C.C.P.I.C.S. - Class 03 - Low-light Photography

[judynorth]

Noticed that your Webshot pictures are large and not the small size I post from Webshots. How did you get the large pictures posted?

 

Look in the righthand column in Webshots and you will see the option of different sizes for your pictures. Select the size that you want (size is in pixels across) and copy and paste the HTML text into your CC post.

[NMCruzzin]

Great Pics nordicus!! :)

I think photo 1 is my favorite! Thanks for sharing!

[Kane]

For those with the high-power zooms ... there is a conjunction of the Moon and Venus right after sunset today (27 Mar 09).

[Prairie_Gal]

Well, since you did say you didn't mind if I dredged, I will keep on dredging up the old threads. :D Maybe others will be interested and join in.

 

I am a total newbie at low light photography. I have always just used Auto on my P&S cameras. Anyway, I read the article and tried to digest all the info. It may still take me a while to "get it", but I wanted to try it out, so I turned off the lights, and with just the light from the computer screen, and the light from the speaker this is what I got. I tried several different F stops, just to compare, and this is the one that turned out the best,at F4. I must have had the camera set to ISO 1600 somehow. I will have to figure out how to change that.

 

 

I just can't believe that you can see the ridges on my nail, and read the words on the paper! This has opened up a lot of possibilities, and I can't wait to get out and try some real shots in low light. I will post some more, if that is OK, and get some feedback.

 

I really want to be able to get great shots inside in churches, etc. on our Med. cruise next year.

[boeckli]

Thanks for dredging this up - will re-read it and try and apply to my new toy ;)

[Prairie_Gal]

So, I went out this morning and tried to get some shots of the sunrise. I used AV mode and played around with different ISO's and F stops. How do you you know what combination to use? Is it just trial and error? If I was taking pictures on a cruise I wouldn't have the luxury of being able to stand there and try out different combinations for 10 minutes.

 

Anyway, this one turned out the best, and it is F4 and ISO 400.

 

 

In lots of my other attempts the trees in the background were very blurry, although maybe if I had used a tripod they would have been better.

 

I also tried to get some shots of the moon, but they were crap. I don't think my 35X zoom is powerful enough for a good moon shot.

[johneeo]

So, I went out this morning and tried to get some shots of the sunrise. I used AV mode and played around with different ISO's and F stops. How do you you know what combination to use? Is it just trial and error? If I was taking pictures on a cruise I wouldn't have the luxury of being able to stand there and try out different combinations for 10 minutes.

 

Anyway, this one turned out the best, and it is F4 and ISO 400.

 

 

In lots of my other attempts the trees in the background were very blurry, although maybe if I had used a tripod they would have been better.

 

I also tried to get some shots of the moon, but they were crap. I don't think my 35X zoom is powerful enough for a good moon shot.

 

In perfect lighting conditions you can use lower ISOs, 100, 200, 250, 320. The lower the ISO, the less granier.

 

In low light, higher ISO will assist, but, you will get granier the higher the ISO.

 

As you noted above, you had a pretty wide aperture letting in a lot of light, and your ISO was 400, which should make for good combo in the conditions you were shooting.

[zackiedawg]

How do you you know what combination to use? Is it just trial and error? If I was taking pictures on a cruise I wouldn't have the luxury of being able to stand there and try out different combinations for 10 minutes.

 

The VERY basic workflow to keep in mind...and it is BASIC! Is this: Always use the lowest ISO you can to still get the shutter speed you want; always use a middling aperture if possible for respectible depth of field and maximum sharpness; generally, let the camera choose the shutter if you're unsure - use Aperture priority mode, set the aperture and the ISO, and the camera can determine the rest. You can always dial in a little + or - EV to tell the camera to expose longer or shorter.

 

So when do you use higher ISOs? If it is so dark that you cannot capture the scene with the shutter speed you want, or if you are shooting something that might be moving or prone to move and want to use a shorter shutter speed to avoid any motion blur, or you need to use a smaller aperture to get the right depth of field but don't want the shutter speed to drop too slow.

 

Hope that's not too confusing. With low light night shots when using a tripod, you can usually get away with very long shutter speeds, so it's OK to set a smaller aperture and drop the ISO to 100 (or your lowest setting). You'll always get the best results, with the most detail, and the least noise, at the lowest ISO and a nice sweet-spot aperture that's right in the middle.

 

I also tried to get some shots of the moon, but they were crap. I don't think my 35X zoom is powerful enough for a good moon shot.

