Do NOT attach the remote trigger to the tripod. The reason to use a remote trigger is to NOT get in touch with the camera, neither by touching it nor by touching the tripod it sits on. You don’t want to wiggle the remote while shooting too.
I think Mike means to store the remote attached to the tripod so that he can find it when he needs it. At least, that’s the kind of thing I would do 
I plan to use a “tie strip” that goes through the small case that the ML-L3 comes in. Open that small case, and the ML-L3 will come out.
But you have given me another option - I could attach the ML-L3 or the case, using Velcro. Maybe that’s a better way. And yes, I completely agree with what you have written. If the ML-L3 is right there in front of me, it’s more likely I will get to use it.
(Check the revised image I just posted, following @Joanna 's idea to bring out the reflection in the water; the fireworks were so bright, I made the reflection much brighter to match, and the graduated filter made it look natural!)
yes in f22 i need f8 to get the same
(my diffraction starts at f7-8)
But surface and exposure amount (charge ) of photons is related.
So if i use the same amount as shuttertime i get less photon’s captured.
i am always confused in crop2 factor. (exposure wise. )
if i open up aperture 2 stops i get 4 times the light right? f22-f8 (2 stops)
So that would be enough to compensate ff-m43
So then i don’t need iso steps up if i use the same shutterspeed.
i had a calculator but i can’t find it now.
Nope. Still not right. No matter what the sensor size, it’s the exposure for a given photosite on the sensor that’s important, regardless of the area.
I also shoot 5" x 4" LF film and can assure you that it needs exactly the same shutter speed, with exactly the same aperture and exactly the same ISO to get the same exposure, even though the crop factor is around 0.28 compared to full frame 35mm.
The ISO, shutter speed and aperture I have given calculate to 7EV, regardless of film or sensor size.
What M43 does suffer from is more diffraction at smaller apertures but this is fairly much unavoidable in cases like this where the exposure time has to be 4 seconds to capture the trails so, to ensure not over-exposing and losing colours, there is no choice but to also use ISO 100 and f/22 whatever the film or sensor size.
Trust me on this one. I have shot formats from a Canon G10 compact, with a crop factor of 4.6, through APS-C at 1.5, 35mm full frame, 6cm x 7cm, 6cm x 17cm to 5" x 4" and, for every single one of them, I can use the same independent Konica spot meter to calculate the exposure without any consideration of which camera I am using.
The big difference is diffraction, but that is only really relevant when you start printing photos to A2 size and larger paper, when viewed from less than 1 metre away.
I have a panoramic image, taken on a Nikon D100 camera (6Mpx), five landscape frames stitched. It is printed to 1.5 metres long and from normal viewing distance, you can’t see any lack of sharpness. It only seems more important the moment you start pixel-peeping at magnification on a computer screen.
Using a ND filter could help. But as you say, looking at output from reasonable distances is much more tolerant than all the resolution data out there…
Indeed, but most M43 camera users don’t seem to bother with such niceties.
Here are two exports of two images, just taken on my Nikon D810 and my Canon G10…
Both taken at ISO 100, 1/160 second @ f/8, because f/8 is the smallest aperture on the G10.
Both treated with roughly the same adjustments to Smart Lighting and Tone Curve.
Apart from colour balance and contrast differences, it is obvious that neither one is anywhere near 4 stops differently exposed, which is what Peter reckons would be necessary with the G10’s crop factor of 4.
1 Like
Hi Peter,
have you ever experimented with the LiveComposite function on the Oly?.
Just an entry point Olympus Fireworks Tutorial | Live Composite Portraits - YouTube
My only experience was just after the function comes with a firmware update some time ago, but haven’t much experience and opportunities for tests.
Edit…and just for fun Salt Live Comp - YouTube
1 Like
Aha! So had I used f/22 instead of f/20, I might have improved the color from the fireworks slightly? Next time will do what you just wrote.
