Photography Tip: Long exposure tutorial with Scott Kelby

In this clip Scott Kelby shows you how to take a artistic long exposure photo during the day using a B+W 10 stop ND filter. Scott covers all the camera settings and gear needed.

Enjoy:
Nikon D600 | Nikon D7100 | Nikon D800 | Canon 5D Mark III | Canon EOS - Rebel T4i


Recommended Reading:

• Scott Kelby's Digital Photography Boxed Set
• Master Lighting Guide for Portrait Photographers
• 500 Poses for Photographing Women
• 500 Poses for Photographing Men
• Light It, Shoot It, Retouch It: Learn Step by Step How to Go from Empty Studio to Finished Image
• Secrets of Great Portrait Photography: Photographs of the Famous and Infamous
• Shooting in Sh*tty Light: The Top Ten Worst Photography Lighting Situations and How to Conquer Them

Clear enough, but he didn't explain why (or how) he came up with a 2 minute exposure.

Was a lucky guess, I guess.

Nice one...

Mathew, I'm thinking that he used that magical video tool of trying it before hand then rolling tape...

He's got every pricey lens and body (and Profoto light) money can buy. And pro photog friends that will set up the lights (and take his light readings) for him.

He's taken some good pics with all that gear and money to travel, but sorry, but he hasn't paid his dues yet to make it into the pro book.

His travel photography is just that -- travel photography. It isn't journalism. He has no connection to his subjects. He's the rich white capitalist who takes advantage of them.

There's no heart or originality in any of his work. Just more pretty pictures. Fodder for his Flickr account.

JMO

Maybe his 2nd 100K will be better.

MLKstudios wrote: He's got every pricey lens and body (and Profoto light) money can buy. And pro photog friends that will set up the lights (and take his light readings) for him.

He's taken some good pics with all that gear and money to travel, but sorry, but he hasn't paid his dues yet to make it into the pro book.

His travel photography is just that -- travel photography. It isn't journalism. He has no connection to his subjects. He's the rich white capitalist who takes advantage of them.

There's no heart or originality in any of his work. Just more pretty pictures. Fodder for his Flickr account.

JMO

Maybe his 2nd 100K will be better.

He's shot for reuters and gettys a numerous amount of times. Has also been the biggest influence over digital photography and is critically acclaimed for his work.

You sound nuts.

Maybe a little.

I'm an old film shooter with a different set of "masters". Not those created on the internet, but those with a sense of humanity. Who are NOT driven by greed.

If he offered his new iPad app for free, I'd give him a break. But getting his friends to write for him then taking credit for it. And THEN charging n00bs a fee to read it, is just wrong.

Like the camera, you learn about light and move on. It isn't the goal.

Charles you might be right on that one! Maybe there was an explanation that wasn't in the video. I just know that while I may not know a lot yet about digital photography I could explain what I did in the darkroom and how I came up with the settings I used etc. (And if I didn't remember I'd look at the notes I kept at the time).

I was wondering what the point was of using a really really dense filter in the first place, til the end of the video and found out it was to get a picture of silky water. Other than that I didn't really figure out why you'd want a long exposure in broad daylight. Some more discussion or examples would be helpful.

I never heard of Scott Kelby except on this board so started looking up some of his info. and it seems to be more about photoshopping than taking pictures, at least what I've found so far. That to me is more of an editing technique.

Taking pictures for something like Getty isn't necessarily that meaningful, at least in sports Getty seems to have created a monopoly that makes them plenty of money but tends to restrict photographer's rights. I had the opportunity to meet an NHL team photographer and his choice was to work for Getty and work within their restrictions or lose his job. Sometimes things aren't all they seem to be.

He's good at teaching Photoshop. I've read some of his books -- he has a great sense of humor.

On the web, he has the "Midas touch" so many people follow him.

But what he teaches photographically is the wrong way to go. His method is to buy lots of gadgets and take pictures for fodder (or money). Nothing with heart.

I'll just call him Midas from now on, and those who are caught up in his Steve Jobs' Effect will know who I mean.



