Photo Basics: Shooting At Night Without A $US2000 DSLR

@smegz: With a name like Smegz, I am not surprised. ;)

(We all see what we want to see.)

@Curves: For some reason, when I read this comment I saw "I can see this as being a big wiener with Giz readers."

smegz

@junyo: you do realize mechanical stabilization is rated 2-4 stop advantage right? nah you knew otherwise why would you say that, your just making a funny.

lilaliendog

@Pixelologist, Esq.: At this point, I am not sure if we were ever talking about photography. Even I am confused.

@Curves: It pains me to criticize such an otherwise delightful comment...but a fast lens is actually what you want for nighttime shooting. Fast lenses let in more light than slow ones.

But if we're NOT still talking about photography, I defer to your insight.

I have a D700 and guess what, you still need good technique to make good images. You can't just shoot at 6400 ISO and hope for pro quality images.

tzakiel

@dambo29: Damn it!!! I want my preview button back!!! Correcting grammar ---> "He did totally MISS it."

@UnderLoK: He did totally missed it. It's kinda sad yet amusing to see these types of things happen, like a car crash of sorts...

@Curves: Hahaha nice! And yes, it applies to both!

Two different ways to go, both pretty cheap if you already have a digital camera.

1. The ultra pod I tripod, [pedcopods.com] and a point and shoot camera (I use a Pentax Optio s5z which fits in a slightly bent Altoids tin). Fits in a pocket, is cheap and has a velcro strap you can wrap around railings or tree limbs, etc. Once the camera is steady you can turn the iso down and it doesn't matter. Use the self-timer to prevent vibrations from the shutter release.

2. If you have a digital SLR buy a film camera that uses the same lens mount on eBay or at a yard sale. The 50mm lens that comes with them is usually much faster than most lenses that come with DSLRs and even significantly faster than the f2.8 premium zooms. If you can find one with an f1.4 50mm so much the better but I bought one for $20 with an f1.8 autofocus lens which I use most of the time. If you haven't bought your DSLR yet, buy one with stabilization built into the body: Pentax, Sony, Samsung, Olympus. Of course if you can afford it, a wider fast lens such as the Sigma 20mm f1.8 or a 30mm f1.4 would be better. 50mm on a DSLR is a bit long and magnifies the shake, but for $20 it can't be beat!

Bruce Alan Horn

@chicagoandy:pellet rifle

rte148

My tip: use a tripod.

You can get el-cheapo ones from worstbuy that will do the trick until you want to pony up for a real tripod.

Set a short 3 second delay to minimize vibrations from pushing the button. Then exhale. Repeat or burst.

If you're not using a tripod, then one other thing you can do is to stick the camera in burst mode.

Squeeze the button, and then hold it down. Chances are that the second or third shot will be much less wibbly than the first as you've already performed the physical action of pushing the button by then.

Otherwise, most of the night stuff I've been mucking with has been with 30-second or longer exposures on a tripod. For example, this was shot with a nifty fifty under nothing but moon/starlight and a passing car:

[www.flickr.com]

This was one of the first night shots I ever took with my D80, when a fire broke out on a ridge about a mile away:

[www.flickr.com]

@FireZingr: I'm almost positive you're talking about B&H. I didn't manage to stop in, but I will definitely have to check it out when I'm there.

Sorry, accidentally hit submit...

Shooting in Jpeg only is the equivalent of getting prints with no negatives. The best you can do is make shoddy edits to a hard-set interpretation of the original.

Sorry yo sound harsh, it's just true.

technocoy

To: Anyone with a digital camera,

Please don't ever listen to digital photography advice from Ipranal again. That is all.

Seriously, unless you NEVER plan on going back and tweaking your photos in any way and unless you are the most bad ass photographer ever to the point that you KNOW you get the shot every single time on your tiny 2.5-3.0 screen, always, always, always use RAW.

Period.

technocoy

@ryusen: If we are still talking about photography, I would think the ideal lenses are long and slow.

And even if we arent still talking photography.....same applies.

