Low Light Photography

[astral]

I have seen several posts where people talk about not going above 400asa

on their digital cameras due to grain.

Now I am not talking about the point and shoot models here.

How does your camera fare?

I took this shot in a medina in the middle east, under natural light.

I did not have large flash to illuminate the scene so I wound up the ASA setting

and let the camera take care of the rest.

The resulting exposure was 1/20th at f3.5 with 1600 ASA.

I am using a Canon 10D with a 35-80mm lens.

I was pleasantly surprised.

I had to remember to put back my original setting of 200ASA when I went outside again.

Edited January 24, 2006 by astral

[Kan Win]

Hi astral,

Very difficult shot to take, nice try.

My camera only goes up the 400 ISO.

Here is one of mine taken a little bit differently

Bigger Picture

Exif below

---------------------------------------------------------------

Date/Time 25-Nov-2005 20:08:45

Make OLYMPUS CORPORATION

Model C8080WZ

Flash Used No

Focal Length 7.4 mm

Exposure Time 13.00 sec

Aperture f/2.4

ISO Equivalent 50

Exposure Bias

White Balance

Metering Mode matrix (5)

JPEG Quality (6)

Exposure Program shutter priority (4)

Focus Distance

---------------------------------------------------------------

Happy Shooting.

Yours truly,

Kan Win

Edited January 30, 2006 by Kan Win

[new farang]

I think those shots are great guys. I've gone the other route though. To ensure I'm not getting too much noise (my camera doesn't do well in low light at higher ISO ratings), I shoot as low as possible - which happens to be ISO 100 on my Sony, and put it on a tripod and let the thing take its time with the exposure. These pics are from just messing around the other night in an abandoned part of my building. By the way, any good photo resources in the BKK area (in English??)?

I'm all ears for any other low light tips. How about polar (star) trails - any suggestions? I'm still in the learning phase and trying to soak up info like a sponge.

[astral]

A tripod is always a good option for low light shots.

The problem with long exposure is movement.

In my shot I doubt it would have worked as the guy was unaware of me taking the photo. He was just doing his work.

In retrospect I should have adjusted for the light balance as well, and that would have reduced the orange tint.

Long exposure using a tripod does allow you to use a lower asa setting, as Kan Win did.

It can also produce some interesting effects.

Headlights/tail-lights on vehicles become long streaks, and stars develop tails.

A good tip with a scene like Kan Win's river shot, is to take the photo at sunset. While there is still just enough daylight to illuminate the background. This avoids large dark areas.

However in this case it would probably have lost the delicate colours of the lighting on the bridge.

Never be afraid to experiment.

The beauty of the digital camera is that you can see the result immediately and decide to keep it, or delete it, or try again with a different setting. No need to wait for the photo shop to develop and print the results.

Edited January 26, 2006 by astral

[Nordlys]

A tripod is always a good option for low light shots.

The problem with long exposure is movement.

I like travelling to Europe and often visit cathedrals and shoot pictures inside where use of tripod is often prohibited (including mini tripod and monopod, but not necessarily flash). Digital camera I've been using up to now has eight million pixels but in 2/3' size sensor, with clearly visible noise from ISO200 (so I often shoot at ISO64 where I can) + strong chromatic aberrations and I don't want to trade off picture quality for fast shutter speed, so what I'd do in these circumstances is shooting with self timer and hold the breath (and freeze myself like a Greek sculpture) until the shutter is released, and shoot as many as I can using this technique(?) so there's a good chance one or two shots will turn out satisfactory. Turned out this technique is often workable up to 1/15 seconds after some training and sometimes up to 1/8 seconds (at 28mm focal legnth) using camera without motion stabilizer. As to ISO I would never raise it over 100 unless absolutely necessary.