 

That should be PLENTY of telephoto power...even if your lens' wide end is 24mm, with a 35x optical zoom, that would yield 840mm - enough to fill nearly 1/2 the frame with the moon. However, moon shots are technically NOT low light shots. I know that may sound funny since it's out at night...but the moon is essentially a nice, big daylight surface - after all, we can only see the moon when it's daytime ON the moon, a.k.a. the sun is hitting it. So essentially, despite being at nighttime, the exposures you want to use on the moon are the same you would use on a sunny afternoon. If you have a big, megazoom type camera or lens, here's the easy way to get a decent moon shot: Put the camera on a tripod. Stick it in 'P' mode, and set the ISO to 100 (or your lowest setting). Set the camera's timer mode on. Set the camera to 'spot meter'. Aim the camera on the tripod so it's pointing at the moon, keeping the spot meter right in the middle - you'll see on screen how the camera will suddenly choose a normal, fast shutter speed and a smaller aperture, and the moon will go from looking like a white blown-out blon to a crater pockmarked greyish orb. Half press the camera to lock the focus on the moon. Then press the shutter to trip the timer, and get your hands off. Let the timer take the shot. You can usually get the best results this way - letting the camera's spot meter read the light on the moon as daylight and set the shutter speed appropriately. I've shot the moon with everything from superzoom P&S cameras to prosumers to mirrorless APS-C cameras to DSLRs - it's always easy using this method!

[Prairie_Gal]

Thank you Johneeo and Justin, you have been a big help. I was practising some more last night and this is what I came up with. Again, I was trying different combinations to see what worked.

 

 

I would like to learn how to make the first wine glass in focus, and the rest of the picture blurry. I know I need to use a smaller f stop for depth of field, but in Aperture priority the camera wouldn't go below f 4.5 under these low light conditions. I guess maybe I would need to go to full Manual mode, and I am not quite there yet. I have a Canon SX40, so it is a P&S, but does have manual settings.

[johneeo]

 

I would like to learn how to make the first wine glass in focus, and the rest of the picture blurry. I know I need to use a smaller f stop for depth of field, but in Aperture priority the camera wouldn't go below f 4.5 under these low light conditions.

 

I have the same problem with low light photography.

 

Have you tried messing with Exposure Compensation?

[zackiedawg]

I would like to learn how to make the first wine glass in focus, and the rest of the picture blurry. I know I need to use a smaller f stop for depth of field, but in Aperture priority the camera wouldn't go below f 4.5 under these low light conditions. I guess maybe I would need to go to full Manual mode, and I am not quite there yet. I have a Canon SX40, so it is a P&S, but does have manual settings.

 

Your limitation for that type of shot isn't the focal length or zoom of the lens - it's the maximum aperture which simply isn't fast enough. When doing shallow depth of field shots, you need very big apertures on lenses...on the order of F1.4 or F1.7. Your camera can't go that big, so that's a limitation you're stuck with.

 

There are ways to force a slower lens to get a shallower depth of field, such as using maximum zoom and getting much farther away from your subject, using the zoom to fill the frame - the longer the focal length the shallower the depth of field. This is where DSLRs have a huge advantage over P&S cameras because the significantly larger sensors have much shallower depth of field even with short focal length lenses, and when paired with superfast lenses like F1.4, you can really get extremely shallow.

[judynorth]

If you can shoot within 18" of the subject, would the macro setting work to blur the background?

[Prairie_Gal]

Your limitation for that type of shot isn't the focal length or zoom of the lens - it's the maximum aperture which simply isn't fast enough. When doing shallow depth of field shots, you need very big apertures on lenses...on the order of F1.4 or F1.7. Your camera can't go that big, so that's a limitation you're stuck with.

 

There are ways to force a slower lens to get a shallower depth of field, such as using maximum zoom and getting much farther away from your subject, using the zoom to fill the frame - the longer the focal length the shallower the depth of field. This is where DSLRs have a huge advantage over P&S cameras because the significantly larger sensors have much shallower depth of field even with short focal length lenses, and when paired with superfast lenses like F1.4, you can really get extremely shallow.

 

 

Well that is kind of depressing to learn I can't get bokeh with this camera, unless using the maximum zoom. I might be upgrading to a DSLR sooner than I thought. I just didn't want to be messing around with changing lenses so I thought this camera would do the trick. The largest aperture it has is F 2.7.

 

I guess I will have to keep working with it and see if I am happy with it or not. Quite frankly, without bokeh I won't be very happy.

 

I wasn't satisfied with the wine glass picture, so I worked on it some more and this is what I came up with. Still not 100% satisfied, but better than before.

