shooting lights @ night

Not sure where this thread goes. ADMIN pls move if not appropriate here.

I spent one evening shooting night scenes/xmas lights in my 'quaint' New England town, foolishly thinking I might capture some of the holiday 'spirit" (main st houses all decorated, street lamps, etc). Just about froze my tush off but thinking about all the beautiful photos kept me warm.

using my 20-35 EF F2.8, I tried to lower my ISO as much as I could dependent on the subect. No tripod which limited my range.

Anyway, some pix were blurry -- too slow --, some blurry -- lens @ 28.? --, some underexposed, some blossomed at the lights/also full moon.

In short, they all stunk. All 1.5 gig worth

I'm also finding this same problem shooting room interiors w normal artificial lighting, i.e. lamps, etc.

So I need some advice for shooting with the above lens (the fastest one I've got at the moment). A tripod I understand but settings/exposures, etc ideas would be very much appreciated. If you think the lens sucks, feel free.. I'm open to all thoughts on this subject.

TIA

Hi Jan
Please post one or more samples so we can get a better idea of the issue.
Are you shooting raw?
The tripod is the best thing you can do to your lense, whatever lense you'll use!

All the best

What Nicolas said, and also that at f/2.8 you're going to have a shallow DOF and also most likely flare from point light sources like Christmas lights.

I can do a bit better with RAW but there's really no way to get a room light source AND the room to show detail unless you add flash and do some careful balancing. There's just too much dynamic range for a sensor or film to handle.

Yup, like Nicholas and Will said, tripod is a must. Don't be afraid of high ISO either although with a tripod you can be conservative.

Will_Perlis said:

There's just too much dynamic range for a sensor ...

Click to expand...

With a tripod you might bracket and HDR merge, or just use film like Erik did.

- DL

We need more of LF like that!

BTW, tripods are very important to al sharp photography no matter what camera. The heavier the better. Even wind can shake a tripod or a passing truck!

Asher

Well, some tricks to make it easier:
USE:
- fast and good lense
- a tripod (I agree, a heavy one if possible)
- ƒ8 if you want a bit of DOF, ƒ11 if you can
- 200 ISO is not bad at all if nothing moves
DO:
- lock the mirror
- If some items are moving and you want them sharp, increase ISO until you reach the right shutter speed but remember, the lower the ISO the higher the DR...
- If you want to merge many pics for HDR, nothing must move between shots unless you want some "special effects"
- Push gently on the shutter button
DON'T:
- put your arm's weight on the camera body
- breath
- beleive in IS if you're using a tripod

good luck and enjoy the results!

1600 ISO:

One word:

Magnificent!

Asher

3200 ISO Hand held:

3200 ISO - Hand held:

OK, one more:

another day in Miami - 1600 ISO - Evrything was moving...

Hi Nicolas.
I just simply love your picture of the boat still being worked on, the contrast of the working man and the table, which I assume was set up for the new owners to celebrate the birth of their new pride and joy, is just magnificent.
No wonder you are a well sough after nautical photographer, one of these days, (read years) when I get my (very much modest) boat, I would love for you to take pictures of it, now how much was your hourly rates?
Did I say I love your work? ;-)

Will_Perlis said:

There's just too much dynamic range for a sensor or film to handle.

Click to expand...

Many sensors have more DR than you can get out of them - it is often the support circuitry that creates the noise floor that limits DR at the camera's lowest ISO.

All right, Nicolas. You're clearly master of the nautical night shots!

To your excellent advice I would add
DO
- use your camera's 2 sec shutter release,
- take your hands completely off the camera before the shutter trips, and
- use the viewfinder shutter if you have any light source behind you. It will prevent any light from flowing back through the eyepiece and contaminating the edges of the image.

I'll add two of my own modest entries to this jamboree.

