50 Beautiful Long Exposure Photos

Submitted by: milos87 8 years ago in Entertainment
http://www.pics24h.com/beautiful-long-exposure-photos/

Who said you need Photoshop to make a picture look amazing?
There are 68 comments:
Female 2,064
I liked the water ones a lot. Looked like fog.
0
Reply
Female 105
i think the waterfall one was really nice. ftw
0
Reply
Male 374
waterfalls and stuff were nice, but the traffic ones sucked.just annoying really
0
Reply
Female 133
Ive seen better
0
Reply
Female 310
i love photography! these gave me some great ideas for a photography project where you show motion
0
Reply
Male 792
patchouly, that`s not true about the lighthouse picture. Lighthouse lights brighten/fade in a cycle as they rotate.
0
Reply
Female 298
idontknow951
im not suprised, iab doesnt often use the word beautiful & mean it
0
Reply
Male 907
Okay, come on, I can`t possibly be the ONLY one that thought of porn when reading the title...
0
Reply
Male 119
i wish i had a good camera to do some nice long exposure shots.
0
Reply
Female 102
Those ARE beautiful! I really like #4!
0
Reply
Female 4,197
wow

I would love some of these types of photos done for my wedding

0
Reply
Male 4,290
The in-car one was my favourite. Lighthouse was cool too.
0
Reply
Female 60
Beautiful pics.
0
Reply
Male 190
Chewie is hittin the hypah drievz!
0
Reply
Male 516
taken at 880 MPH
0
Reply
Female 667
repost?
0
Reply
Female 103
My favorites were the lighthouse, the carousel, and that circular fountain with all the tubes.
0
Reply
Male 13
I just bought a DSLR camera. I can`t wait to try out some of these techniques.
0
Reply
Male 3,014
Taken at 88 MPH.

0
Reply
Male 619
Thank you for the explanation, patchouly.
0
Reply
Female 1,690
F*cking awesome. I love the water ones.
0
Reply
Female 1,436
I`m into photography so I adored these.

Many of these were taken with a soft lens over them. The majority were touched up with a variety of software programs but only to soften the pictures not to seriously alter them in any way.

All of them were amazing and completely beautiful.

0
Reply
Male 886
Whoa, SOMEBODY`S a bad driver! jk

0
Reply
Male 213
A lot of those were probably touched up with Photoshop, actually.
0
Reply
Female 146
they were all a bit same ish
0
Reply
Female 2,044
woaah, these are beautiful. (:
0
Reply
Female 208
Wow....cool....the second to last picture was cool! :D
0
Reply
Female 198
Those are fantastic.
0
Reply
Female 943
woahh i`m in love
0
Reply
Male 2,028
Wow, those are all stunning, especially the nature pictures. :-)
0
Reply
Female 323
these are sick. by sick, i mean cool.
0
Reply
Female 97
Let me add: TWEAKED. Yes.
Over 75% fake? No.
0
Reply
Female 97
patchouly, thank you so much for that explination. I`ve always wondered that myself(even with a nice bright silver car) on why they don`t show up. Still creepy as hell though. lol

Also, is it impossible nowadays to show something without getting over 9000 `It`s shopped.`?

0
Reply
Female 1,653
<:o
Makes my pitiful attempts at taking pictures seem like epic fails
0
Reply
Female 583
I like the one taken from inside a car. It looks like they`re travelling through time or something.
0
Reply
Male 985
The car ones remind me the game where u gotta move and last the longests without hitting the walls or hitting the trail of ur car or the other, hehe
0
Reply
Male 231
shopped
0
Reply
Male 4,745
SamVimes asked: "Why can you see the trails from the headlights of cars but not the cars themselves?"

The reason that you can`t see the cars, boils down to the amount of light, hitting the film or sensor.

A picture is formed on film because light slowly alters the chemical composition of the film. If you only have the aperture open a small amount, not much light is getting in. If a car, with it`s lights off drives by very quickly, it isn`t in frame long enough to reflect enough light onto the film and leave an image. However, the headlights on the vehicle are very bright. As they pass by the camera, they are providing so much light that they can leave an impression on the film and cause an image to appear.

0
Reply
Male 4,745
The lighthouse pic is fake. If you took a long exposure shot of a lighthouse, you would get a blur of lights all around. Not a bunch of static lines.
0
Reply
Female 2,289
If you scroll up and down really fast, it feels like your life is flashing before your eyes
:-D
0
Reply
Male 619
Dan on Sun asked a very good question at the bottom of the actual article:

"Why can you see the trails from the headlights of cars but not the cars themselves?"

