Why doesn’t a longer shutter speed make this Christmas lights photo much brighter?
Asked 3/1/2019
5 views
2 answers
0
In a Christmas lights tutorial, the author says they changed the settings from about f/2.8 at 1/3 second to f/3.2 at 3 seconds to give the lights more presence. At first glance, that seems odd because the much longer shutter speed should add far more light than the small aperture change removes. Why wouldn’t the second image be massively overexposed? Is this explained by the use of flash or mixed lighting?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
7y ago
2 Answers
12
So, what you have here is a mixed lighting situation. The background and star notes are being lit via flash (check out their shadows. Nice and soft and from top to bottom. The main bulb cluster is on the left and yet it has no impact on those shadows) and the bulbs themselves are being lit...by themselves :-).
(There's probably a speedlight with a soft box on it or some other softening light modifier and it's placed north of the shooter, aiming down. When looking at lighting, always look to the shadows to get an idea of where it came from and how soft it was)
In these types of images, the flash is controlled by:
- its power level
- aperture
- ISO
The amount of light captured by the bulbs is controlled by:
- ISO
- aperture
- shutter speed
As you can see, there's overlap there but also two unique controls: the bulbs are the only thing affected by shutter speed while the flash is the only thing affected by changes to its power level.
So, in changing the exposure from f/2.8 to f/3.2 — the shooter brought down the amount of light processed from the flash (you can see that the highlights on the notes are less hot in the second example). They brought it down by 2/3 of a stop.
Now, that would also bring down the light captured from the bulbs by 2/3 of a stop. BUT, they also brought the shutter speed from 1/3 to 3s (~just over 3 stops), increasing the the total amount of light captured from the bulbs by ~2.5-3 stops.
So, in the end, the amount of flash captured was brought down while the amount of ambient (the bulbs) was brought up.
See technique 2 in my answer here. It's a similar mixed lighting shot and another idea for you to test mixing flash and bulbs. Mixed lighting is a whole subset of lighting technique, there is a lot to it, but damn if it isn't a lot of fun.
Originally by user67377. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user67377
7y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Yes — the likely explanation is mixed lighting with flash. In the tutorial, the main subject appears to be lit by an electronic flash, while the Christmas bulbs are also contributing their own continuous light.
That matters because shutter speed affects continuous/ambient light much more than flash exposure. A typical flash burst is very brief, so whether the shutter is open for 1/3 second or 3 seconds, the flash contribution is nearly the same. The longer shutter mainly lets in more of the room light and more glow from the bulbs themselves.
Aperture and ISO affect both flash and ambient exposure, but shutter speed mostly changes only the ambient portion. So increasing the exposure time can make the lights look richer or glow more without changing the flash-lit subject nearly as much.
Also, the article may simplify the process, contain a typo, or involve some post-processing. But based on the answers, flash plus ambient light is the main reason the image is not simply 9–10× brighter overall.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI7y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why do snowflakes look larger at a wider aperture?
Why do cameras use standard ISO, shutter speed, and aperture steps instead of infinitely fine settings?
Why do I see a dark half-ring in night photos, but not daytime shots?
How much better is f/1.8 or f/1.4 than f/3.2 for low-light shooting?
Why do cameras record f-number instead of the actual aperture diameter?