being one reason.
The only star trail shots that I could claim were the ones Glenn Carter and I took of the old barn in the lost valley meadow during the first Spring Gathering in 2007. But they were very short star trails!
Here is one of the premium lights that produces really nice white light - Lupine Betty. Note that use of this light does not mean you will get a good picture - it is just one of the better tools available for producing great light - what you do with that light and all of your other tools is up to you... A doctor wrote me the other day to find out what camera produced such great images on my site - I sent him the list of all the cameras used over the past five years to produce those images - it was a very long list. I was temped to ask him what blade he used that made him such a great surgeon since I wanted to become one too, but I doubted he would have seen the irony in that...
Tim, both are great shots and very creative. I am with Gale, that light must put out a pretty powerful beam! I had a similar story about cameras yesterday when I was showing someone some of my pictures. the guy said you must have a really good camera to get those shots. I was tempted to use your story about the "Pots," but I just smiled and said the camera is pretty good.
Posted by Wayne Rhodus on June 13, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Lupine Betty ... a light and a price that even Thomas Edison would be proud of!!!
Actually the HID light of Lupine's that this new light replaces was called the "Edison." Most of these are used by bikers as a headlight. Is it possible that biking is a more expensive hobby than photography?
Biking is a pretty expensive activity, I've seen some that sell for many thousands. Probably depends on how much you're in photography for, but I'd say most of the folks reading the forum could get a pretty nice bike for what they've spent on photography (don't forget gas!). But $1000+ for a light does seem pricey.
From what little I have observed about light painting, it would seem that the more diffuse the light, the better for landscapes. Color temperature shouldn't be a selling point for for any light, since you can adjust the color balance in PS to taste. So I'm guessing the high price for a Betty is due to: 1) the high output intensity (1400 lumens), 2) the arrangement and design of the LEDs, providing a strong, smooth source of light, and 3) for a long time (six hours at max power). The titanium cap seems a little overdesigned, but weight is important to some people. However, for photography, it may actually be better to reduce the intensity of the light while illuminating the scene for a longer period of time, in which case a less powerful source would seem to work OK. It would be expensive for me to shoot film to experiment, but might be fun some hot, humid summer night. Speaking of humidity, Tim, do you use a fan to control condensation on the lens? I bought a battery-powered camping fan at Wal-Mart (cheap) that works great - it'll run all night on 8 D batteries.
I'd be interested in a workshop, but probaly not until after Nikon comes out with a D3x...
Hey man, once the x comes out your wife won't let you spend any more money for a long time!
I was doing a 6-hour exposure high up in the Cirque of the Towers in the Wind River Range, Wyoming one summer. At about 3 in the morning I got up to check the camera and found the landscape, and my camera and lens covered with 1/4" of frost - that's the only time I've never had issues with condensation on my lens. Digital exposures are so much shorter so I guess that helps. 8 D batteries - that must weigh a ton! I've got a 15-million candlepower spot light that has a 10" wide objective lens - that dude is pretty heavy too.
"it would seem that the more diffuse the light, the better for landscapes."
Sometimes you've got to use a spotlight since the subject is so far away, or because you only want to light up a small part of your subject - in fact sometimes you even need a "grid" over the spotlight to concentrate the light more. Other times you need a really wide, even beam, sometimes pretty dim, while other times you need all the light output you can get. If you get into this your light bag can get really heavy in a hurry!
Discussion
13 repliesIs that special light worth it (costs over $1,000, but you get free shipping!) - I guess that all depends. Quality of light certainly is an issue here, just as it is with all photography. I can produce a nice image with a mag light, but I can produce a much better image with better lights.
Speaking of light, here is a second and quite different image I made this morning - this one was with my baby 35mm camera and Zeiss glass:
Stars by Zeiss
The only star trail shots that I could claim were the ones Glenn Carter and I took of the old barn in the lost valley meadow during the first Spring Gathering in 2007. But they were very short star trails!
From what little I have observed about light painting, it would seem that the more diffuse the light, the better for landscapes. Color temperature shouldn't be a selling point for for any light, since you can adjust the color balance in PS to taste. So I'm guessing the high price for a Betty is due to: 1) the high output intensity (1400 lumens), 2) the arrangement and design of the LEDs, providing a strong, smooth source of light, and 3) for a long time (six hours at max power). The titanium cap seems a little overdesigned, but weight is important to some people. However, for photography, it may actually be better to reduce the intensity of the light while illuminating the scene for a longer period of time, in which case a less powerful source would seem to work OK. It would be expensive for me to shoot film to experiment, but might be fun some hot, humid summer night. Speaking of humidity, Tim, do you use a fan to control condensation on the lens? I bought a battery-powered camping fan at Wal-Mart (cheap) that works great - it'll run all night on 8 D batteries.
I'd be interested in a workshop, but probaly not until after Nikon comes out with a D3x...
I was doing a 6-hour exposure high up in the Cirque of the Towers in the Wind River Range, Wyoming one summer. At about 3 in the morning I got up to check the camera and found the landscape, and my camera and lens covered with 1/4" of frost - that's the only time I've never had issues with condensation on my lens. Digital exposures are so much shorter so I guess that helps. 8 D batteries - that must weigh a ton! I've got a 15-million candlepower spot light that has a 10" wide objective lens - that dude is pretty heavy too.
"it would seem that the more diffuse the light, the better for landscapes."
Sometimes you've got to use a spotlight since the subject is so far away, or because you only want to light up a small part of your subject - in fact sometimes you even need a "grid" over the spotlight to concentrate the light more. Other times you need a really wide, even beam, sometimes pretty dim, while other times you need all the light output you can get. If you get into this your light bag can get really heavy in a hurry!