Anyone know the answer?

0
Reply
Male 1,383
Like davymid said, they are photoshopped and I`ve done this kind of stuff and it you almost HAVE to photoshop it in order to get any good result. It`s not a bad thing, but you can`t take a photo like these ones naturally. If you see some of the before and afters of these kinds of photos, they really do look a lot different. Good pictures anyways ^_^
0
Reply
Male 2,125
These are awesome! Really nice pics ^^
0
Reply
Female 5,139
I think my fave was the carousel..it kinda made me dizzy, even thought its a still picture ^-^
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]The ones of the Disney fireworks aren`t long exposure pictures. It`s just the trail behind the fireworks themselves, if you look at the people`s heads you`ll notice they haven`t moved at all which is almost impossible, especially for no-one in a large crowd to have moved.[/quote]

Sorry, double post. Frankii, you`re kinda right. Depends what you call "Long Exposure". An exposure time of 1-2 secs will give an effect like this. As for "just the trail behind the fireworks", you need a slightly long expose to capture those. You couldn`t take this shot with a poin-and-click compact camera.

Christ, I`m such a nerd. Shutting up now.

0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]I CANNOT believe those aren`t photoshopped[/quote]

As others have said before, they may have been tweaked in photoshop in terms of levels, contrast etc, but the photography looks to be 98% done by the camera. Long exposure shots are easy enough to do, with a decent SLR and tripod.

0
Reply
Male 1,072
God who cares.....such photoshop politics
0
Reply
Female 437
The ones of the Disney fireworks aren`t long exposure pictures. It`s just the trail behind the fireworks themselves, if you look at the people`s heads you`ll notice they haven`t moved at all which is almost impossible, especially for no-one in a large crowd to have moved.
0
Reply
Male 336
Foxeh
i get what your saying, u can never tell when someone has used photoshop unless you really take the time to find traces of it in the photo, and it is possible that some of these photos have been tweaked. But with the technology in cameras today it is very possible to get these photos without photoshop plus the fact that in the darkroom you can expose different parts of the photo for different lengths of time to get the contrast/colors u want.
0
Reply
Female 4,028
I wish I could take pictures so lovely.
0
Reply
Female 111
Oh no, I`m not saying that the long exposure effect is a result of Photoshop tweaking. However, I believe that some of the colours/contrast levels have been improved. It`s not a bad thing, most photographers do it. Cameras, after all, can`t capture colours that aren`t there, no matter how good they are!
0
Reply
Male 87
That is amazingly beautiful!
0
Reply
Male 1,505
Pff. I was hoping `beautiful long exposure` referred to breasts.

<cry>

0
Reply
Male 562
I love long-exposure pics, but have neither the patience nor the equipment =/.
0
Reply
Male 3,819
Agreed, Loofah. Some hi-res pictures like this would look awesome on my desktop.

Very nice work.

0
Reply
Female 15,763
Some might be altered, but this long exposure effect is not a product of photoshop.
0
Reply
Male 895
I dont think the disney land one is long exposure as none of the heads are blurred...
0
Reply
Female 362
Foxeh, You`d be surprised at how beautiful pictures can be without the use of photoshop. The pictures were not tweaked. The pictures turned out that way because of the super high quality cameras that were used.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Yeah, the lighthouse. It would have been nice to have thrown in a few samples of astronomical images. Those are sometimes exposed for hours with HUGE "cameras" (large reflecting telescopes with digital imaging chips or film holders).

For some great examples, I recommend the Astronomy Picture of the Day Arcive

0
Reply
Male 3,301
They need to be bigger, for a desktop wallpaper.
0
Reply
Male 23
I love the lighthouse, also the others were awesome
0
Reply
Female 111
And where exactly does it say that those aren`t Photoshopped? They are indeed beautiful long-exposure photographs but I imagine some tweaking has still gone on in in Photoshop. ;) And there`s nothing wrong with that!
0
Reply
Male 882
the first one. wow.
0
Reply
Male 341
My favorite was definitely the lighthouse
0
Reply
Male 81
Six.
0
Reply
Male 1,853
I bet the cameras that took these cost more than what my first car will.

And my favorite is definitely the lighthouse. The head/taillights was repeated too often for me to like them as much.

0
Reply
Male 2,395
I CANNOT believe those aren`t photoshopped O_O
0
Reply
Male 13
Link: 50 Beautiful Long Exposure Photos [Rate Link] - Who said you need Photoshop to make a picture look amazing?
0
Reply