Shooting at night - Help/advice needed
Discussion
Ive been out playing with the camera (fuji S5600) while on a trip to my aunt & uncles this evening.
I found a nice spot (The Manor Golf Club) which was nicely lit, if a little too colourful, I set myself up with the Burgundy Battlecruiser parked at a pleasing angle, set the camera up and snapped away.
Now my biggest criticism with the Fuji S5600 comes in here: The LCD viewfinder is a lying bastard
It makes the photos you take look absolutely perfect (unless you make a retard of it like I did for the first couple of weeks) but when you upload them to the computer, they tell a different story
They came out way too dark
I had the flash activated with the shutter speed reduced to about 1.5-2.0, the ISO set at 200 (I know a higher setting should've been used, but a higher ISO tends to make the shots look fuzzy) and the exposure set at F8
Still too dark
So I tried on the cameras night shooting mode
Looked good on the LCD display, but too dark on the PC
So my question is this (finally you sigh)
Is there any proven method for night time photography without using a portable lighting source????????
Or am I going to have to stick with sundown photography?
I found a nice spot (The Manor Golf Club) which was nicely lit, if a little too colourful, I set myself up with the Burgundy Battlecruiser parked at a pleasing angle, set the camera up and snapped away.
Now my biggest criticism with the Fuji S5600 comes in here: The LCD viewfinder is a lying bastard
It makes the photos you take look absolutely perfect (unless you make a retard of it like I did for the first couple of weeks) but when you upload them to the computer, they tell a different story
They came out way too dark
I had the flash activated with the shutter speed reduced to about 1.5-2.0, the ISO set at 200 (I know a higher setting should've been used, but a higher ISO tends to make the shots look fuzzy) and the exposure set at F8
Still too dark
So I tried on the cameras night shooting mode
Looked good on the LCD display, but too dark on the PC
So my question is this (finally you sigh)
Is there any proven method for night time photography without using a portable lighting source????????
Or am I going to have to stick with sundown photography?
When you say shutter set to -1.5 to -2 dop you mean you are using the exposure compensation with it set to -1.5 to -2? If so images will be up to four times too dark (two stops). Set the exposure compensation ( the +/- thing) to 0.
Other things to check:
If it really is dark then the camera will not be able to take a long enough exposure (I thing the S5600 is limited to 8sec like my old S5000, but may be wrong. This should be okay for most city night scenes however.
Your monitor may not be correctly calibrated. Try and get it roughly right. Without special tools there a few ways to improve your calibration. Google it.
Make sure your subject isn't on a light background or has really bright light sources in it as this may fool the meter.
Let us know how you get on!
Other things to check:
If it really is dark then the camera will not be able to take a long enough exposure (I thing the S5600 is limited to 8sec like my old S5000, but may be wrong. This should be okay for most city night scenes however.
Your monitor may not be correctly calibrated. Try and get it roughly right. Without special tools there a few ways to improve your calibration. Google it.
Make sure your subject isn't on a light background or has really bright light sources in it as this may fool the meter.
Let us know how you get on!
VxDuncan said:
Make sure your subject isn't on a light background or has really bright light sources in it as this may fool the meter.
Let us know how you get on!
I think that could've been part of the problem
What I meant was I had it so the shutter was really slow, as per the insutructions for night shooting
I'll post the results a bit later
Easy!
When a camera lens is focused at infinity, the rear principal point is exactly one focal length in front of the film. To find the front principal point, take the lens off the camera and let light from a distant object pass through it "backwards". Find the point where the image is formed, and measure toward the lens one focal length. With some lenses, particularly ultra wides, you can't do this, since the image is not formed in front of the front element. (This all assumes that you know the focal length. I suppose you can trust the manufacturer's numbers enough for educational purposes.)
So object to front principal point distance.
Si rear principal point to image distance
f focal length
M magnification
1/So + 1/Si = 1/f
M = Si/So
(So-f)*(Si-f) = f^2
M = f/(So-f) = (Si-f)/f
If we interpret Si-f as the "extension" of the lens beyond infinity focus, then we see that this extension is inversely proportional to a similar "extension" of the object.
Ok problems solved...and now to the real world...
