cameras!!

[Roy Mustang]

All the photos that I have are posted in the photo forum.

[font="Book Antiqua"][color="Red"]
Col. Roy Mustang[/color][/font]

[Bobtheduck]

My first digicam, a samsung digimax 301, is still alive and kicking. I should upgrade, but as the thing is in perfect working order, and I have a non-functional capture card (again) and an almost dead memory stick on my PSP, I have other electronics priorities before I get a new one.

[Warrior4Christ]

did u try and use time priority?

That would only lower the exposure value to try to keep it at that exposure time... resulting in dark to very dark photos.

Okay, now I know why you have to use a higher ISO for night photos.

Even if you get a lens that is a f/1.8 or f2.8, this will not do much for change the ISO for night photos. Indoor stuff, it will, but you are going to need a tripod for night photos.

The aperture priority mode does work well with night time shots. I have switch between it and bulb mode, but mostly bulb mode. So your fine there if you want to keep using the aperture priority.

Another rule for night time photography is,

If you are in an area with a lot of light around you or in the picture, you shouldn't set your aperture no higher then F/8.

If you are around an area that has very little light around you, you should have it set at F/4 or F/5.6.

If you get a tripod, then you will be fine to set the ISO at 200. All the night time photos that I have posted were taken at ISO 100 and it was with the Sigma 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 lens and its not built for low night. I haven't had the Tamron AF17-50mm F/2.8 lens that long, but I see too much of a change, other then things do look clear into night time photos then what the Sigma lens had.


[font="Book Antiqua"][color="Red"]Col. Roy Mustang[/color][/font]

I would have thought the exposure time is reduced by the same whether it is taken indoor or at night... So it might be okay in some of the brighter night photos..

So no higher than f/8 means the number shouldn't be higher than 8? (eg. f/16)

Now that I check, I have done some night ones at ISO 200 (one of them was 20 seconds!). But I do need a remote too, so I don't bump it pressing the shutter button...

[Roy Mustang]

did u try and use time priority?

That would only lower the exposure value to try to keep it at that exposure time... resulting in dark to very dark photos.

I'm wondering if he meant bulb mode, but I'm not sure. That is where you can open your shutter as long as you want and you time it.

I would have thought the exposure time is reduced by the same whether it is taken indoor or at night... So it might be okay in some of the brighter night photos..

Well, for indoors, yes. It just if you are holding the camera as you take the picture at night, you will have to keep the ISO up kind of high, if you want it to come out and not blur, even if you have a lens that is that a f/1.8 or f/2.8.

But if you do have a lens that is that fast, it will not take as long for light to reach your lens, so you will not have to leave it up it up for very long.

So no higher than f/8 means the number shouldn't be higher than 8? (eg. f/16)

And yes.

In most cases, if you are in an area, where you have a lot of light in a night time photo. You are better off having the F stop on F/8 as your aperture.

When you have very little light, you should have the F stop at F/4 or F/5.6 for your aperture. You may have to hold it down longer, but it works.

But if you feel safe at f/8, even in low light in night time shots, then do so.

I have done some photos with every little light and had it at F/8 as my aperture and it works.

I post some of what I did in one of my threads.

[color="Red"]Col. Roy Mustang[/color]

[Warrior4Christ]

Why not use maximum aperture for night shots?

[Roy Mustang]

Why not use maximum aperture for night shots?

I just want to get that out of the way as which is which.

Smaller Aperture Number (2.8) = Wider Aperture = More Light

Larger Aperture Number (22) = Narrower Aperture = Less Light

Where having it at the maximum aperture would be good as less light. There is a problem. It will cause you to keep the shutter open longer, in which cause you don't want to do that. If you are taken a picture with city lights and so on.

After playing around with my camera and reading photo mags, I learn that, you don't want your F stop up more then F/8 for areas that you have a lot of light as city lights or whatever and when your out in the country, that its better go with a smaller aperture.

The only time that I use the maximum aperture is, you want to do a very very very long exposure, like taken a picture of the night sky with the stars in it.

I put a few night shots that I took in the photo forum. It will give you an idea on what I had it set on.

In the past, I did set mine around F/10 or F/14. But I found that F/8 was an all around number to set, when you have a lot of light and you don't want a very long exposure.