@lpranal: I would say NYC would be the best place to get it fixed. I was there in 2004 and remember a BIG camera shop on the corner but I cannot remember what street it was on but it was a HUGE store and they had EVERYTHING!! plus I think I remember seeing a repair section/counter if I am not mistaken. I just wish I could only remember the name/location for you. sorry

FireZingr

Remember, MLU (mirror lock up) and a remote shutter release are your friends, and most DSLRs have them now a days. Also, RAW is your friend as well. I wouldn't necessarily say you need a fast lens for this, as i have taken some great shots with my 10-22mm...

Flagarant-Resident

@Curves: i'm sure many readers wish they had the long fast lenses required...

ryusen

@lpranal: I have to disagree because there are many cameras that have HORRIBLE jpeg conversion. You end up losing a lot of dynamic range even though the camera itself can be quite good. Nothing beats having RAW files and a proper conversion software. For example NX2 with D700 RAW files.

vqro

FireZingr

@chicagoandy: I knew you were from Chicago before I saw your name, just from the message. Chicago has some horrid, disgusting street lights and I hate them. Unless you use custom white balance (pretty easy with modern DSLRs) you'll find it very difficult to correct, even shooting in RAW. If you can get a CBL disk, you can use that... or use a white napkin or something like that to set the white balance. Of course this depends on your gear.

vqro

My suggestion is to NOT use flash, unless you're capturing a subject up close. I see many people with their flashes on while taking a picture of a city skyline from far away. It won't reach and it'll just light up ambient dust and stuff and make your picture worse. The same goes for people who go to concerts and take flash photography from far away. It doesn't help.

vqro

@Colin Cassady: I think you missed the bus my man... That is, unless you were talking about talking about some voyeuristic activities.

@Windhawk: Shoot color film. It doesn't have a true black d max so the longer you expose the more compaction you get. It also looks more natural than any digital HDR I've ever seen. It does take a bit of playing with to get the times down right. Depending on light and aperture you're looking at an 8-120min exposure.

@Curves:
Yeah I've actually had problems with this in the past, I live up on a hill and it'd be great if I could get some decent pictures of the town I overlook at night. Great article!

Colin Cassady

I've had good luck with setting the exposure to a much longer length, like 1 - 2 seconds especially if one can put the camera down. ALSO, put the camera on a delay of a second or to so you can push the button then have your hands completely off the camera.

kdorff

@nikkor: Failed to mention, it's a manual focus AIS lens from around the late 70's. Perfect optics, but It currently needs repair (the aperture gets stuck) Anybody know a place in NYC that can fix it? I'll be there for a week in a few days.

@WWJD to keep Michael Jackson off the boy angels: Gotta disagree with the RAW suggestion. I used to shoot RAW, and then switched to JPG. Getting more captures on a single memory card and getting the shot right in camera has given me far better results than any measly advantage RAW has. It does have a slight advantage as far as post-processing latitude goes, and especially if you're doing nitpicky work like high-end interiors or product photography, RAW is the way to go. But for everything else, JPG works perfectly.

Here the set of my Nighttime shots of downtown Charleston, WV taken from Fort Hill. I used a tripod with a remote shutter release on my Canon XSi DSLR. The bridge that is different colors in some pictures is one that some benefactors paid a few million dollars to have fitted with color changing LED's so every few seconds the color of the bridge changes. It's really very lovely and makes for some awesome shots especially when it is blue or green.

[www.flickr.com]

FireZingr

@lpranal: 50mm f/1.4 for $70? I can't seem to find any for under $250 right now. You might be mistaken for a 50mm f/1.8 which is going between $80-$100. Nonetheless, great shot.

@Ambiguously Unfunny Syrax: ROFL

FireZingr

@RedEye: yeah, i know what you meant. The word itself hurts my brain, nothing to do with you.

@lpranal: OOOHHH Man I WANT that lens!!!!!! WOW $70 I am SO jealous!!!

FireZingr

BREAST= Breath Relax Exhale Aim Squeeze Trigger.

Oh wait. That is for shooting guns. Still, for photos same applies. Oh, the heavier the lens, the better, within reason.