Yet when I don't get any good shot (without motion blur) my last resort is to use Photoshop unsharp mask filter. However, I'd say noisy/grainy shot (to a certain extent) is always better than motion blur. Prior to this camera (Sony Cybershot F828) I had 5 million pixels camera but with same 2/3 size sensor and I must say I liked the picture quality of this 5 million pixels camera better than 8 million as I get reasonably good, noiseless image at ISO400 and no chromatic aberrations causing "purple fringe". I think too many manufacturers squeeze too many pixels in too small sensor, making dynamic range too narrow and ISO higher than 400 (or even 100 and up!) often meaningless.

I now have a full 35mm size sensor DSLR and some say ISO of up to ISO1600/3200 is workable with this camera, but with bigger the sensor comes bigger the mirror and the mirror motion vibration is quite intense compared to APS-C or H size sensor DSLR that I think I still have to resort to self timer/breath-holding technique unless I get a very fast lens.

The beauty of the digital camera is that you can see the result immediately and decide to keep it, or delete it, or try again with a different setting.

But often it's too hard to tell the result with the camera built-in monitor so I'd often keep all the images and wait till loading them on my PC to check with large monitor before deciding to save it or delete.

Edited January 26, 2006 by Nordlys

[new farang]

I now have a full 35mm size sensor DSLR and some say ISO of up to ISO1600/3200 is workable with this camera

Nordlys, which DSLR did you pick up? Is it by chance the Canon 5D? I'd love to hear what you think of it. I'm hoping to get one myself, once I can set aside some extra spending cash.

[Nordlys]

Hi new farang,

Yes, it's 5D. I've just bought it last month and haven't had much time using it yet so I can't comment much, but I'm sure you have seen reviews in dpreview.com or steves-digicams.com and I don't think I have much to add to what's already been discussed on those sites. The only things I don't like about 5D is (athough I knew it beforehand) that the finder view being bit yellowish and at this price it was a major disappointment that it didn't come with eye-controlled focus, when much cheaper film EOSs that I've owned came with the eye-control feature. It will take me some getting used to selecting focus point with multi-controller button. I've also noticed shots with Speedlite 420EX often turn out underexposed, which I recall never have been a problem with my film EOS-3. I think I've read somewhere before that the new Speedlite 580EX and 430EX were desgined to suit the needs of DSLR but I'm not so sure they are worthy of replacement.

[astral]

I like travelling to Europe and often visit cathedrals and shoot pictures inside where use of tripod is often prohibited

In that kind of situation my father taught me to rest the camera on a chair, or against a pillar,

in order to steady the shot.

Placing the camera on the ground, pointing straight up can produce some spectacular views

of the ceilings

[Nordlys]

In that kind of situation my father taught me to rest the camera on a chair, or against a pillar,

in order to steady the shot.

Placing the camera on the ground, pointing straight up can produce some spectacular views

of the ceilings

Yes, I would lean against a wall or anything to keep my upper body still, but it's near impossible to frame by placing the camera on the ground or to place it completely horizontal (not to mention worrying about somebody stepping on my camera). Lying on the floor holding camera upward would do that but of course cathedrals are not the sort of places I'd dare trying it.

Here's a shot I took last night under low light.

Camera: Canon EOS 5D

Lens: 24-70mm F/2.8

Shutter Speed: 1/5 sec

F stop: F/3.5

ISO 800

Hand held, no flash nor tripod used. But with a small LED lamp placed on the table illuminating face of the model. I had elbow of my hand holding camera/lens placed on the chair back though.

Edited January 28, 2006 by Nordlys

[astral]

In that kind of situation my father taught me to rest the camera on a chair, or against a pillar,

in order to steady the shot.

Placing the camera on the ground, pointing straight up can produce some spectacular views

of the ceilings

Yes, I would lean against a wall or anything to keep my upper body still, but it's near impossible to frame by placing the camera on the ground or to place it completely horizontal (not to mention worrying about somebody stepping on my camera). Lying on the floor holding camera upward would do that but of course cathedrals are not the sort of places I'd dare trying it.

Here's a shot I took last night under low light.

