I'd say the flashing yellow worked out well. Yellow lights are bright compared to other colored lights, and often come out overexposed as compared to others. But because they were flashing, they were only on half the time the shutter was open, so they don't overwhelm the red lights. Very nice! A few basics for those who are trying to follow, but getting lost: A camera doesn't need a huge exposure to get plenty of light on a bright, sunny day--the kind of conditions where your own eye's iris is a tiny black spot. But at night, your eye has to dilate to get enough light in for you to make things out, and the camera has to do the same. A motion picture camera, like your eye, has only one way to do it. The aperture of the shutter opens wider, exactly like the iris of your eye dilating. There are other things that can happen, too. You can use faster film, which is grainier, but reacts to less light, in a film camera. You or your camera can switch to a lower digital resolution, which is a non-chemical way of doing the exact same thing. Your brain can adjust, and it does--it gives you useful images at night, but doesn't work anywhere near as hard at making out colors as it does during the day. But with still pictures, you get another choice. You can leave the shutter open, and let light in for a longer period of time. This is what causes trains to look like smears of light. But it allows you to capture more light at night. And on good digital cameras, each of these things can be adjusted. Resolution is that nerdy ISO setting. The lower an ISO number (settable on digital cameras, a characteristic of the film you choose on old-fashioned cameras) the more light you need to make a picture--but the richer the picture and the better it looks if you enlarge it into a poster. The higher the shutter speed number the faster the shutter opens and closes again. It takes a steady hand to get a clear picture at 60 without a tripod, and there's just pretty much no human who can get a clear picture hand-holding the camera at less than 30. 1000 is 1/1000 of a second, and will freeze hummingbird wings. 1 is 1/1th of a second--one full second, in other words--and beyond that many cameras require you use the 'B' setting and control your exposure time manually. The higher the f-stop number the less the shutter--the iris--is dilated, while the lower the number, the more wide-open the aperture. A wide open shutter seems like an advantage because it lets in more light. And it is. But everything in life is a tradeoff. The wider the shutter, the less depth of field you get. That means the thing you focus on will be clear, but anything closer to the camera, or farther away, will be fuzzy. A narrow aperture gives you a lot of depth of field, so even if there are things both close and far away in the image, they can all be in focus. Many of the pictures you see above are rich, and you could blow them up into a large size with no graininess, and everything near and far is in focus. That makes them great, right? Thing is, to get that richness requires a low numerical ISO. This requires more light be let into the camera. To get everything near and far in focus requires a high numerical f-stop. This lets less light into the camera. That, obviously, is a problem. So, if you were wondering why these guys are mounting their cameras on tripods and leaving the shutter open for minutes at a time, now you know! It takes that long to let enough light in a small shutter opening to fill out that low-numbered ISO and create such a sharp, rich nighttime shot. Because you know the flash won't light up the countryside for miles around, and give you the stars in the sky! Step one is turn that flash off, and figure out another way to get enough light at night!
acptulsa, Thanks for the real lowdown on time exposure photography. You broke it down better than I have, and even helped me better understand how ISO works. Bravo! I found ISO 1600 worked at first, but tends to be grainy; so I tried 800 and it works better. I'm going to experiment with lower ISOs 200 and 400, and see how that affects picture quality. I found ISO 1600 lets too much light in on long exposures beyond 30 sec in downtown areas with plenty of light pollution. 800 worked better, but I wonder how 200 and 400 will work out in the same locations? Stay tuned to find out, and maybe I'll be able to depict the difference ISO makes.
Great! You've been doing a great job with this thread, and I'm happy I could help! In case you want to know how it really works, slower (lower ISO number) film had more emulsion applied to the film, so it was thicker, and (in addition to tinkering with the formulas) those chemicals were applied more sparingly to faster films. There were literally fewer molecules on faster film. Fewer molecules didn't need as much light to all react fully, but when you blew it up to poster size, you could actually just begin to see the spaces between them. Digital cameras are very similar. They find ways to activate fewer pixels, allowing those that are working to react more completely more quickly.
I recall buying Kodachrome 25 back in the day. With an ASA of 25, the resolution was astounding, but it wasn't the best choice for stopping fast trains. K-64 was my best friend in film, though I always carried a roll of K-200 on vacations just in case. K-200 is derided by some Internet "experts", but I loved the stuff -- it was a life saver on grubby days and I treasure the captures it allowed. I do recall having an in-use roll of K-64 and another in-use roll of K-200, and as the weather changed, carefully rewinding while listening carefully so as to leave the tab out for threading back in later. I stuck with slide film as long as I could, finally buying my first DSLR six years ago. I quickly fell in love with the flexibility of digital photography. I desperately want a good quality slide scanner, but I see pros and cons with each model and manufacturer.
Crossing Gates at night are especially fun. Long exposure reveals patterns you never actually think about day to day. Let's see if we can stump anyone. How was this photo taken?
Love it! See, you can capture a flashing light in a still photo--if the flashing light is moving! Tripod set up across from an elevator, low numerical ISO, high number on the f-stop (narrow aperture), and unless that drag freight is moving faster than most, a shutter speed of 1/15th of a second or so. Fun stuff!