I do quite a lot of night Motorsport photography I prefer not to use flash but do some times, I use very long exposure 3 seconds and up for static images. If you planning panning shots of race cars and stuff steady hands and a good panning technique.
www.gtphotosport.com/2006review/KPK_0039.html
www.gtphotosport.com/2006review/KPK_3702.html
www.gtphotosport.com/sebring2005/kpk_4429.html
www.gtphotosport.com/2cv2006/kpk_8039.html
When a camera lens is focused at infinity, the rear principal point is exactly one focal length in front of the film. To find the front principal point, take the lens off the camera and let light from a distant object pass through it "backwards". Find the point where the image is formed, and measure toward the lens one focal length. With some lenses, particularly ultra wides, you can't do this, since the image is not formed in front of the front element. (This all assumes that you know the focal length. I suppose you can trust the manufacturer's numbers enough for educational purposes.)
So object to front principal point distance.
Si rear principal point to image distance
f focal length
M magnification
1/So + 1/Si = 1/f
M = Si/So
(So-f)*(Si-f) = f^2
M = f/(So-f) = (Si-f)/f
If we interpret Si-f as the "extension" of the lens beyond infinity focus, then we see that this extension is inversely proportional to a similar "extension" of the object.
Ok problems solved...and now to the real world...
I do quite a lot of night Motorsport photography I prefer not to use flash but do some times, I use very long exposure 3 seconds and up for static images. If you planning panning shots of race cars and stuff steady hands and a good panning technique.
www.gtphotosport.com/2006review/KPK_0039.html
www.gtphotosport.com/2006review/KPK_3702.html
www.gtphotosport.com/sebring2005/kpk_4429.html
www.gtphotosport.com/2cv2006/kpk_8039.html
happy snapper said:
Easy!
When a camera lens is focused at infinity, the rear principal point is exactly one focal length in front of the film. To find the front principal point, take the lens off the camera and let light from a distant object pass through it "backwards". Find the point where the image is formed, and measure toward the lens one focal length. With some lenses, particularly ultra wides, you can't do this, since the image is not formed in front of the front element. (This all assumes that you know the focal length. I suppose you can trust the manufacturer's numbers enough for educational purposes.)
So object to front principal point distance.
Si rear principal point to image distance
f focal length
M magnification
1/So + 1/Si = 1/f
M = Si/So
(So-f)*(Si-f) = f^2
M = f/(So-f) = (Si-f)/f
If we interpret Si-f as the "extension" of the lens beyond infinity focus, then we see that this extension is inversely proportional to a similar "extension" of the object.
When a camera lens is focused at infinity, the rear principal point is exactly one focal length in front of the film. To find the front principal point, take the lens off the camera and let light from a distant object pass through it "backwards". Find the point where the image is formed, and measure toward the lens one focal length. With some lenses, particularly ultra wides, you can't do this, since the image is not formed in front of the front element. (This all assumes that you know the focal length. I suppose you can trust the manufacturer's numbers enough for educational purposes.)
So object to front principal point distance.
Si rear principal point to image distance
f focal length
M magnification
1/So + 1/Si = 1/f
M = Si/So
(So-f)*(Si-f) = f^2
M = f/(So-f) = (Si-f)/f
If we interpret Si-f as the "extension" of the lens beyond infinity focus, then we see that this extension is inversely proportional to a similar "extension" of the object.
Wow, you've explanined it so well.
It was a static shot and I was merely attempting to bounce enough light off of the surface of the car to illuminate it so to speak!
Shutter time was at 1.5-2.0 seconds I believe
After reading that post from happy snapper, I couldnt figure out the mechanics of the camera lens, but hidden in the text I did find the ultimate formula for toast
I was using a Uv filter at the time (I was shooting prior to dusk and forgot to take it off) which Im sure didnt help
Shutter time was at 1.5-2.0 seconds I believe
After reading that post from happy snapper, I couldnt figure out the mechanics of the camera lens, but hidden in the text I did find the ultimate formula for toast
I was using a Uv filter at the time (I was shooting prior to dusk and forgot to take it off) which Im sure didnt help
It looks to me the camera calculated the exposure from the street lights/floodlights, so it under-exposed the images. Flash wouldn't have illuminated the car as the on-camera flash is so weak that with the setting you mentioned it would've only illuminated the subject less than 3 metres away. It would've been better to position the car better so taht it could have good lighting on it.
BTW, UV filter would've made no difference at all in terms of exposure.
BTW, UV filter would've made no difference at all in terms of exposure.