Venetian Night at Chicago Yacht Club , 2004
ISO 800 (I think), handheld, EF 70-300 f/4 DO IS:


Chicago Outdoor Film Festival, Grant Park
ISO 400 (I think), mounted, 70-200 f/2.8L IS:

Ivan Garcia said:

Hi Nicolas.
I just simply love your picture of the boat still being worked on, the contrast of the working man and the table, which I assume was set up for the new owners to celebrate the birth of their new pride and joy, is just magnificent.
No wonder you are a well sough after nautical photographer, one of these days, (read years) when I get my (very much modest) boat, I would love for you to take pictures of it, now how much was your hourly rates?
Did I say I love your work? ;-)

Click to expand...

Thanks Ivan for your kind words
the 1st picture is part of an advertising campaign, that is developped during 3 years as a tryptic. This one is the 1st, the 2nd one (already posted in one of the OPF fora) is there, the 3rd one will be shot in Feb 2007.
In regards to your next yacht, my agenda is open! However, be aware that I don't charge per hour but per day...;-)

- use your camera's 2 sec shutter release,
- take your hands completely off the camera before the shutter trips, and
- use the viewfinder shutter if you have any light source behind you. It will prevent any light from flowing back through the eyepiece and contaminating the edges of the image.

Click to expand...

How could I have forgot that, of course! you're right Ken, thanks for adding...

BTW you're photo with the boat is nice too! even if the boat is not the subject, the group of singers seems to float in the air...
You could have also post one of your shots of the light towers in the Millenium Park, awesome!

This one is a Spanish night, hope Ivan will like it too!

Jan Rifkinson said:

http://www.bogartsdaddy.com/screen_dumps/_c3n3395.jp2

Click to expand...

Too bad, Jan, your link doesn't work, even if corrected like this:
http://www.bogartsdaddy.com/screen_dumps/_c3n3395.jpg
Can you check?
Thanks!

Beautiful work Nicolas.

As has been mentioned already, the value of IS technology when no alternative exists to a hand-held shot cannot be over-emphasized. Having a small bubble-level that fits in the flash-shoe is useful when no tripod is available as is opportunistic use of whatever props may be available to support your camera, using a pair of socks to bolster the lens. Primitive, but it works. As Nicolas's shots demonstrate, confidence is not misplaced in using higher ISO settings when necessary, despite the constriction of DR.

Nicolas Claris said:

Hi Jan
Please post one or more samples [snip]so we can get a better idea of the issue.
Are you shooting raw?[/snip]

Click to expand...

Nicolas, I dream of taking pictures like yours.

From all the advice it is clear that I made many mistakes. I think principally was not using a tripod -- it was in car trunk <g> -- because w/o that, my setting options were very much limited, i.e. more DOF, etc.

Putting that reality aside, I would appreciate any comments on settings that you (or anyone) care to make. These photos are completely untouched RAW -> jpg conversions. I know I can clean them up somewhat in post prod but that's not the point of this thread for me. I'm really interested in learning how to shoot low light/night shots w fast lens because I really like shooting in available light, don't like flash much even tho I will be getting one soon.

Church: shutter 1/25, f 2.8, ISO 1250, lens 20-35
http://www.bogartsdaddy.com/test-1.jpg

House: Shutter 1/13, f2.8, iso 3200, lens 20-35
http://www.bogartsdaddy.com/test-2.jpg

BTW, Nicolas, on a personal note, I see you are writing from Bordeaux. It's a small world as my very good friend (40 yrs) is Jean-Marie Chadronnier of Bordeaux. I visit Bordeaux quite often.

Bonjour Jan
Yes our World is small... I do not know your friend, but if you google his name you'll bet is well known in the vineyard community, more than that he has a great influence in the city and over the wine world... When you come around, give a call (I mean PM) and I'll come to taste his wine with you ))))))

I guess it's him: ...

In regards to your picture, I like the church, very simple, a bit of work, the gradient stairs, enhance a bit the color of the crowns on the door, the side wall and around the bell, a bit of USM, lightn a little, a touch of Noise Ninja et voilà!



For the other one it's a bit more tricky on a low res pic...
more sat, enhance sky, noise Ninja, take your shadow and the small sign in front off, sharpening....



this is all post prod on low res, so not easy, but from the raw I'm sure you get'em much better.

