Impossible Self-Portrait

[Frank Schmidt]

New to this DPSchool. Maybe someone can jog my memory on how this kind of self-portrait is done. I must have taken it in summer because I'm wearing shorts. Can't recall the details of the set up.
Only hint I get from the EXIF is about a minute exposure with ISO 500. Getting on in years and things are getting a little foggy. I think I drank several glasses of wine trying to get this right, too.

I only know for sure that it is not processed or layered because I 'm no good at Photoshop. It's all one exposure.

Anyone want to give it a try and help me remember the method?

Thanks !

ps I guess the stars are the handle of the Big Dipper (Plough) so Polaris must be above me and to camera right.

[Nicole]

All in all, it just looks like the ambient light from the fire has cast most of the light on you. So a 5 second exposure would seem pretty likely to do this. Looks like you were able to stay pretty still!

[Frank Schmidt]

EXIF says it was 57 seconds. Don't think I can hold a glass of wine for that long without blurring it. ?

[brianxlt]

looks like you may have had the flash fire on 2nd curtain, data shows Flash mode - flash compulsory - this would allow for the ambient light and stars as well as freezing motion and the foreground light.

[Frank Schmidt]

Well, yes Brian. The flash to light me seems right. Uh,no. That still leaves 56+ seconds for me to blur in the fire light.

I tried this again and still could not prevent blur from ambient light.

What got me started was this campfire scene the night before my nephew's wedding in Northern Michigan. It's a one second shot and nearly everyone blurred some what. Plus , the bridge, brightly lighted in background cannot be seen in this short exposure at night. The conflict between long exposure to get background and blurring; I can't figure it out but guess I did at one time.


Still no solution. ???

[mwatson]

There is most definitely a flash as the foreground is very well lit but the background falls off significantly. If it was ambient light I think there would be more lit up besides you and the driveway/road.

As for the second picture, I think you have a cool concept, even with the movement. But a second is still a very long time to get people to stand perfectly still and chances are you will never have that crispness you want.

With the pending darkness, you will need a flash of some sort. If you have a hot shoe flash with a good diffuser, you could possibly get the stopped action you are looking for in the second shot. The first shot looks as if it was done with a pop-up flash as the light is pretty muted and shallow.

What was your aperture set on? What was your method of opening the shutter? The reason I ask that is because 57 seconds is an odd time for a camera setting. It may be that my camera is old but it does not go past 30 seconds without being on the bulb setting and even for less than 30 seconds I cannot go in exact seconds.

My solution for the first photo is, your flash fired, and froze you in your spot. You got up, did not go directly to your camera, and once you did, closed the shutter and there is your photo.

As for the second picture, your aperture was way open to let enough light in to take the picture, which was a partial cause of your foreground blurring and a definate cause of your background blurring.

[Frank Schmidt]

OK, MWatson, thanks for the note !

This is really helpful ; pinning down the method of the self-portrait in the dark. I checked the data and it was aperture of f/8.

I'm not sure that makes a difference but that's what it was. I used to do quite a lot of outdoor night shooting so I'm sure it was on "bulb" setting. Most of my photos were and I used a tripod a lot and still do now (indoor work).

The aperture wouldn't matter relative to the speed of the lens with a minute's exposure and for depth of field, the stars in the background aren't really critical to focus: just points of light (or short trails in this case). From other night images with stars I know I had to leave the shutter open near a minute at medium aperture to get any stars to register at all.

As a matter of fact, I have two tripods and somewhere a cheapie slave flash.... so that could have been camera left in this photo and nearer me than the on-camera flash. That must have been it.


Stepping out the the frame after the flashes go off in the dark of night like you said makes good sense to me. I think your suggestion is right. That would work and would prevent blur. Since I'm right handed, it would make sense that I was holding the wine glass in my left hand. The other hand held the remote shutter release, probably.

But that still leaves the biggest problem. That campfire would be way, way too bright for a 57 second exposure. That would way over-expose the chairs; I don't think I could carry both of them out of the frame with the wine glass without blurring. Anyway, at near a minute for the campfire that would make the entire scene pure white. Or at least the building wall nearby.

No, there still doesn't seem to be a good answer to this; but I'll try shooting it again and maybe someone else can forward this question to an experienced shutterbug for the solution.

[mwatson]

The reason I asked about your aperture was not for depth of field but rather for the fire. Your aperture does in fact matter relative to the speed of the shutter in night photos. You have a tight aperture for longer exposures, you have a nice starburst effect from lights, if your aperture is open wider, and you blow out the light.

Nonetheless, the fire does not seem that large and could very well have done what it did in 57 seconds at f/8. There is a lot of ambient light from the fire on the ground.

I know you didn’t ask for it but if you are going to attempt this shot once more, I want to treat this photo as a critique so you can possibly get something a little more moving than this photo.

You have a self portrait here that doesn’t really do much for me. It looks like a snapshot instead. Try tightening up your frame to lose the driveway in the foreground. I would even lose the sky and go for just a bust shot or an over the shoulder shot since you have interest in getting the fire in the picture.

You could bring it in really close to your chair with a downward angle to give you a unique point of view; set aperture to f/13 range, the shutter speed as fast as your flash can sync, and bring it down a few stops for a fill light on your face. That way the fire is not blown out and there is as little light spillover as possible.

I hope I did not offend you, I just felt if you’re going to reshoot you have an opportunity to get something really cool. After all, the point of a self portrait is, after all, a portrait. Right now I see a dark nature photo with a person in it.

[Frank Schmidt]

Thanks for your thoughtful comments . I'm re-reading them to use the ideas for future night shots.

Here's one that is very nearly the same camera settings as the earlier self-portrait in front of the campfire. F/9 and ISO 500. Here's the thing....the parking lot lights are accross the highway a good half mile away. To prove to the skeptic that this is truly a night shot , you need the stars or star trails. This is going to give you very bright parking lot lights while trying to capture the stars.

This kind of a self-portrait isn't much without getting the stars in the scene. To me it's un-interesting if cropped to just the 'subject'; the sky is as much subject as ugly me ! When have you seen this done, at night, with stars? (maybe some other person has done it: just send me a link to the image so I can learn something from anybody who has ).

Now , it is also true that this shot took a lot more time because I had to paint the abandoned houses with spotlight to make them show up in pitch black night. Like 207 seconds of open shutter. But I think if the parking lot lights had been near me then the whole scene would be blown away.. Just my hunch.
Anyway, thanks for the thoughts (ps I like your 'decorated' bikes picture with your dad on one.)

[mwatson]

I can honestly say that I have never done star trails, but I can only assume it should be the same as landscape photography with something in the foreground and not just stars. The thing in the foreground is not the subject but an anchor.

The thing about portraits is the human is the subject. That is not to say you cannot place a person in a landscape shot, there should just be things to lead the viewer’s eye to person (subject). That bring said, the point of star trails is to have this really neat symmetrical trail of lights through the sky. Like you said, the stars are the subject.

But, when you place a person in a star trails photo, you run the risk of confusing the viewer into what the subject is. Just like sentence structure, you can only have one subject (I don’t mean one person; a group of people could be your subject).

So I really think placing a person in your star trails photo or vice versa does not lead to a solid photo.

Just my opinion, take it or leave it.