Only by a minute amount. It’s only ⅓ stop difference. The biggest “exposure” difference would have been to use 4 seconds to get longer trails and that still wouldn’t have lost enough colour to worry about.
- +1 stop for moving from 2 seconds to 4 seconds
- -⅓ stop for moving from f/20 to f/22
- total change + ⅔ stop
No problemo
something is scratching the inside of my skull in this.
there is a difference:
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm#exposure
Citaat The exposure is the average density of light (total light per area) for a given luminosity function that falls on the sensor while the shutter is open, which is usually expressed as the product of the illuminance of the sensor and the time the shutter is open. The exposure can be measured as the luminous energy density (lux · seconds – this is the standard definition and standard units) or as the average photon density (where 1 lux · second = 4.1 billion photons / mm² for green light – 555 nm). The only factors in the exposure are the scene luminance, f-ratio, shutter speed, and transmissivity of the lens (note that neither sensor size nor ISO are factors in exposure).
We can agree on is that ISO is just a brightnes for jpeg and some electronic gain (optimalisation) value is so that’s only for the camera meatering a value which it tries to factor in. Exposure stays the same no matter which iso.
sing the same example above, photos of the same scene at f/2.8 1/200 on mFT (4/3) and f/5.6 1/200 on FF will result in the same total light falling on each sensor, but the exposure will be 4x (2 stops) greater for the mFT photo, and thus the FF photographer would usually use a 4x (2 stops) higher ISO setting to get the same lightness for the LCD playback and/or OOC (out-of-the-camera) jpg.
This i remembered if i go 2 stops down, (5.6-2.2 is 2 stops) that should be even out the “exposure triangle” shutter apeture and iso. But reading this i start to think it’s backwards for the exposurelevel…
they get the SAME AMOUNT of total light (amount of photons hitting the surface.) But because its 4x smaller it exposes the sensor 4x more per pixel. (so amount of photons/pixel is 4x higher in the mft. (Aperture)
The exposure (light per area on the sensor) at f/2.8 1/100 ISO 100 is 4x as great as f/5.6 1/100 ISO 400 for a given scene luminance, regardless of the focal length or the sensor size. However, the lightness for the two photos will be the same since the 4x lower exposure is brightened 4x as much by the higher ISO setting. If the sensor that the f/5.6 photo was recorded on has 4x the area as the sensor as the f/2.8 photo (e.g. FF vs mFT), then the same total amount of light will fall on both sensors, which will result in the same noise for equally efficient sensors
My remembering thing(itch in the skull) was about “noise” vs exposure and sensorsize
So conclusion i was wrong you was right! 
any way:
diffraction starts around f8 and dropping til f11/f16 (m43) and then your in. So if DoF is a factor then i can go 2 stops “wider” and still have the same DoF. (supporting noise reduction and that was my main memory keeper. 
)
It’s that confusing that i every time think eh what was the correct rule?
1 exposure is always the same on the same Aperture.
2 DoF is cropfactor related
3 due DR of a sensor, noisyness can be a factor (which you can see on the base iso value of the camera)
solution use the extra DoF space if you can go wider in aperture to raise exposurevalue to get less noise.
(with the same exposuretime.)
I used to have a Gossen light meter (It’s still sitting around somewhere). It worked with all the cameras I ever used - without having to change exposure times or aperture settings dependent on negative size.
In a few cases, it’s okay to stop reading and thinking and accept reality as it is…
1 Like
If one were taking a static photo, with uniform lighting, things work one way. But with fireworks, think of one particle of matter, glowing bright red or green, recording it’s path on the camera sensor. This is very different.
One group of pixels will be exposed for maybe 1/100th of a second, before the particle moves, and hits the next group of pixels, and so on, until the particle uses up what’s burning, and goes dark.
There is a very bright spot moving across your sensor, creating a line. I suspect that if we were to take a photo of the fireworks at 1/100th of a second, there would be no “line”, just a “dot”.