Otherwise, read above all tricks posted and you'll improve a lot! you started very well...

have a nice day

Night photography is some of the best fun you can have with a camera. Digital photography has made it so much easier than in film days. Within a shot or two you can pretty much peg the exposure you want to create. Once you realize that the camera's meter is not very useful for this task you are free to have your way.

Night and low-light photography do, however, present starker challenges for composition. Generally speaking, the dark heaviness of many subjects' surroundings and the relative brightness of your main subjects mandates that you "get to the point" more abruptly than in standard daylight photography. Like applying a dark paint to a light canvas you must decide how much darkness is just enough to convey the emotional and sensory nature of the scene in a small silent rectangle. Practice whittling your compositions, particularly night shots, down to their bare essence and then work outwards to determine how much is too much.

In the case of your images, using the moon as a compositional element can be very challenging. You must ask yourself what visual role the moon really plays in the scene? Would you be taking the picture if the moon wasn't there? Does its presence convey the right message with respect to your intentions? Pretty as it may be is it actually more of a distraction in the frame? Perhaps just using its soft, cold, blue shine on the subjects, rather than the orb itself, is a better strategy.

I have cropped down your images to illustrate my point of deciding how much is just enough.




Have fun on your explorations!

Jan Rifkinson said:

[snip] I need some advice for shooting with the above lens (the fastest one I've got at the moment). A tripod I understand but settings/exposures, etc ideas would be very much appreciated.[/snip]

Click to expand...

I'm sort of answering myself to thank all of you who contributed to & taking the time to answer my question(s). It has been extremely helpful to me. I take away the following basic point: a TRIPOD is really necessary for all the technical adjustments I should have made but couldn't because decreasing my ISO & increasing my f-stops would have resulted in shaky shots. I have two tripods -- I could easily have used one of them.

But here are two points which I'm still un-sure of:

(1) is the lens I was using worth much or should I change it? And if so, what lens would you suggest for a wide end, fast lens? I ask this because I read somewhere that the lens I was using proeduces soft shots @ f2.8. That can't help for night shots under the best of circumstances <g>.

(2) What is the best way to control the blooming lights? The moon is one thing but the electric lights are something else IMO. What's the effect of hi ISO & wide open vs droppring ISO & using a higher f-stop?

Because I shoot RAW I know I have a lot of latitude in post production & I'm going to work on my 2 submissions & re-submit them as a before/after effort but lights don't bloom to the eye & I'd like to get that level of adjustment in the camera if possible. I just don't understand the approach to achieving more of the eye's of balance with the 1D-MkII.

This is a helluva resource for anyone interested in photography. What a treasure.

Jan, the 20-35 f2.8 isn't canon's best WA, but then it isn't bad either - should be fine.

AFA blooming, usually a certain amount is fine. If it becomes an issue you might try bracketed shots around 2 stops apart then merge in PS using the dark shot for the blooming lights.

- DL

What Don said. You can see some blooming/flare in Nicolas' shots too, it's a question of how much is too much for you. I'd think getting rid of it totally wouldn't look natural either.

Don Lashier said:

Jan, the 20-35 f2.8 isn't canon's best WA, but then it isn't bad either - should be fine.

AFA blooming, usually a certain amount is fine. If it becomes an issue you might try bracketed shots around 2 stops apart then merge in PS using the dark shot for the blooming lights.

Click to expand...

What's the best WAz IYO?

AFA PS merging, I understand the concept, know how to bracket but don't yet know how to 'merge' but I'll figure it out.

PS. What happened to Nicolas' comments & his photos? They disappeared from the thread.

PS. What happened to Nicolas' comments & his photos? They disappeared from the thread.

Click to expand...

They're here now, - maybe the tide went out.

Strange... I have done nothing, just a good full night sleep...
One can never be sure of what can happen when you sleep, tsss, tssss…

Ray West said:

They're here now, - maybe the tide went out.

Click to expand...

Eeeeek.... no link "here". I'm getting paranoid. Maybe 'my' tide went out & I don't even know it.