Camera: Canon EOS 5D

Lens: 24-70mm F/2.8

Shutter Speed: 1/5 sec

F stop: F/3.5

ISO 800

Hand held, no flash nor tripod used. But with a small LED lamp placed on the table illuminating face of the model. I had elbow of my hand holding camera/lens placed on the chair back though.

A good steady shot.

Before you had a drink at the bar, I guess.

[xty]

If using tripod, I don't have problem shooting at night or in the dark. But often I forget to bring one when needed

One thing I still can't do it properly is for example to shoot some city or street lights without burnt-out highlights. If I use smallest aperture (F/11 in my KM A2 camera), I have to set the speed longer which often causes hot pixels or more noise. If I use big aperture (F/2.8) with faster speed, burnt-out highligts often occurs. Mostly the former one might do better. I just need to experiment. That if I have the time.

Here's one pic (more at pbase.com/xty/lights) I took while I was in Bahrain. I put the camera on the bridge railing for 4 secs. I held my breath, not to reduce the vibration, but hoping that it didn't fell off 20 meters to the ground

Edited January 30, 2006 by xty

[Nordlys]

If using tripod, I don't have problem shooting at night or in the dark.

Yes, with a tripod noise/ISO is usually no longer an issue.

One thing I still can't do it properly is for example to shoot some city or street lights without burnt-out highlights. If I use smallest aperture (F/11 in my KM A2 camera), I have to set the speed longer which often causes hot pixels or more noise. If I use big aperture (F/2.8) with faster speed, burnt-out highligts often occurs. Mostly the former one might do better. I just need to experiment. That if I have the time.

Do you have a sample picture with this "burnt-out highlights"?

Here's one pic (more at pbase.com/xty/lights) I took while I was in Bahrain. I put the camera on the bridge railing for 4 secs. I held my breath, not to reduce the vibration, but hoping that it didn't fell off 20 meters to the ground

Here are shots taken in similar setting, with a camera (Sony Cybershot F828) on mini tripod placed on bridge railing. To make sure it doesn't fall off the bridge and down into the canal below, I held the legs of the mini tripod and pressed it hard down on the railing (so there's no vibration). Shot last year in Venice, Italy at Ponte Rialto bridge. Both pictures at 1 sec, F/2.0 and ISO64.

Edited January 31, 2006 by Nordlys

[Nordlys]

And more pictures from Italy shot under low light.

Both shots without tripod (hand held).

Shutter Speed: 1/15 sec

F stop: 2.0

ISO 100

If you look closely in the oval glass case you can see the mummified hand of the first missionary to Asia, St. Francis Xavier.

At Jesuit church, Rome.

Shutter Speed: 1/3 sec (!)

F stop: 2.0

ISO 64

At Santa Croce cathedral, Florence.

Edited January 31, 2006 by Nordlys

[Kan Win]

Nordlys,

Thank you for your most excellent photo.

My very first one with this camera, not hand held.

Larger Photo

Date/Time 03-Nov-2004 21:27:55

Make OLYMPUS CORPORATION

Model C8080WZ

Flash Used No

Focal Length 7.4 mm

Exposure Time 4.00 sec

Aperture f/2.4

ISO Equivalent 50

Exposure Bias

White Balance (-1)

Metering Mode matrix (5)

JPEG Quality (6)

Exposure Program shutter priority (4)

Happy Shooting,

Yours truly,

Kan Win

[Kan Win]

If using tripod, I don't have problem shooting at night or in the dark. But often I forget to bring one when needed

Your “Grand Mosque” photo was much better than the one that you posted xty.

Left you a message on that one (win13 ).

Happy Shooting,

Yours truly,

Kan Win

[xty]

One thing I still can't do it properly is for example to shoot some city or street lights without burnt-out highlights. If I use smallest aperture (F/11 in my KM A2 camera), I have to set the speed longer which often causes hot pixels or more noise. If I use big aperture (F/2.8) with faster speed, burnt-out highligts often occurs. Mostly the former one might do better. I just need to experiment. That if I have the time.