SigmundTheSeaMonster

What if you own a P&S that's actually just a POS?

Single biggest win for me has been Canon's IS-series stabilized lenses. I can shoot 1/6 second handheld using good breathing and careful handholding, even with the relatively slow 17-85 lens from my 20D.

@lpranal:....that was supposed to be a reply to the reply above BTW....

..hence why I put it inverted commas..
Those settings I use are just so that I can take pictures in low light. Not for any other reason, 'Arty', 'Artsy' or otherwise...

@Windhawk:

You might want to check out the Pentax K-7. It has some interesting built-in HDR features. See [www.adorama.com] and [tinyurl.com] for more details.

@RedEye: while I agree with you completely about the ISO thing, I can't stand the term "Arty" (or it's more popular varient, "artsy"). First it's not even a descriptive word, and as such has no meaning- there's a million different kinds of art, and only a handful apply to photography, let alone this specific style.

I can think of a hundred different words to describe the look of a grainy silver gelatin print, but artsy isn't one of them, unless you're talking about morons that add the film grain effect to every single shot they take in photoshop. If you're not aware of the history or significance of the technique or style you're attempting, it's just going to end up being another wannabe imitation.

@WWJD to keep Michael Jackson off the boy angels:
since you're in nature where nothing will be moving

Aside from rocks, just about everything in nature moves.

I, like others, advocate the use of a remote. Or if you want to start getting fancy ( and provided your camera supports it.. ) mirror lock up AND a remote ( obviously after you have set your camera on a stable platform.. ).
And low ISO, not hi ISO. Unless you shoot in ( or convert to ) mono. You can get away with a lot more noise then ( it looks 'arty' ). I have a low-light custom setting on my D200 that uses maximum ISO, JPG and Mono. Pictures look quite cool with that...
A fast lens if you want to capture low-light action stuff without resorting to a flash...Like this :) ( if the link works... )
[www.flickr.com]

My trick: Hold it real still, and click very fast before the focus has time to adjust. I get many blurry ones, but usually 1 out of 3 are good.

mykalt45

@chicagoandy: a) Custom White Balance, b) Post processing/Photoshop, c) shoot black & white film.

@WWJD to keep Michael Jackson off the boy angels: Thanks!

@Andrew Steven Midthune: No, he means if you set it down somewhere, that allows you to set a longer exposure time to let in more light. And using a faster lens is all in the name of getting more light to the sensor.

@redkamel: And if you don't have a remote, you can set the timer and then let the camera do its thing. On most DSLRs there should be a 2 second timer.

@Poison_Shroom: But what do you do when Oscar the Grouch decides to come out and sends your camera flying?

If you absolutely don't have space for a tripod, tie a length of fishing line to a camera mount eyelet. Stand on one end (tie a loop in it) pull the camera taut at the other, and you've got yourself a kind-of stabilizer. This tip sits firmly in the "better than nothing" category.

What I've never mastered is how to color correct for the awful orange light coming from low-pressure sodium street lights.

What technique to people use to get rid of that awful hue?

_Am

@Andrew Steven Midthune: I think it means a slightly longer exposure time than you normally would, given the aperture is wide open.

I would say my number one advice is: Dont even try handheld. Put the camera somewhere/tripod it and use a a 15 dollar remote. Dont crank the ISO.

I once saw a beanbag tripod mount someone made with a piece of wood, a screw (for the camera) and a beanbag. Its a good project,

redkamel

@dirigoDIGITAL:

dpreview.com That's ALL you need to know.

sharkync

nice pics

clr550

Using a longer exposure will help when you don't have a tripod, but you need a faster lens?

That doesn't sound right....

Andrew Steven Midthune

Finding a surface is one of the easiest stabilizers you can find.

Some of my photo buddies were amazed at the idea of putting the camera on top of a trash can to do a long steady exposure at night.

Poison_Shroom

@WWJD to keep Michael Jackson off the boy angels: Anything longer than that, and the sky is completely black, regardless of shutter speed.