Which is why the “lines” on my photo are not as long as they could have been, had I used 4 seconds, not 2 seconds. If I had used 1/100th of a second, the lines probably would have looked like bright dots.
If Im right, that explains a lot. ISO 25 would probably be a better choice, but our cameras don’t offer such a low ISO. Shutter speed has no effect on the “brightness”, only on the length of the lines. The aperture determines for us whether the pixels capture the color (red or green) or whether they get burnt out, so the lines become (white).
I’m probably not explaining this very well, and I might be wrong (Joanna??), but those assumptions I’m making do sound reasonable to me.
If I knew this the day before, and understood it, I would have known to have used an even longer exposure, to capture the full length of the “lines” for as long as the particles were still burning, and they would probably taper off at the end, as they burned out, and not stop abruptly, as my “lines” do.
auch! my hart is broken such a bias!
i have/purchaged this one:
K&F Concept nd(k) 2-400 variable
And a CPL…
He says iso 200, f8 f11 4 to 10 sec. (@joanna ok your right) See i am man enough to acknowledge that…
one thing which speaks for my case is i was too close on the firework the movement made everything too blurry in the low shutter speed (ok also my hands moved)
fun !
i don’t know if i have that on my panny
Well, to be honest, that is some of the most convoluted techno-babble about photography I have yet read. After 56 years of photography, I’m amazed I have ever managed to take a half decent photo, if I was meant to have comprehended that 
No wonder you got confused 
If I tried to teach that stuff at our club photo, I can confidently say that we’d have no members left.
It reminds me of a Large Format photography conference in Bourges that I attended about 15 years ago, where one speaker spent 1 ½ hours talking about flare, with all sorts of complicated formulae. In the end, he never mentioned two simple solutions: use multi-coated lens instead of uncoated and use a lens hood 
Be careful with variable ND filters, many (most) of them produce interference patterns at certain rotations.
1 Like
You are right. I am fortunate that the D850 goes down to ISO 64
No, you’re doing a much better job than that article.
Theoretically correct but, with the two limitations of minimum possible aperture size and minimum ISO, you were, as they say “stuffed” 
I have taken shots at 8 seconds when learning this stuff but, with those limitations, I ended up with colour loss in the trails. Would you believe I never thought of using ND filters?
Adding more glass in front of the lens is adding more potential sources of glare and reflections - but an ND filter might be a good idea to try. I’ve got a polarizing filter that uses up about two “stops” if I remember correctly. I wonder if that might be a good test for my next opportunity.
My Fuji X100f has a built-in ND filter. That’s another possibility for me. But I like what you helped me achieve with the D750. I wish I had an opportunity to test this before July 4th.
You are absolutely right… hang on, now you’re teaching me! 
Now that could be interesting
Unfortunately, our next fireworks will be on Bastille Day - 14 July, but our club is doing a light painting workshop in the next couple of months, so I’ll see if I get a chance to incorporate a test then.
I searched all over for upcoming fireworks shows, and my next opportunity will be July 4th. Given the choice of adding more glass in front of my lens, or using f/22, I think my safest bet is to just use f/22 and the longer exposure.
Then there’s “Equivalence, and all the rest…”
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm#exposure
I guess I need to go back to the beginning, his “Introduction”:
" This essay is not a guide on how to take “good” photos. Instead, it is a tutorial on the physics and technology of digital cameras and lenses with an emphasis on how to relate systems of different formats (sensor sizes) on the basis of the visual properties of the photo. If this sounds like something you’re interested in, please read on. If not, thanks for coming this far! Either way, please allow me to suggest spending a few moments to watch a hilarious video rant on the Nikon D3x, a quick lesson in photography, and a parody on tech-talk that many would say sums up this essay quite nicely. : )"
I guess I’ll go watch the things he links to, but I’m not sure why I would care about “how to relate systems of different formats (sensor sizes) on the basis of the visual properties of the photo.”