 

 

 

 

[zackiedawg]

Macro mode does allow a camera to focus on something much closer to the camera - used in conjunction with more zoom it can help, but unfortunately you'd likely not be able to get your whole scene in the shot, because it would be too closeup! It is the big problem with P&S sensors - they're really really small compared to DSLRs...and the smaller the sensor, the LARGER the depth of field. Not a problem for landscapes and such, but a problem when you want shallow depth of field photos with lovely blurred backgrounds with pleasing bokeh. A P&S superzoom like yours has a sensor that is about 12 times smaller than that of an entry level DSLR.

 

Now, there might be another option to consider: closeup lenses. These will allow you to shoot subjects from a bit farther away as if you're right up close to them - like macro work - but I've heard some folks using them from farther away to create a shallower depth of field, due to their magnification properties. No guarantees there - but something to maybe look into.

 

There's no substitute for distance though, in your case. If you could get those glasses about 4-6 feet away from the background, and get up close to them with the widest aperture you can get, you should start to get some nice blur in the background. Rather than put them up against a wall, consider shooting them out against the open room - the farther they are from anything in the background, the more blurred the background becomes.

[judynorth]

You are right, Justin. Looking back at the pictures that I have taken in Marco mode, most of them have little or no blurring of the background. I think that in a few cases I did a little post processing to get the blur. My DH has a DSLR and uses zoom to get closeups and does get a very short depth of field.

[Prairie_Gal]

Macro mode does allow a camera to focus on something much closer to the camera - used in conjunction with more zoom it can help, but unfortunately you'd likely not be able to get your whole scene in the shot, because it would be too closeup! It is the big problem with P&S sensors - they're really really small compared to DSLRs...and the smaller the sensor, the LARGER the depth of field. Not a problem for landscapes and such, but a problem when you want shallow depth of field photos with lovely blurred backgrounds with pleasing bokeh. A P&S superzoom like yours has a sensor that is about 12 times smaller than that of an entry level DSLR.

 

Now, there might be another option to consider: closeup lenses. These will allow you to shoot subjects from a bit farther away as if you're right up close to them - like macro work - but I've heard some folks using them from farther away to create a shallower depth of field, due to their magnification properties. No guarantees there - but something to maybe look into.

 

There's no substitute for distance though, in your case. If you could get those glasses about 4-6 feet away from the background, and get up close to them with the widest aperture you can get, you should start to get some nice blur in the background. Rather than put them up against a wall, consider shooting them out against the open room - the farther they are from anything in the background, the more blurred the background becomes.

 

Thanks again, Justin. I am going to try that. I will put the table length-wise in the middle of the room, put the greenery a foot or so behind the glasses, the shoot on telephoto and see what happens.

 

When I decided to buy a new camera I didn't even know about bokeh, but since I got it my creative juices have really got flowing.

[Prairie_Gal]

Judynorth, I really appreciate your help too. What kind of camera do you have?

[zackiedawg]

I tried digging around a bit in my past for shallow DOF examples with a superzoom camera that shares the same small sensor - I used to have a Sony H5, and occasionally would try to get that look...the more distance between subject and background, the better the results...and placing myself a little farther back and zooming in a bit helped. Here are a few to give an idea that it's at least possible...

 

The background here is probably 4-6 feet away, and I was probably 5 feet away or so, using zoom to pull closer:

 

Full 12x zoom, with background about 15 feet away:

 

Standing about 4 feet back from the statue, zooming in on the subject, background about 10 feet away from the people walking behind:

 

Standing about 10 feet away from the actor, zooming in a bit, and with the people in the background around 8-10 feet behind:

 

Of course, it is much easier with a DSLR, with the much larger sensor and the ability to change to extremely fast lenses...but with the right set up and a little work, it can be done with a P&S too. Not always - there may be scenes where you cannot back up enough, or get enough space between the subject and the background...and you're stuck. But with a little space, it's possible.

[Prairie_Gal]

Hey Justin! I was out taking pictures today, and practised what you said about using the zoom, and look what I got. I was pretty happy to get some bokeh in my shots. Thanks for all your help.

 

 

 

[zackiedawg]

Most excellent, Judy - indeed, looks like your camera can do background blur just fine! I'm late seeing this as I'm on vacation up at Disney World - just popped on the web late at night before hitting the sack to see what I've been missing the past 3 days on the boards. Got another day of Disney tomorrow, and another night, then back home Tuesday and back to the work grind!

[judynorth]

Judynorth, I really appreciate your help too. What kind of camera do you have?

 

Sorry, Judy, I just saw your post. I have a Canon G9 which I suppose is "a little long in the tooth" since I got it in 2008. It still works for me though. My DH has a Pentax DSLR which is newer than my G9. He does all of his close-ups using zoom. Maybe I will try it myself with my G9. I seem to have a hard time focusing on the right thing when I have tried zoom for a close-up even with spot metering.

[bukieco]