Actually in most cities, the sky is never completely black, as the smootz in the atmosphere reflects the city lights. Even relatively short exposures - 15 to 20 seconds - will pick it up.

junyo

Buy a faster lens - 1/4 with a f/5.6 kit lens is 1/60 with a f/1.4 prime (albeit with less DOF). Throw in some IS and you're good to go.

Gorillapod - Packs smaller than the tiniest usable tripod. And if you've got a railing or a signpost you've got a tripod.

String tripod - Ditch that silly ass 'stabilizer' and go with a proven winner.

junyo

@dirigoDIGITAL: First advice I give anyone shooting is to always shoot in RAW. Photoshop RAW editor is very forgiving with exposure settings. Also, try and keep your ISO below 400. I know the cardinal rule is to use a higher ISO setting at night, but you always increase ISO noise, which unless you want your photos to look good in black and white, I would avoid using a high ISO. High ISO can be compensated by using a longer shutter speed, somewhere around 2 to 8 seconds, since you're in nature where nothing will be moving, try 20 seconds to allow the most light to come in. I should also mention not to use the on board flash or mounted speed light. If you can or have the equipment, use slave speedlights around trees. However, that kind of defeats the purpose if you want natural landscape photos at night, but works well if you want portraits at night. Like I said, I could rant and rant, but the best advice I or anyone else can give is to go to Costco or online and get 20 to 30GB worth of memory cards and just shoot, shoot, shoot.

Dreaming of built-in HDR, mmmmmm....

@Curves: So would photos on taking tips in the dark :)

Stikman008

A little lens goes a long way: This was from my (now sub)$500 D50, and an old 50mm 1.4f Prime I picked up for ~70 dollars.

At the top of these buildings you're going to be swaying a bit, so it doesn't matter how good of a tripod you have when it's mounted on something moving. Doesn't normally matter, but at night with long exposures it can. That's why I loves me some wide-open prime lens shooting.

lens or camera stabilization system and it's night and your into photography wtf are you doing without a tripod.

lilaliendog

@WWJD to keep Michael Jackson off the boy angels: Going to Yellowsone in a week. Tips / Suggestions? Bringing Olympus e410 and mono pod.

For example, recommendations for which should be my default lens (ZUIKO Digital 14 - 42 mm F3.5 - F5.6) or (ZUIKO Digital 40 - 150 mm F4.0 - F5.6).

[www.flickr.com]

When you buy a camera, know what you're going to use it for. If you prioritize night shooting, you can get a cheaper camera that's strong at low-light shots. I love my Panasonic Lumix LX3...great wide angle & fast lens. Definitely the best point and shoot I've used for low-light shots. http://www.flickr.com/photos/42987002@N00/3590418176/in/set-72157619069672139/ (this is with a tripod) http://www.flickr.com/photos/42987002@N00/3122187772/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/42987002@N00/3461417046/ (no tripod)

YardleyJahoovafat

@Ellipsis marks are ... my friends: I did a lot of night shooting without a tripod and sometimes there just isn't anywhere to set your camera down. After getting a tripod and a wireless shutter remote I don't really enjoy shooting at night without them.

audioPICNIC

Honestly, shooting with a tripod can be quite a liberating experience. Especially for someone who is naturally quite shaky, such as myself.

More photo tips please. Thank you.

I would suggest using a tripod. Especially if you want really great shots without ISO noise. Here's a shot I took of Downtown Portland...

[www.flickr.com]

Depending on what you're wanting from your photos, the best time to take night photos is 90 minutes after the sun has set. Anything longer than that, and the sky is completely black, regardless of shutter speed. The picture above was taken 30 minutes after the sun has set. This photo was taken 3 hours after the sun has set...

[www.flickr.com]

Like I say with every photograph post. Don't be scared to go out there and experiment. No matter how many times you are taught something, you most likely won't be a great photographer until you actually shoot enough pictures. Also, because of Photoshop, your junk 1-star photos could be turn into amazing shots...

[www.flickr.com]

[www.flickr.com]

Tips on taking photos in the dark....I can see this as being a big winner with Giz readers.