[font="Book Antiqua"]
[color="Red"]Col. Roy Mustang[/color][/font]

[Warrior4Christ]

I just want to get that out of the way as which is which.

Smaller Aperture Number (2.8) = Wider Aperture = More Light

Larger Aperture Number (22) = Narrower Aperture = Less Light

Okay, I'll rephrase that:
Why not use the minimum aperture number for night shots?

[Roy Mustang]

Okay, I'll rephrase that:
Why not use the minimum aperture number for night shots?

If you are in an area that has a lot of street lights or other lights, then putting the minimum aperture will really make your picture bright too fast, then maybe how you want it.

The only time that I have use the minimum or close to it was, when I'm dealing with very little light at all in a night time photo.

It all comes down to how much light you have, the distance to the target and what it is you are shooting.

[color="Red"][font="Book Antiqua"]Col. Roy Mustang[/font][/color]

[Jingo Jaden]

Casio EX-F1. Got about 6 megapixels, but can film in SD, HD and most importantly, can record 1200 frames each second. It even picks up sound. Cost about a grand though.

[Warrior4Christ]

Casio EX-F1. Got about 6 megapixels, but can film in SD, HD and most importantly, can record 1200 frames each second. It even picks up sound. Cost about a grand though.

That would be so fun to video things breaking (glass) or exploding (balloon with water).... 1200 fps is insane!!

[Benn]

Okay, I'll rephrase that:
Why not use the minimum aperture number for night shots?

I use to do a lot of night shots. In my experience it all comes down to personal preference, what subject you are shooting, and what effect you want. I've shot the full range of f-stops at night.

Here's just a few of my photos http://photobenn.deviantart.com/gallery/ I'll use a few as examples...

If you are shooting a landscape with no moving objects and want more in focus do exactly what you do during the day... go with the smaller aperture (higher number). (example: photo titled garages)

When shooting a busy street and you want those cool car light trails go with the smaller aperture (higher number) which will make your shutter speed longer to capture that motion. If you want to try to stop the lights and not have trails go with a larger aperture (lower number). (example: photo titled Nightlights 1)

If you don't have a tripod and are bracing yourself on a tree or fence then it's best to try to keep your shutter speed quick which will mean you'll have to shoot with a wider aperture. (example: night light)

Also remember that the shape off lens flare can be determined by your aperture. If you have a lens without curved blades for the iris then when you stop down you'll get pentagons, hexagons, etc (as seen in the photo titled stupid flare) When you open up your lens to a large aperture then those flares will be more circular which most people find more pleasing to the eye.

Finally, I recommend shooting night shots with film. You don't have to fear the ugly noise that is the bane of the digital realm. With super long shots you can get this awesome thing called reciprocity failure in which there's weird color shifts. Also, in low light I've noticed film has better color sensitivity than digital. For example in my photo called midnight bridges I shot that with film. With digital I don't think one could get the same color effects from the different street lamps, the green in the grass and the brown in the lower left. (If memory serves me right that was about a minute and aa half long exposure at a small aperture.)

Just have fun and experiment! ^_^ Some results can be totally unexpected and that's what's awesome about night photography.

Restless nights was taken middle of the night with my blinds closed. I couldn't see anything... but after a two hour long exposure with ISO 400 film it looks like daylight!

[Roy Mustang]

Finally, I recommend shooting night shots with film. You don't have to fear the ugly noise that is the bane of the digital realm. With super long shots you can get this awesome thing called reciprocity failure in which there's weird color shifts.

I kind of disagree with that to a point. You can fix the noise problem with the Long Exposure Noise Reduction and even I got those weird color shifts with film.

I have taken a good number of night time shots with a digital camera and when I used the lowest ISO, I never had a problem with noise at all.


One thing that is good to use is the Tungsten White Balance for night time shots with a digital camera at night time.

Heck, I don't even use the auto white balance at all. I just put it on sunny light and leave it at that.

[font="Book Antiqua"][color="Red"]Col. Roy Mustang [/color][/font]

[Jingo Jaden]

That would be so fun to video things breaking (glass) or exploding (balloon with water).... 1200 fps is insane!!

It is awesome, I tried eating a donut the other day using it. All it lacked was the universal theme.

I'd heartly recommend it to anyone. Awesome camera.