Nighttime Camera Shots

[JThompson]

Did you hand hold for 1.5-2.2 secs? Or off of a tripod?

I just discovered www.kenrockwell.com a few weeks ago. TONS of useful info there.

Tripod with the 10s timer. Even with the tripod and pushing the button by hand made the pictures fuzzy. I need to get the wireless remote. Waiting 10s each time is a bummer.

I should have thought about the histogram. Always next time...

Set the delay for 2-3 secs, depending on your camera's minimum, and the exposure time for 10. That way the camera can settle before the exposure begins.... until you get a shutter release, that should work fine.

The delay of that camera is "Self Timer Delay 2 - 20 sec" I think the default is 10, but you can change that....

Edited February 16, 2009 by JThompson

[Rocket35]

Hey Rocket. I just ordered a D80 for the wife. If you're in no rush then I'll update you on it when we get it and use it. Just FYI, I saw Yamil at a match and he said I got a great camera on the way.

Great pics Matt! Have you taken any classes on photography? It makes me feel MUCH better about ordering the Nikon.

OK- cool. I will look forward to hearing about it. I planned on getting the camera for her Mother's Day gift.

[Nik Habicht]

Quick word on Histograms:

If your camera has the ability to display a histogram on the back LCD, either with, or separate from the image, spend some time looking at those. A normal histogram should stretch from side to side --- if it's falling short you're either clipping highlights or shadows. After you load the images into the computer, look at the camera's histogram again as you cycle through your images on the computer. Try to correlate what you see in one place with the other --- you'll teach yourself what you need to see to make a successful (printable) image in short order.....

Bracketing exposures can help with this process, especially in the beginning....

[gino_aki]

As with shooting, so it is with photography...it's the shooter, not the equipment. Yes I know, good equipment can help make a good shooter great and that's a great camera you've got there, Matt but what I see from those photos is you've got a hell of an "eye." Your sense of design and composition are really what makes those pictures pop, plus your knowledge of "when" that area would look it's best. I'm willing to bet that you'd have gotten the same effect with a point and shoot.

[Matt Cheely]

Thank you for the compliments!

Here's one I snapped outside my front door today.

[Supermoto]

nice work Matt

[Chris Keen]

Whats that silvery stuff in the picture Matt ?

[XRe]

Very happy with the camera. Honestly, don't look at the megapixels, it only relates to how large you can print. My 6.1MP can print 9x13 photos at full resolution. The only reason to go to the bigger camera is for more features on the camera.

Weeeeeeelllllllll...... yes and no. Sensor resolution + pixel quality determines effective resolution (and its somewhat subjective). Your 6MP cam is probably capable of larger than 9x13 prints. For instance, I've printed successfully at 24x36 w/ my 6MP 10D - it takes a properly exposed, properly focused shot, and proper post-processing, but it can be done. Assuming equal pixel quality, greater resolution can gain you the ability to print larger - but not all pixels are equal (for instance, good luck printing most 12MP point and shoots to 24x36).

You're overlooking two things, though - first, at the same print size (or web image size, or whatever), the higher resolution file will tend to have greater microcontrast - that is, it will (can?) appear to have more detail and to be sharper, even though bother pictures are focused and exposed properly. But - and its a big "but" - you're not going to see this kind of thing if your primary purpose is to shoot snap shots to share with friends and family. The second is that the higher resolution file has greater flexibility in cropping while retaining the ability to print at a given size (of course, assuming quality pixels). Probably another requirement that wouldn't be noticed in snap shots, but I do this sort of thing all the time in my work.

As a RAW shooter, there's another thing - could be called a "feature", but once you get ahold of it, it becomes a necessity 14-bit RAW files are a dramatic difference from 12-bit. Something to look forward to when you upgrade later

Set the delay for 2-3 secs, depending on your camera's minimum, and the exposure time for 10. That way the camera can settle before the exposure begins.... until you get a shutter release, that should work fine.

Does the D40 have mirror lockup (for exposure, not for sensor cleaning)?? I don't see an appropriate button on the camera or find it in camera specs anywhere, but.... If it does, turning on MLU will also help - the mirror causes a significant vibration in the camera and support system when it goes up (called "mirror slap") - if you can get that over with before you start the exposure, it'll further increase the sharpness of the exposure. MLU + timer gives you the best bet...

A normal histogram should stretch from side to side --- if it's falling short you're either clipping highlights or shadows.

Uh??? That's a rather broad statement... and doesn't read like I think you meant it to "Normal" meaning an even distribution of tones in the image, from black to white. Here's a good start on the ins and outs: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial...istograms.shtml - a histogram that doesn't reach one of the two sides of the scale does not (necessarily) imply that you're clipping - you could just have a light or dark toned scene In fact, in some cases, you may be clipping highlights or shadows (or an individual color channel) and it won't show it in the histogram.

After you load the images into the computer, look at the camera's histogram again as you cycle through your images on the computer. Try to correlate what you see in one place with the other --- you'll teach yourself what you need to see to make a successful (printable) image in short order.....

I wholeheartedly agree with this - but you need to take it a step further if you're going to shoot RAW. The histogram is generated from a camera-processed JPEG image. If you're shooting NEF only, there's a small JPEG embedded in the file, even if you don't shoot with an included JPEG (that's where the image preview on the back of the camera comes from...). That JPEG is generally created using the in-camera JPEG settings - and those settings affect how the histogram appears (the histo is based on that same JPEG, not on the NEF file!!!).

(eta - the reason you need to go a step further is that the histo isn't showing you the full potential of the image, cause you're developing a RAW file with greater dynamic range than the JPEG....)