BTW that same photo could be taken later in the day, and not require an expensive 9 stop B+W ND.

icepics wrote: Charles you might be right on that one! Maybe there was an explanation that wasn't in the video. I just know that while I may not know a lot yet about digital photography I could explain what I did in the darkroom and how I came up with the settings I used etc. (And if I didn't remember I'd look at the notes I kept at the time).

I was wondering what the point was of using a really really dense filter in the first place, til the end of the video and found out it was to get a picture of silky water. Other than that I didn't really figure out why you'd want a long exposure in broad daylight. Some more discussion or examples would be helpful.

I never heard of Scott Kelby except on this board so started looking up some of his info. and it seems to be more about photoshopping than taking pictures, at least what I've found so far. That to me is more of an editing technique.

Taking pictures for something like Getty isn't necessarily that meaningful, at least in sports Getty seems to have created a monopoly that makes them plenty of money but tends to restrict photographer's rights. I had the opportunity to meet an NHL team photographer and his choice was to work for Getty and work within their restrictions or lose his job. Sometimes things aren't all they seem to be.

Working for getty's means you have a top skill set, and you are consistant. Having restrictions is one of the reasons it has prestige.


Matt, calling somebody greedy because they are successful is a baseless quip.
Not all photography is based on journalism so stop bashing people that work outside of that realm.

Your new mantra, Scotty....

"Midas is good, Midas is good, Midas is good..."

Rinse and repeat.

After you get past the gear lust, and when you get to your second (or third) 100K, it'll begin to make sense.

Promise.

That does look to be a pricey filter unless you'd be using it a lot. I don't live near any scenic mountain streams or anything that it would be much use for me. More info. on how else you might use an ND filter or on techniques that don't involve buying specific equipment would probably be more useful, but others might find it interesting or helpful.

Scotty the most I know about Getty is what has happened in sports, and was probably before you got into photography. From what I understand, a team photographer works for the team, not Getty. In hockey Getty contracted w/the NHL to provide 'road' photos, which makes sense as the team photographers don't usually travel w/the team. (Well they did back in the day of the Speed Graphics). Anyway a major issue from what I understand was Getty taking over 'providing' home photos that they really have nothing to do w/taking. And expecting the photographers to provide photos that any team in the league could use but weren't really compensating them for that type usage.

The nice thing in the minors is that when I was taking photos for marketing purposes, those photos were for the team (and what would I want w/pictures of dasher board ads anyway?). But beyond that they didn't restrict my ability to take photos or make money w/my images if I wanted to.

MLKstudios wrote: Your new mantra, Scotty....

"Midas is good, Midas is good, Midas is good..."

Rinse and repeat.

After you get past the gear lust, and when you get to your second (or third) 100K, it'll begin to make sense.

Promise.

Being condescending doesn't change the fact that your off base.

icepics wrote: That does look to be a pricey filter unless you'd be using it a lot. I don't live near any scenic mountain streams or anything that it would be much use for me. More info. on how else you might use an ND filter or on techniques that don't involve buying specific equipment would probably be more useful, but others might find it interesting or helpful.

Scotty the most I know about Getty is what has happened in sports, and was probably before you got into photography. From what I understand, a team photographer works for the team, not Getty. In hockey Getty contracted w/the NHL to provide 'road' photos, which makes sense as the team photographers don't usually travel w/the team. (Well they did back in the day of the Speed Graphics). Anyway a major issue from what I understand was Getty taking over 'providing' home photos that they really have nothing to do w/taking. And expecting the photographers to provide photos that any team in the league could use but weren't really compensating them for that type usage.

The nice thing in the minors is that when I was taking photos for marketing purposes, those photos were for the team (and what would I want w/pictures of dasher board ads anyway?). But beyond that they didn't restrict my ability to take photos or make money w/my images if I wanted to.

Things have changed. Not talking about the past, my point is to be shooting for them says something about your skill set.

... or your access and your gear.

I get what you mean, I just see the situation differently.