Long Exposure : Fog

[katanaso]

Wouldn't it be "fuzzy" from the clouds?

IMO, it wouldn't look quite the same. 

Also, what MK-84 states.  It could be that short of a "long exposure".  We'd need to see the exif info on the original to see the actual settings.

[MK-84]

Another way to describe this.

And this is a fantastic photo:

If it was a close to instant "snapshot"  the lights on the bridge would be extremely sharp and you would likely see "rough detail in the clouds" (think 1/400sec)  <--semi-realistic number

at perhaps 1/4sec or maybe even 1/2sec you would see the blurring( soft glow) of those same lights, and a very smooth texture of the cloudbank. (thats what we see)

At several minutes or more you would notice that the moon moves fairly quickly across the horizon, and would not appear as sharp as it is in the photo.

(these numbers are made up, because I have no way of telling what amount of light was available, or the apeture of the lens, etc, or the fact that I honestly dont know the math to figure it out anyways)

But in laymens terms, this is kinda how it works

[ghi]

Beautiful! but the foreground is too dark;  filter or blended exposure/ HDR makes huge difference  for this kind of shots. I've seen shots with fog like this captured around Lions Gate  Bridge,Vancouver,BC.

[Pigslilspaz]

My favorite part is the subtle moon in the background.  How do you know it is long exposure?  When I was in San Fransisco it looked just like that?

Always fun driving to the city when the fog is at it's worst. You can't see either end of whatever section of the bay bridge you are on.

[Masherbrum]

I think it's long exposure -- probably 30 seconds or less.  They achieved the 'creamy' look to the fog rolling over the terrain, and it looks like the lighting on the bridge got a little 'fuzzy' (technical term).

The foreground might've been cleaned up in post though.

Very pretty picture.  It reminds me of a Bob Ross painting.

Agreed.

[Shuffler]

I think it's long exposure -- probably 30 seconds or less.  They achieved the 'creamy' look to the fog rolling over the terrain, and it looks like the lighting on the bridge got a little 'fuzzy' (technical term).

The foreground might've been cleaned up in post though.

Very pretty picture.  It reminds me of a Bob Ross painting.

Ahhh Bob Ross...... ordinary guy with extraordinary talent.

[curry1]

Another way to describe this.

And this is a fantastic photo:

If it was a close to instant "snapshot"  the lights on the bridge would be extremely sharp and you would likely see "rough detail in the clouds" (think 1/400sec)  <--semi-realistic number

at perhaps 1/4sec or maybe even 1/2sec you would see the blurring( soft glow) of those same lights, and a very smooth texture of the cloudbank. (thats what we see)

At several minutes or more you would notice that the moon moves fairly quickly across the horizon, and would not appear as sharp as it is in the photo.

(these numbers are made up, because I have no way of telling what amount of light was available, or the apeture of the lens, etc, or the fact that I honestly dont know the math to figure it out anyways)

But in laymens terms, this is kinda how it works

Ah okay I didn't realize long exposure could be so short.  But really if it is 1/4 of a second it is 100 times longer than a normal photo.

[EskimoJoe]

Look at the star above the moon.