Edited by Gemm on Tuesday 30th January 12:20
Gemm said:
It looks to me the camera calculated the exposure from the street lights/floodlights, so it under-exposed the images. Flash wouldn't have illuminated the car as the on-camera flash is so weak that with the setting you mentioned it would've only illuminated the subject less than 3 metres away. It would've been better to position the car better so taht it could have good lighting on it.
BTW, UV filter would've made no difference at all in terms of exposure.
BTW, UV filter would've made no difference at all in terms of exposure.
Edited by Gemm on Tuesday 30th January 12:20
Ahhh I see
when I was stood outside the Manor, it looked to be reasonabley well lit, but I guess it wasnt!!
Yep you've used an automatic setting and it's compensated for the light behind and around the car.
I'm a crap photographer but the one thing I have learnt for still and video shooting is to use a manual exposure setting so that you can chose the level of light you want.
It's easier to practice in daylight and on my camcorder I can see the difference in the screen if I change the exposure. I find use a skyline useful, you can see the difference in the quality of the detail of the ground - if you set it on auto you lose the detail of the ground (hills, trees whatever) but if you change it you can tone down some of the sky but pick up detail in the trees etc.
I'm a crap photographer but the one thing I have learnt for still and video shooting is to use a manual exposure setting so that you can chose the level of light you want.
It's easier to practice in daylight and on my camcorder I can see the difference in the screen if I change the exposure. I find use a skyline useful, you can see the difference in the quality of the detail of the ground - if you set it on auto you lose the detail of the ground (hills, trees whatever) but if you change it you can tone down some of the sky but pick up detail in the trees etc.
On the LCD screen, can't you set it to display the histogram along with the photo? The histogram makes shots like this a lot easier, as you can see the proportion of the photo at different brightnesses. Then it doesn't matter how much the LCD 'lies' - you can see exactly how well exposed your image is.
I usually do have the camera on manual, and Im certain one of those photos was taken with the manual setting, but I couldnt get the exposure right!
The histogram display eh......let me refer to my instructions
Ahh yes, the Histogram
Unfortunately it only shows me the statistics of the photograph after I have taken it, but it definitely does help...at least I can check the exposure on the shots and perfect them as needed!!!
My god I love fiddling about with a camer with this many options
The histogram display eh......let me refer to my instructions
Ahh yes, the Histogram
Unfortunately it only shows me the statistics of the photograph after I have taken it, but it definitely does help...at least I can check the exposure on the shots and perfect them as needed!!!
My god I love fiddling about with a camer with this many options
Edited by jagdpanther on Wednesday 31st January 10:42
jagdpanther said:
Unfortunately it only shows me the statistics of the photograph after I have taken it, but it definitely does help...at least I can check the exposure on the shots and perfect them as needed!!!
That's the thing with a digital - take a million photos and discard 999,999 of them. Compose, shoot, examine the results, change the settings to compensate, recompose if necessary and repeat. Experts will get it right first time, but there's no harm in getting the right result by a little trial and error.
Tuna said:
jagdpanther said:
Unfortunately it only shows me the statistics of the photograph after I have taken it, but it definitely does help...at least I can check the exposure on the shots and perfect them as needed!!!
That's the thing with a digital - take a million photos and discard 999,999 of them. Compose, shoot, examine the results, change the settings to compensate, recompose if necessary and repeat. Experts will get it right first time, but there's no harm in getting the right result by a little trial and error.
I agree
Photography would be tedious if we got it right every time and there would be no real sense of satisfaction for someone like myself
take multiple shots over and under exposed
put the camera on a tripod and let nature and natural light do the rest
street lighting can be a real bitch
have some fun at the side of the road taking shots of moving cars with a long exposure should get you used to your camera
also some camera let you tell them what the light source is
put the camera on a tripod and let nature and natural light do the rest
street lighting can be a real bitch
have some fun at the side of the road taking shots of moving cars with a long exposure should get you used to your camera
also some camera let you tell them what the light source is
splatspeed said:
take multiple shots over and under exposed
put the camera on a tripod and let nature and natural light do the rest
street lighting can be a real bitch
have some fun at the side of the road taking shots of moving cars with a long exposure should get you used to your camera
also some camera let you tell them what the light source is
put the camera on a tripod and let nature and natural light do the rest
street lighting can be a real bitch
have some fun at the side of the road taking shots of moving cars with a long exposure should get you used to your camera
also some camera let you tell them what the light source is
You know, I actually forgot about that
Duely noted old bean
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff