Total results: 24 Pages: 1 | 2 [ 2] |
|---|
 ID: 183878 Posts: 1182 | Date: 2007-11-28 12:13 This is a Canon 40D ISO 3200 image taken at night. No flash. Post-processed in
Photoshop CS3 with Neat Image noise adjustment.If I haven't been there, I'm still planning on going!
If I haven't done it, I've still got time to try! |
|---|
|
|---|
 ID: 182203 Posts: 201 | Date: 2007-11-28 21:53 Original image without the processing on noise and aperture + shutter info would
help Charles. Thanks. |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 183878 Posts: 1182 | Date: 2007-11-29 06:48 Sorry, this was put in to show a newbie the procedure. I described the way to
start a topic in the correct section and posted a topic for her to see, also to
check that nothing was wrong with the web site.
But since you asked, I reviewed the image and realized I was talking off the top
of my head, which is a bad place to start--these days (gotta be short-term
memory loss)
Here's the original, just reduced in size, from a Canon 1D Mark III, not the
40D, and it was shot at 6400 ISO rather than 3200.
The exposure was 1/60th at f1.6 with a 50mm 1.4 lens. Autofocus locked on
something behind the boat.If I haven't been there, I'm still planning on going!
If I haven't done it, I've still got time to try! |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 182203 Posts: 201 | Date: 2007-11-29 19:02 Owh.. didn't know about your initial attention. Thanks for the original photo
and the info. ISO 6400 at 1/60 f1.6.. I thought it would be much brighter. I'd
normally go for ISO1000-1600 1/15-1/30 f1.8 (or something plus minus) on my D70s
for that kind of lighting. Is that pretty much equal to ISO6400 1/60 f1.6
Charles (not to consider sharpness)? I've never tried more than ISO1600 (because
that's the limit of my D70s and I don't have access to ISO6400.. he he). I'm
actually curius on how mush ISO, shutter and aperture effect the brightness.
Probably i can't understand the one stop two stop thing very well yet (how i
hate advance technicals). Not actually expecting any answer.. coz i should get
those from books or something.. just complaining about myself here.. ha ha.
Thanks anyway Charles. |
|---|
|
|---|
 ID: 182744 Posts: 1748 | Date: 2007-11-30 00:26 Adi Rasid:
Owh.. didn't know about your initial attention. Thanks for the original photo
and the info. ISO 6400 at 1/60 f1.6.. I thought it would be much brighter. I'd
normally go for ISO1000-1600 1/15-1/30 f1.8 (or something plus minus) on my D70s
for that kind of lighting. Is that pretty much equal to ISO6400 1/60 f1.6
Charles (not to consider sharpness)? I've never tried more than ISO1600 (because
that's the limit of my D70s and I don't have access to ISO6400.. he he). I'm
actually curius on how mush ISO, shutter and aperture effect the brightness.
Probably i can't understand the one stop two stop thing very well yet (how i
hate advance technicals). Not actually expecting any answer.. coz i should get
those from books or something.. just complaining about myself here.. ha ha.
Thanks anyway Charles.
I know it wasn't the OPs intention, but it seems as if this will become a tech
post. So, rather than expend good forum space on a test, no reason not to
encourage discussion. We already know the image is not intended to represent
portfolio quality, although it is a nice and serene image. To tell the truth, I
myself prefer the warmer tones of the unretouched original.
Adi: Your math is about right to equalize the effect at a lower ISO, if only to
reduce the grain. Yet, I believe you have overlooked one factor in your settings
that would wind up changing the look and feel of the image: The night scene
represented is not a still life.
Constant motion of the water in the harbor gives movement to the boat, the waves
and even the light reflected off the waves. Going to the longer shutter times of
1/15 and 1/30 risks blurring. Depending upon how heavily keeled the sailboat is
and the swell of the water one could easily get motion blur most prominent on
the mast.
I, myself, when shooting maritime objects at night will go for as short an
exposure time as possible while maintaining the grain quality of the image.
Of course, if shooting for special effects I will play around with slower
shutter speeds, to the point of failure of reciprocity, to achieve fanciful
effects, especially with streaking of lighting and color changes caused by the
longer exposure. Quite often it enhances the mood of the image. Have faith that the universe will unfold as it should  |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 182744 Posts: 1748 | Date: 2007-11-30 00:48 This was a rather risky attempt that worked by pulling off some distance from
the craft. I snuck up on the aperature setting, reducing light intensity to
obtain more depth of field than say a setting of f2.8 or f1.6
This was taken with the Canon EOS 10D. 3.2 seconds. ISO 400. f4.5. 105mm. I
compensated for any hot spots that might be caused by the more intense mast and
tide lights by underexposing a full step below what my metering indicated. This
didn't hurt the blue wavelengths and left my overall exposure acceptable. The
people on the bow deck stayed perfectly still for the exposure time. I did play
around with times as long as 15 seconds but the results were not pretty.
But you can still see a slight fuzziness to the image from wave action. And it
was a very calm night...glassy sea. Although the slight movement of the sea did
smooth out the sea reflected light. The fuzziness to the hull was easy to
retouch out for the final brochure picture. The boat name strips in from another
image and we leave the blur on the U.S. flag. Have faith that the universe will unfold as it should |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 182744 Posts: 1748 | Date: 2007-11-30 00:55 To achieve minimal blur for a close up of the yacht name, I stayed at 400 ISO,
shutter speed to 1/30, focal length 300mm and aperture at a daring f/5.6. Again
a full step below metering.
Had I not reduced my exposure time to 1/30th, I would have lost detail on the
ship name. As it is the 1/30th was pushing it. Have faith that the universe will unfold as it should |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 182744 Posts: 1748 | Date: 2007-11-30 00:54 I mentioned having the people hold very still for me before. Yet by ten seconds
it was just an exercise in embarrassment. That dang ocean just doesn't hold
still! And anyhow, keeping an image properly exposed with light moving around is
exasperatingly impossible. 
ISO 400, f/9.0, 105mm, 10 seconds. f/9.0 to try to get depth of field to reduce
some motion blurring. Not much help. Have faith that the universe will unfold as it should |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 183878 Posts: 1182 | Date: 2007-11-30 10:01 What Karl said! 
I'll admit that processing the image in PSCS3 produces a curious color mix.
There is a varied set of light sources and correcting for one doesn't correct
for the other.
As I recall, looking through the viewfinder wasn't all that great. The exposed
image was brighter than the actual view. What is remarkable is the noise level
at 6400 ISO. It is quite low, less so than the original Canon 1D at 3200 ISO. Of
course it does have more than twice the number of pixels.
The image below is 1/4 of the original JPG. Still had to reduce the size to fit.
Noise in dark should be visible.If I haven't been there, I'm still planning on going!
If I haven't done it, I've still got time to try! |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 182744 Posts: 1748 | Date: 2007-12-02 01:43 I forgot to note that on my above images they all were reduced for posting.
Can't post and image more that 1megabyte and what I do is reduce my images to my
screen size to upload. Basically 1024x768 pixels.
Grain in evening shots seems to be just something to live with for now. I know
that digital films exist with sensitivities higher than ISO 204800 with less
grain than ISO 200 but that's satellite and Hubble territory. Hundreds of
millions of dollars but extensive computer interpretation. The likes of us lowly
photographers have to continue to wait for CPUs to get smaller and smaller while
increasing computation speeds, compression ratios and interpolation quality. But
we're stepping up. I predict that within 3 years an ISO 12800 will be on the
market for under $5,000.
One thing that should end one part of the film vs digital debate is that there
is less grain on Charle's ISO 6400 than on Kodak's old Ektachrome 1600.
The below images are many years old, a night scene taken for a tourist magazine.
The grain in this one actually helped the artistry of the image so we didn't
bother to take it out. These are the original unretouched images with lens flare
and all from a stubborn moon.
Taken with a Canon EOS D30. This image: 6 seconds, ISO 1600, over exposed by 2
stops, aperature f/4.0, 34mm. Metering focused on the plants in the foreground. Have faith that the universe will unfold as it should |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 182744 Posts: 1748 | Date: 2007-12-02 01:48 Another exposure was done at 30 seconds, ISO 200, f/4.5, metering on the lights,
42mm. These two images were combined to create the final published shot which I
have to find. That was taken in December 2001 and published in March 2002. Too
many years of monthly publications stored on backup tapes to dig through!
(Remember backup tapes and how slow it was to find anything on them?  ) Have faith that the universe will unfold as it should |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 182744 Posts: 1748 | Date: 2007-12-02 01:54 One thing I miss about my old Minolta was that its view screen and split focal
plane mirror allowed one to focus easily even in dark conditions. Ah, the good
old days.
But still, there is always the old fall back for trying to focus in the dark. I
bounce back and forth with the focus ring to get as close as visibly possible,
then stop down the aperture to increase depth of field. Pop on a flash or not
depending upon the circumstances. Works great for shows and events, sometimes on
open ocean. That sea movement remains a dastardly thing! Have faith that the universe will unfold as it should |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 182203 Posts: 201 | Date: 2007-12-02 09:22 Wow.. after 2 days. Great infos guys. Thanks. I rarely take nite outdoor scene.
These infos are poisoning.. ha ha. Now i have to overcome my fear for the nite
dark. |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 182744 Posts: 1748 | Date: 2007-12-02 10:00 I overcome my fear of the dark with the knowledge that I have a camera with me.
That way, if anything or anyone attacks or eats me the picture of the attack in
the camera will give the cops or animal control a strong lead to get the sucker.
We do have some deadly vixens that come out at night as shown below.
Here I was quite unprepared for night shooting. Carnival parade was extra large
last year and wound on into the night. One carries bare minimal equipment when
out in 90 degree heat from 7 in the morning to 9 at night. An additional
complication {hazard} is that the alcohol flows free and wild to compensate for
the heat and, disgusting calypso music and barely clothed ladies. He who can
hold a camera steady by 2:00 p.m. goes to jail for not having enough fun.
Canon EOS 10D, 1/60th, ISO 200, f/4.5, 33mm, Canon Speedlite 550EX side mounted
flash on auto. Have faith that the universe will unfold as it should |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 182744 Posts: 1748 | Date: 2007-12-02 10:06 Now I need to pick a Christmas Card shot for this year.
I would love to consider this pic but I use it each month to head up the night
life section of my tourist magazine. This is the unedited version.
Canon EOS 10D, 30 seconds, ISO 800, f/5.6, 21mm. Used the Speedlite at 50%
power, 3 bursts, one up close for each tree. Night time...slow shutter speed. I
am in the shot three times! 3/4 moon night lightened the sky for me. Taken at
10:26 p.m. Have faith that the universe will unfold as it should |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 182744 Posts: 1748 | Date: 2007-12-02 10:21 This is the unedited shot I believe I like the best for this year's Christmas
card. Your opinions, please.
Canon EOS10D, 8 seconds, ISO 400, f/4.0, 80mm.
The neat little lights in the palm tree are lens refraction from the hillside
lights due to the long exposure. Have faith that the universe will unfold as it should |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 182744 Posts: 1748 | Date: 2007-12-02 10:12 Also under consideration, Canon EOS 10D, 30 seconds, ISO 100, f/4.0, Speedlite
on full burst, top mounted on camera, 28mm. Cinnamon Bay, St. John.
And, my bad, the other two night shots are Magen's Bay, St. Thomas Have faith that the universe will unfold as it should |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 182744 Posts: 1748 | Date: 2007-12-02 10:13 And this last one, 10D, 6 seconds, ISO 400, f/4.0 21mm. Have faith that the universe will unfold as it should |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 182744 Posts: 1748 | Date: 2007-12-02 10:17 She's not for the card, just on the Christmas wish list for under the tree. Same
Carnival night conditions, 1/60th, ISO 400, f/4.5, 35mm, speedlite on auto.
I'm thinking, Adi, that a night ambush from the likes of that creature wouldn't
be so bad. I might not even be concerned about gathering evidence.  Have faith that the universe will unfold as it should |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 183878 Posts: 1182 | Date: 2007-12-03 21:41 I've shown it before. One of my favorite night shots. This one from a Canon 1D,
the 4.1 MP version, probably at 3200 ISO and smoothed in PS 7. A bridge railing
provided support.If I haven't been there, I'm still planning on going!
If I haven't done it, I've still got time to try! |
|---|
Announcement |
|---|
| From now on 50 activity points will turn into 1 credit, so you may earn credits as easy as never before !!!
All models and photographers are able to moderate photos! We will save a lot of time for moderators this way. Please read the short instruction on how to moderate and earn points very quickly.
Also, models and photographers can moderate part of the profiles as well! This is a fast way to earn some action points and credits! |
|---|
Total results: 24 Pages: 1 | 2 [ 2] |
