Night time shooting technique - discuss...

AnCatDubh · 22-08-2008 12:53pm #1

I came across a quick Youtube video the other day which intended to show you how to take that perfect night time shot. Well I was left a little under-awed to be honest. The chaps theory was reasonable, open up the aperture as far as it can go to let as much light in as possible and use a longer shutter speed with tripod to stabilise. Ok so far. The sample shot before and after were startling alright but not for the right reasons.

Now, I haven't done much night time shooting but I thought that the chap in the video may have missed a salient point in relation to aperture and its relationship to the depth of field in particular. When you open up your aperture (lets say below f9 or thereabouts) you deal with DOF which with lower f-stop values can be quite considerable (this can be great if its what you are after by the way). However if its a general scene, cityscape or the like that you are after, then surely an open aperture may not be very effective given the shallow depth of field that you will encounter.

While it may be counter intuitive, if shooting the night, are you not best going for an aperture of a higher f-stop number and accepting that your shutter is just going to have to stay open a little longer?

Ok. What's been your experience. Discuss please.

Ricky91t · 22-08-2008 12:58pm

Well i supose if you're shooting a cuty scene with people you want a the best shutter so they are'nt too blurry maybe having a small DOF is the price to pay.But for landscapes etc suposes just bump up the aperture to get the most detail

Fajitas! · 22-08-2008 1:14pm

I don't use a tripod for them (I hardly ever use one anyways) because it slows things down too much. They don't work with me

I'm happy to work with small depth of fields for this kind of photography, because I really don't want a whole pile in the image. There was a time when I loved the whole long exposures at night deal, but now I'd much prefer not having to take so much time over it.

But then again, I'm more of a people photographer than a nightscape photographer

AnCatDubh · 22-08-2008 3:09pm

hmnnnnn....... beer produces stuff that good - maybe i'm not drinking enough of it

Great set there Al. I like them loads and yeah that makes sense in terms of the closer portrait stuff. In such cases you've taken low f-stop values which has the added benefit of losing the background for you and it's obviously great for close up subjects.

The guy in the youtube video was actually shooting a Christmas scene lots of nice lights on a house and in the garden. He essentially dropped his f-stop as low as he could to get as much light through the lens and lengthened the shutter speed. His result was pretty awful to be honest.

So, as a rule of thumb - treat your aperture like normal, if close up then feel free to drop the f-stop down when you want to blur/get rid of the background. If a scene then push the f-stop up and accept the vastly greater shutter speeds required thereafter.

Dragan · 22-08-2008 3:19pm

Would it possible to post the link to the Vid?

Curious to see the results myself.

DaireQuinlan · 22-08-2008 3:23pm

welllll, there are probably two distinct types of low-light and nighttime stuff. First type is when you're desperately trying to get your shutter speed up to the bare minimum to avoid camera shake so you've your aperture wide open and you're pushing your 3200 film to 6400 and hoping to god the end result isn't indecipherably grainy. The second type is those relaxing long exposures with a handy and secure tripod and a cable release. In that case, yeah you'd probably want to stop down depending on what you were shooting.

AnCatDubh · 22-08-2008 7:40pm

Dragan wrote: »

Would it possible to post the link to the Vid?

Sure - I should probably have posted this originally but thought maybe it'd be better to see others experience without being tainted by anything the video might say. Here you go;

I think the theory of much of what he says is reasonable enough and probably a good starting place for most. I think if his example was a portrait style shot, I wouldn't have even batted an eyelid. Just his before was bad but the after was probably worse :eek:

If not wanting to watch the entire thing, he shows the before and after at about the 5 minute mark.

Cheers.

Fajitas! · 22-08-2008 7:45pm

What he's saying is exactly right, right down to the point of the perfect exposure - It's no wonder it's such a bloody boring photo!

mehfesto2 · 22-08-2008 8:22pm

I used that website for picking up some great tips.
I even used this vid.

Got these pictures:

I got really into urban lanscape photography, but am still afraid of headingout for fear of getting mugged!

AnCatDubh · 22-08-2008 10:07pm

Fajitas! wrote: »

What he's saying is exactly right, right down to the point of the perfect exposure - It's no wonder it's such a bloody boring photo!

Yep - I'm with you here but just thinking that he kinda skip'd over the effect of aperture and appropriate range which will end up in focus.

Maybe it was exaggerated with the Youtube pixelation effect but i'd hope not to end up with Christmas lights like he took.

mehfesto2 wrote: »

Got these pictures:
Pic 1
Pic 2

Very nice stuff here mehfesto2. I took a peek at them larger in flickr to check the detail - one is at f3.5 and other at f13. Was this a concious decision? If so why?

As a matter of interest, are you happier with the detail of one over the other?

The one at f3.5 is really good and i think the contrast and colour are great (far better than in the video so you learned well!) but do you think the detail in the background is enough in focus. At f3.5 an area in the foreground at or slightly beyond the rail may be the extent of the depth of field. Sorry - not critical at all, just curious as to your thinking when composing the shot (or were you hoping not to get mugged :eek: )

Cheers.

Hugh_C · 22-08-2008 10:44pm

can't remember where I read it but I think it's suggested that you take off your UV for long exposure night time images.

mehfesto2 · 22-08-2008 11:13pm

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Yep - I'm with you here but just thinking that he kinda skip'd over the effect of aperture and appropriate range which will end up in focus.

Maybe it was exaggerated with the Youtube pixelation effect but i'd hope not to end up with Christmas lights like he took.

Very nice stuff here mehfesto2. I took a peek at them larger in flickr to check the detail - one is at f3.5 and other at f13. Was this a concious decision? If so why?

As a matter of interest, are you happier with the detail of one over the other?

The one at f3.5 is really good and i think the contrast and colour are great (far better than in the video so you learned well!) but do you think the detail in the background is enough in focus. At f3.5 an area in the foreground at or slightly beyond the rail may be the extent of the depth of field. Sorry - not critical at all, just curious as to your thinking when composing the shot (or were you hoping not to get mugged :eek: )

Cheers.

Indeed it was. I was still learning about the relationship between shutter speed and apenture, so I wanted to see what he difference would make if I jiggled around the settings. I took a good few of the second with many settings - the ones I posted were just my favorite ones.

I prefare the first personally, the detail and colour (obviously!) are much better. But also because of the reflection.

The finglas one (Superquinn/Barbers) was my first-time using a a 50mm at night, so I was looking at it's potential. Truth be told it was pretty overexposed as a result of my knowledge of what it could do at the time. Hence the sepia treatment! Though I do like the DOF personally. Seems to add more depth to it! Maybe that's just me!

Night time shooting technique - discuss...

Comments