[wgosma]

Folks,
I've done some searching but not found quite what I'm looking for, maybe you can assist? (camera is K-1)

I'm learning how to use "Interval Shooting" mode to capture/create in-camera composite image that will emulate the effect of a 'long exposure', such as is often achieved using 10-15 stop ND filters.

What I'm specifically looking for are some detailed 'guidelines' as to what interval settings to use to optimize the capture in various shooting conditions - most principally for:
-Outdoor mid day landscapes....with clouds, water, etc.

- Sunrise/Sunset landscape

If you can point me in the right direction that is appreciated!

Thanks / Bill

[othar]

You are not looking for interval shooting mode, what you need is multiple exposure mode.
You set your camera setting (shutterspeed, aperture, ISO) to get a good exposure and set the number of multiple exposures accordingly to the effect you want to achieve (e.g. single exposure 1/2 sec -> 30 exposures to get an image similar to a 15 sec exposure)

edit: you can use interval shooting too, but then you have to combine the pictures yourself in post processing on your computer.

[RoccoStiglitz]

In-camera Composites Using Creative Shooting Modes - Articles and Tips | PentaxForums.com

Pre K-1 but it still applys.

[wgosma]

In-camera Composites Using Creative Shooting Modes - Articles and Tips | PentaxForums.com

Pre K-1 but it still applys.

Thanks, and yes I did find and read this article. But, the article does not go into any detail about the time intervals, etc. that produce 'best' results - i.e. no recommended settings listed. A good overview article no question on that.
Bill

---------- Post added 07-15-2017 at 12:42 PM ----------

You are not looking for interval shooting mode, what you need is multiple exposure mode.
You set your camera setting (shutterspeed, aperture, ISO) to get a good exposure and set the number of multiple exposures accordingly to the effect you want to achieve (e.g. single exposure 1/2 sec -> 30 exposures to get an image similar to a 15 sec exposure)

edit: you can use interval shooting too, but then you have to combine the pictures yourself in post processing on your computer.

Looks to me like one can use interval shooting and the camera can be set to 'combine' the numerous frames into one single 'composite' image: "Interval Composite" is the setting I believe.

Thanks/Bill

[HarisF1]

Also a point to keep in mind is that these modes may produce excellent results but they use the shutter a whole lot more.

Not very pleasant to see your shutter count fly up after two or three of these, or a couple of time lapses.

I would recommend the purchase of an ND filter if you're shooting more than just the one-off image. I would rather cause wear and tear on something that's easier to replace, rather than unnecessarily causing extra shutter actuations.

[photoptimist]

The reason no one gives detailed settings is that it all depends on how fast (or slow) everything is moving in the scene and that depends on the objects, the focal length, and your distance to them. Someone could try to create guidelines but they'd probably involve a lot of math to figure of the motion of the object in pixels per second and then go from there.

Some general rules include:
1) For fast-moving objects (waterfall spray), you'll probably want a longer interval between shots (maybe a few seconds) to avoid getting a dash-line effect (unless you want that effect).

2) For slow-moving objects (clouds), you'll probably want a shorter interval between shots (e.g., "minimum") to avoid getting a parallel outline effect (unless you want that effect).

3) The best guideline is experiment, experiment, experiment. First take a single frame to check the exposure (try to avoid any clipped highlights because they can look really bad in the composite). Then take maybe a 5 to 20 frame sequence. Then do the full run.

4) Sometimes its impossible to replicate the ND filter effect with the way things are moving.

[Nuno Almeida]

I use it a lot, it is not exactly the same has a ND, mixing the files on pc gives more flexibility though, for example trying to recreate Titarenko masterful job, in camera will give average for all images, but if you combine them on pc manually you can choose some the images to be more prevalent.
And like everyone said, there are no exact numbers, it's a matter of informed trying, depending on the results you want

[wgosma]

The reason no one gives detailed settings is that it all depends on how fast (or slow) everything is moving in the scene and that depends on the objects, the focal length, and your distance to them. Someone could try to create guidelines but they'd probably involve a lot of math to figure of the motion of the object in pixels per second and then go from there.

Some general rules include:
1) For fast-moving objects (waterfall spray), you'll probably want a longer interval between shots (maybe a few seconds) to avoid getting a dash-line effect (unless you want that effect).

2) For slow-moving objects (clouds), you'll probably want a shorter interval between shots (e.g., "minimum") to avoid getting a parallel outline effect (unless you want that effect).

3) The best guideline is experiment, experiment, experiment. First take a single frame to check the exposure (try to avoid any clipped highlights because they can look really bad in the composite). Then take maybe a 5 to 20 frame sequence. Then do the full run.

4) Sometimes its impossible to replicate the ND filter effect with the way things are moving.