You want to know how to own that histogram? This would be easier to show you in person, but....

First, find some in-camera JPEG settings that you find reasonably pleasing... you'll see why in a second....

Perform a test similar to what this guy did: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mtreinik/2253493184/ - I used a white paper towel. You want something that's a neutral color with some light texture so that you can see detail. Put the towel in some place with even light that's not going to change while you do the test. Use manual mode - pick an f/stop value (say, f/8 or f/16, or whatever). Shoot a series of shots at different exposure times - maybe start with a 1 stop separation. The shots should go from totally black to totally blown out white on the back of the camera, and a stop or two past on each end. Fill the frame with the paper towel for each shot, and make sure its in focus (so you can see the detail ). Now you've got a series of frames at different exposure values of a consistently colored subject - and you should basically just see a spike for a histogram on each one (from crammed into the left side, to crammed into the right side, with the spike moving to the right as the exposure increases).

Open each file in the RAW editor of your choice - run the cursor over the towel. For starters, you're looking for one where the average values (they'll move around, remember there's texture here) center around middle grey. In Adobe Camera Raw (the RAW module in Photoshop), 127/127/127 is middle grey - but remember, this depends somewhat on what color profile you're processing into. Pick one and stick with it, so this stays consistent. In Lightroom, 50%/50%/50% is what you want. If you don't have one very close to it, pick one that's near the right exposure, and shoot another frame or two, in half or third stop increments starting at that exposure and working towards the correct one. Pul those in and examine again.

Now you've got a frame that shows middle grey in your RAW converter. Now, look at that same file on the back of your camera - and notice where the spike is on your histogram. THAT is where middle grey, for a normal exposure using no exposure adjustment in the RAW converter actually is. Now you can do something similar to what this guy did: http://flickr.com/groups/strobist/discuss/72157603884080731 - put a scale on the back of the camera that corresponds to the histogram. Use a piece of white tape (I used electrical tape). Place it so that it sits right below your histogram on the camera. Now, pull up that histogram for the middle grey value you just found, and make a mark on the tape right in the middle of that spike, and label it "0". Now, pull up the files for the exposures that were 1 stop, 2 stops, and 3 stops above and below the middle grey exposure. Mark the middle of those spikes, too - label them "-3", "-2", "-1", "1", "2", "3" appropriately.

Finally, go back into the RAW converter, and bring up the files that correspond to -3, -2, 2, and 3 stops... Use the converter to manpulate the files. For the underexposed files (-3, -2), bring the exposure up some until you see detail in the paper towel. If you can see detail in the towel with -3 stops exposure, try one at -4. At some point, you stop getting detail and just get noise. The mark on your histogram scale that corresponds to this exposure is effective black on your histogram - you won't get any detail below that mark. Do the same on the highlight end - except that you can also use highlight recovery. Find the highest exposure that you can still recover detail in the paper towel. You can note those things on the scale if you want - I just remember where mine are at.

Now, write down the JPEG settings that you used, too - that scale is only completely accurate for those settings (but will likely work for most settings, at least reasonably well...)

What you have now is a scale on the back of your camera that shows you exactly how the exposure you just took will fit into your RAW processing capabilities. You'll know right away if something is beyond what you can recover in a usable fashion, and if your exposure is where you expect it. It takes about as long to do as it does to read it - maybe 15 minutes of time.

Two other things - realize that your camera only has a luminance histogram, based on the green channel of the image (usually). That means you can blow an individual channel and not know it! You might want to do some tests on red and blue subjects and determine where the limits are by viewing the files in your RAW converter. And, for scenes that fit within the confines of the histogram nicely, you can use a technique called "expose to the right" to gain better S/N ratio and tonal separation in the image: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial...ose-right.shtml

Edited February 17, 2009 by XRe

[norbs007]

EXCELLENT info here! Thanks for sharing you guys!

[reneet]

Awesome shots, Matt.

[edgerat]

matt,

when the day comes two words, markins and gitzo

Something that I learned very early on is buy the best tripod once, cry once and never look back. My gitzo will hold a 13yr old girl and smile and keep coming. The tripod is feasibly the one piece of your kit that will never wear out so get a good one from the get go. 6x-series gitzo.

Isaac

[Tzygä]

Nice shots, Matt!

Maybe some day I am also able to...

[JThompson]

Hell with Raw... I almost never used RAW image. To damned big and took forever to do anything to in PS. You get the stuff right and you don't need it anyway. I made poster size stuff out of jpeg images and they looked great.

[XRe]

when the day comes two words, markins and gitzo ... 6x-series gitzo.

I've handled the Markins gear and found it wanting. I went with Really Right Stuff for my ballhead and camera plates Anyone who appreciates fine machining will love the snot out of the RRS stuff... its a little more pricey, but its tough yet refined....

With you on the Gitzo - though I've got a GT3540LS, personally However, when I'm near the car or in the studio, I use an old old Bogen 3050... its a tank...

Jim, you're right - in many cases RAW isn't necessary... But I find, the more I use it, that I actually arrive at a better image more quickly starting from a RAW file, even if I nailed the exposure tight. Using the right tools on the backend helps out a bunch, of course. I can get usable JPEGs, of course, but (to my eye) the RAW file comes out better, so... YMM(obviously)V...

[norbs007]

+1 on the Markins/Gitzo combo, but you can't go wrong with an RRS ballhead too. A popular setup is a Markins ballhead with an RRS lever clamp. This is what I travel around with all the time and a Gitzo GM2540 monopod with an RRS MH-01. The RRS plates are definitely better.

In addition to Bogen checkout Induro tripods.

Edited February 19, 2009 by norbs007