Why do moving objects sometimes disappear in long-exposure photos?
Asked 2/10/2013
3 views
2 answers
0
I’ve seen long-exposure images made with ND/NDX filters where a busy street looks almost empty, even though cars and people were moving through the scene. Why don’t those moving subjects always show up as obvious blur? How can they seem to disappear completely in a long exposure?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
13y ago
2 Answers
11
They're not gone completely, they are there with blur, but the effect a moving object has on the overall exposure is so small that we can't see it any more.
You could simulate this effect in Photoshop or other editing tools. Create an image with a black background and put a white dot or mark in the centre and apply increasing amounts of the motion blur tool. Eventually you reach a point where you can't see the white dot any more because the effect it has on the brightness of that area is negligible.
Or you can often see this effect multiplied in seascape images done with the ND filter. Because the sea never settles on one point it just becomes a mist, where the exposed rocks which are static, show through sharply.
This is what's happening in a long exposure with the ND filter, the length of the blur 'trail' of any object is so long that it doesn't visibly affect the exposure.
This is a spot with differing amounts of motion blur applied:

Originally by user14028. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user14028
13y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
They usually don’t disappear completely—their light is just spread so thinly across the frame that it becomes too faint to notice.
In a long exposure, the sensor keeps collecting light the whole time. A stationary subject projects onto the same pixels for the entire exposure, so it builds up strongly and appears sharp. A moving subject is recorded in different pixels as it travels, so its light is distributed over a much larger area. The faster it moves, the more thinly that light is spread, and the less visible it becomes.
If the moving object is only in any one spot briefly, while the background is visible in that spot for the rest of the exposure, the background dominates. The result can be a very faint blur—or effectively nothing visible at all.
That’s why busy streets can look empty in long exposures, and why moving water can turn into a smooth mist while rocks stay sharp. The ND filter doesn’t remove objects; it simply allows a much longer shutter speed, which makes this averaging effect strong enough to see.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI13y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Did the earliest cameras really require exposures lasting hours?
Can I simulate a 2-minute long exposure by stacking shorter exposures in Photoshop?
Why do trees look reddish in a long-exposure moonlit night photo?
Why am I getting star trails with an iOptron SkyTracker Pro at 400mm, even at 5 seconds?
Why are my family portraits blurry in bright light when using autofocus at f/4?