Thanks. Some of what you've stated above is basically what I meant by 'details'....some sense of guidelines based on one's actual field work. Those who have used this and done the 'experimenting' - such as in the article posted on this site in the articles and tips section - could lay down some specific data regards the images they've captured and point to that info as potential starting points for the newbie. I fully realize one needs to do their own testing for the type of images/conditions in which they will be shooting.

[wgosma]

And so some quickie experimenting at the busy beach this afternoon.

- 1st shot: single frame exposure

- 2nd shot: in-camera Interval Composite - from a total 60 frames shot at 2 second interval.

Bill

[robgski]

Nice effect

[wgosma]

Also a point to keep in mind is that these modes may produce excellent results but they use the shutter a whole lot more.

Not very pleasant to see your shutter count fly up after two or three of these, or a couple of time lapses.

I would recommend the purchase of an ND filter if you're shooting more than just the one-off image. I would rather cause wear and tear on something that's easier to replace, rather than unnecessarily causing extra shutter actuations.

Agreed, this is an issue. However, with a 300K MTBF on the K-1's shutter, unless one becomes a major interval shooting junkie I think we're good. I think I'd tire of looking a pic's with silky smooth water and blurred clouds long before the odometer gets anywhere near the really high mileage mark

Thanks/Bill

---------- Post added 07-16-2017 at 08:20 AM ----------

Nice effect

Definite possibilities here....I think I'll decide on my ND grads and holder, then think a while on solid ND filters - I've used the Haida ND's in the past with my K3-II and they're darn nice filters (near zero color cast, bit warm which is OK) and reasonably priced.

This is another tool that resides in the K-1's toolbox, some interesting & creative pic's could be had between using the interval and multi-exposure composite shooting modes.

Bill

[RoccoStiglitz]

And so some quickie experimenting at the busy beach this afternoon.

- 1st shot: single frame exposure

- 2nd shot: in-camera Interval Composite - from a total 60 frames shot at 2 second interval.

Bill

Average composite mode?

[wgosma]

Average composite mode?

Correct, 'average' composite mode....the only one I've tested. From what I've read this mode seems the more desirable to emulate 'long exposure'.
Bill

[amoringello]

Multiple exposure does a goto job at simulating log exposure with regard to the smoothing out of running water, etc... , but there are issues to keep in mind.

If your slowest shutter speed is fairly quick, i.e. 1/30s, adding 30 exposures together is not going to look the same as a 1 second exposure.
The problem is that anything that moves is going to have a starting and ending point for each image, slightly separated by the tie it takes the shutter to close and re-open.
When that is composited together (whether it be automatic in camera or later in PS), you're going to see those separate pieces.
A situation where this is especially noticeable is up close to water falls, where specular highlights are created as the water splashes. Instead of smooth water, you might get a hairy looking mess.

This works well when the exposure is long enough to cause some blurring to begin with, but you simply cannot add enough filters to get the full time you want.
I have had good results with multi-exposures where each is several seconds long.

As someone mentioned above, you're going to add some clicks to your shutter count. It was a bit shocking to up the count by several hundred and walk away with a few resulting images.
Regardless, it is not really a big deal, unless you find keeping your camera around is more important than the photos you want to take. :-) :-)

[wgosma]

Multiple exposure does a goto job at simulating log exposure with regard to the smoothing out of running water, etc... , but there are issues to keep in mind.

If your slowest shutter speed is fairly quick, i.e. 1/30s, adding 30 exposures together is not going to look the same as a 1 second exposure.
The problem is that anything that moves is going to have a starting and ending point for each image, slightly separated by the tie it takes the shutter to close and re-open.
When that is composited together (whether it be automatic in camera or later in PS), you're going to see those separate pieces.
A situation where this is especially noticeable is up close to water falls, where specular highlights are created as the water splashes. Instead of smooth water, you might get a hairy looking mess.

This works well when the exposure is long enough to cause some blurring to begin with, but you simply cannot add enough filters to get the full time you want.
I have had good results with multi-exposures where each is several seconds long.

As someone mentioned above, you're going to add some clicks to your shutter count. It was a bit shocking to up the count by several hundred and walk away with a few resulting images.
Regardless, it is not really a big deal, unless you find keeping your camera around is more important than the photos you want to take. :-) :-)

I've seen some 'interval composite' images that were created from a series of exposures that were each in the 2-4 second range as you've mentioned, pretty impressive. For mid-day shooting combining a polarizer, 3 or 6 stop ND filter with the 'interval composite' method looks like a potentially nice tool to have/use.

As far as the shutter count goes, well....to me it's like looking at the odometer on the car after a long roadtrip - relatively rapid increase in mileage, but then again....what value is a car if one does not take it out and drive it? Ditto for a camera, and every other gadget, tool or material belonging - nothing lasts forever. By the time I might get to registering 300K clicks on the K-1, well....we'll I expect digital photography may well have undergone some significant changes, time for some new gear
Thanks/Bill