My guess is a neutral density filter, if not what acptulsa suggested. I experimented with low ISO to see how it affected the photos, and here's what I came up with. At ISO 1600, I cannot exceed a 2 min exposure, no matter the aperture value; the result gets overexposed due to the ambient light at Soo Tower. For kicks, and with nothing moving, I had nothing to lose, I set up a shot at ISO 100. I had the shutter open for 8 minutes! Canon T5, 18-55mm @32mm, ISO 100 f/18 480 sec I clearly understand how the ISO level affects light transmission to the sensor now. With this info, I feel I can trip the shutter before the head end lights up the scene, and leave it open until the FRED disappears. The noise levels are significantly better at ISO 100 than even 800.
So, setting my JVC camcorder focus on manual, I was able to catch this guy leaving shortly after sunset last night. I was amazed that it actually worked using my pickup as a tripod.
There's not much more I can cover with this thread, but if you have questions, please ask, and I'll do my best! Last lesson we learned how to take multiple trains to make unique effects. This lesson, we'll show how to make other effects. Sometimes you get a unit train, and the consistent types of cars can make neat effects. Using a time exposure, you can make an autorack look hundreds of feet long, or any car for that matter. Here, WB autoracks leave the long siding east of the Minot crew change point. Canon T5, 18-55mm @ 18mm f/20 634sec (yes, almost 11 minutes!) Same location, westbound grain loads this time; the DPU shoves hard as it heads west. Canon T5, 18-55mm @ 18 mm f/22 272sec The combination of a low ISO (ISO 100 now), tight aperture and long exposure creates these effects. From the Broadway overpass in Minot, eastbound double stacks get mooned. 23mm f/16 30 Sec There's a lot of light to use, so my exposure was much shorter, and the aperture much more wide open. Eastbound grain passes by the Minot BNSF crew change point and interlocking signals for Soo Tower. 18 mm f/22 60 Sec With a little light, similar cars, and time, you can make very unique effects.
Freezing action at night is easy (long exposure, static subject), but what about both freezing action and painting with light? Here's how. Light units make a reverse move, pause, and couple to a waiting block of autoracks. Canon T5, 18-55mm @ 32mm f/16 121sec The units paused just long enough to freeze a shadow of the locomotives in the image. Making these effects is a bit more challenging--it is very unpredictable when a train will move, or for how long it will stop. The next pair of images were my first intentional attempts to get frozen action and light streaks. Having a set schedule makes this a bit easier. Amtrak 8 typically runs on schedule in these parts, so I set up for the unique shot. 23mm f/11 148 Sec A 4 minute exposure started before the train left burned the lead power into the image, and leaving the shutter open for the light trails created this effect. 18 mm f/22 364 Sec I had to deliberately plan my exposure ahead of time to create this effect. I timed my exposure start about 4 minutes before the train departed, but could have used another 30 sec or so. This one is just for kicks, because I liked the final product. Amtrak 8 departs East Minot under the pedestrian bridge. Canon T5, 18-55mm@ 55mm f/9 322sec At this point, I suppose this thread is mostly finished up, unless ya'll want me to try new effects.
So there you have it HemiAdda2d -- a new business for you to sell the BNSF. Why pay top dollar to hire professional track structure inspection services when a contact to your firm can yield the same results for less? Working every night will be tough, but think of the cool shots you'll get in the process!
So, it's been some months since I have added to this thread. I have experimented a bit with higher ISO and even a strobe (thanks to a friend). Here's what I came up with. To capture starry skies, you need to use high ISOs (800+), you need a moonless and cloudless night to eliminate light pollution, and low wind is a plus. I set up at the intermediates at MP 16.7, and although the signal was dark, the ambient light was sufficient at ISO 3200 to yield way more stars than I could see with the naked eye. The downside was the shot is noisy, and noise reduction in photo editing software is typically destructive at the pixel level, and removes some detail. A key concept to bear in mind is the "500 rule": 500 Divided By the Focal Length of Your Lens = The Longest Exposure (in Seconds) Before Stars Start to “Trail” (https://petapixel.com/2015/01/06/avoid-star-trails-following-500-rule/) A case in point is this shot that broke the 500 rule, I think about 60 sec exposure, at ISO 1600. You can clearly see the stars "trailing".
Next is some fun. In winter, swirling snow can illuminate the beams of signals and headlights. This was a near blizzard at MP 18.9: At MP 12.4, the conditions were milder, but not by much. At CP 10.6, westbound DPUs quickly lose their definition in the swirling snow: This effect works in milder temps as well. At CP 10.6, this evening was rainy.
Some special effects? Sure! How about a streak shot of a train, with a train behind it? The profile of a former SP Tunnel Motor is clearly discerned behind the loaded frac sand train. Got a friend with a strobe setup? Try a time exposure and flash the strobe during the shot. The effect in this 32-sec shot is wild. Last but not least, when shooting time exposures, pre-focus using the focus zoom feature (if you have it), using a flashlight to dial in the focus exactly. If you don't, well, you know...