Do you have a sample picture with this "burnt-out highlights"?

Here's the pic I took last December at Christ Church in Bangkok (ISO 64, 0.8 sec, F/2.8). I don't like the burnt-out lights at the front. That if I use large aperture and "faster" shutter.

And if I crop 100%, you can see the smudged or hot pixels (red/blue).

I wonder how those good-reviewed low-noise mid DSLR (like 20D) can do.

Edited January 31, 2006 by xty

[xty]

Your “Grand Mosque” photo was much better than the one that you posted xty.

Left you a message on that one (win13 ).

Thanks for the comment Khun Win

That pic I took without tripod. The outer gate was locked. I shoot from outside by pressing the camera against the gate to reduce vibration And it was very hot and humid, the lens and UV filter got fog after taking out from the cold (in the car with AC).

[Nordlys]

Here's the pic I took last December at Christ Church in Bangkok (ISO 64, 0.8 sec, F/2.8). I don't like the burnt-out lights at the front. That if I use large aperture and "faster" shutter.

Hmmm... I don't really see what the issue is here... Do you mean the color saturation of the strong, bright light source in the picture against dark background?? Whatever it is, I believe you know shooting with smaller appearture will solve most problems whether it is attributed to sensor or the lens, but then you say slower shutter speed is causing the noise.... at the same ISO64? Picture quality of your photo is acceptable for me (for a 2/3" sensor digicam), though it does look a bit noisy for ISO 64. Do you have another sample shot in the same setting taken in smalller apperture/slower shutter speed?

My Sony 2/3" sensor (8 million pixels) produces clearly visible "purple fringe" where there is a strong light srouce in the frame against relatively darker surrounding (e.g. sunshine filtering through foliage), which can not be solved with exposure setting/ISO or by any other means.

[Kan Win]

Did some more last Saturday, in Prasat Muang Sing Historical Park, in Kan

For more visit here

Yours truly,

Kan Win

[Nordlys]

Farang jazz musicians at Brown Sugar (Bangkok).

ISO400, 1/20 sec. F/2.8

ISO800, 1/15 sec. F/2.8

ISO800, 1/40 sec. F/2.8

All shots without flash or tripod. No WB adjustment (auto WB).

I must say my camera (and the lens) fares quite well under low light.

Edited February 19, 2006 by Nordlys

[Chang_paarp]

Here's the pic I took last December at Christ Church in Bangkok (ISO 64, 0.8 sec, F/2.8). I don't like the burnt-out lights at the front. That if I use large aperture and "faster" shutter.

And if I crop 100%, you can see the smudged or hot pixels (red/blue).

I wonder how those good-reviewed low-noise mid DSLR (like 20D) can do.

What you are seeing is the limit of the sensor to handle the Subject Brightness Range.

Looking at the examples you showed I would be happy with my camera and lens. It has handled a very wide range of light levels, yes when you look at the individual lights there is a degree of bleed, you get this with film and most other sensing devices. It is caused by there being enough light to max out the sensor that the light is in and the one next to it. You still have colour not just saturated white so the different colour sensors are not saturated. On the front of the building the full saturation has occured, it is still limited. On lower quality sensors this type of scene gives all sorts or unpredictable results as the sensors are saturated, the bleed can cover 1/2 the frame.

Next time you feel disapointed with a result of this type. Look at the scene and apreciate how well the human eye is built and give thanks to your prefered diety. The human eye can handle a SBR 10-100 times more than film or digital sensors.

[danone]

interesting thread!

canon has a reputation for more in-camera processing regarding noise/grain.

I still would recommend a post-processing anti-noise software, such as "neat image" or "noise ninja".

I personally use "noiseware" as a plugin for CS2 - here's a shot though in which I explicitally WANTED noise to give it a film-like feeling: