Once in a year opportunity : ) .... messed up. : (

Started Dec 1, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
greenarcher02 Forum Member • Posts: 70
Re: What do you expect at 1/6th?

marike6 wrote:

greenarcher02 wrote:

marike6 wrote:

greenarcher02 wrote:

marike6 wrote:

greenarcher02 wrote:

marike6 wrote:

antoineb wrote:


from where I'm sitting, you sound like you're trying to make sound horribly complicated and messy, something that's so simple.

Do you think?

This is a perfect example of over-thinking a photographic situation by making long lists of mistakes and potential fixes like "use base ISO". Base ISO? At night? Don't you think you should be going in the other direction on the ISO scale?

The OP's GX7 train image was 1/6 at ISO 800!!! By the way, tripods are always appropriate at night, but in this case you still need a fast enough shutter speed to freeze motion blur.

Here is my list for ways to improve above image:

1) Mount a large aperture lens like the PL 24 f/1.4 and crank up ISO until your shutter speed is fast enough to freeze the train

2) Take image

2) Go get some hot chocolate or an adult holiday beverage.

He wanted an underexposed image. Or he didn't want to freeze motion. It actually works, now I'm not sure how intense the light was from the train, but this was at night, ISO 200, handheld. I didn't have a tripod because I was commuting from work, and was bored, and just... clicked... while waiting for my ride. This isn't actually that nice of an image, but you can really shoot at night, handheld. And you can even go at faster shutter speeds but have an underexposed image. Depends on what you want.

Sorry that I deleted an underexposed, faster shutter speed version of this.

So please... stop dissing the fact that he wanted to go base ISO. Night does NOT always equal higher ISO. He probably wanted to have less of the train and just have lights and some reflected lights off the snow...

If you are not shooting locked down on a tripod, night usually DOES mean higher ISO settings. Especially how dark it appeared in the second image from the OP.

Like in this fairly lousy image I made, but you get the idea. ISO 200, 0.7 sec at f/10, X-E1/18-55 tripod mounted

But I did miss the part where he said he wanted to blur the lights of the train. But even so, the easiest and best way to do what he wanted to do was to use a tripod, and a slow shutter speed (as you'd get with base ISO at twilight). So I'll stand by what I said, it's not complicated. Without IBIS and/or extremely fast f/0.95 type m43 lens, you will need some kind of support to shoot with a slow shutter speed and still get a sharp image.

This image I shot handheld, but I needed ISO 4000 at f/3.2 to even get 1/30. And the lens has OIS.

f/3.2, ISO 4000 gave me only 1/30, so I disagree that you can shoot base ISO at night without support

But to shoot light trails, as the OP wanted to do with the Christmas lights on the train, a tripod would be by far the easiest way.

I'm not sure what he really wanted, but he did mention underexposure and that he shoots light, not objects.

Sometimes you just have to work with what you have. And sometimes you don't have a tripod.

He had enough time to write a long dissertation listing all the things he did wrong and hoped to improve, complete with formulas for calculating EV level, but he couldn't be bothered with bringing he tripod?

That came after. You know, I can pretty much forget to bring a camera and still write a whole thesis about it after the whole thing. You do realize it's a one time deal, probably only for a few seconds. And he ran with what he grabbed first impulsively. Unfortunately, that didn't include a tripod. You realize that, right?

Yeah, I realize that. Not sure that I care all much anymore, especially since you continue with your condescending tone. The fact is shooting at night without proper gear like a tripod is not a good idea. Especially if the idea is capture light trails while keeping ISO at base to maximize IQ. Without support there is simply no way to get sharp images AND blurred motion. Not sure why your are arguing the contrary, but whatever.

I'm not arguing on the contrary. I'm simply pointing out that when the moment comes, not everyone can be ready. That includes you. And that it is possible even without a tripod. I'm condescending because you can't seem to grasp the concept of one scenario happening and it's just funny how you insist that everyone has a tripod attached to their body 24/7. And I'm condescending because no, some people actually don't think you should always be going on the other direction of the ISO scale. *smiley face* Tripods may be appropriate but don't preach that. Open up. Think of a scenario where you don't have a tripod. I suggest doing that over hot chocolate, and not an adult beverage.

By the way, there are other natural things that can be used as a tripod. A proper one may be a good idea but please remember that not all good ideas are implemented.

He isn't trying to make night look like day. You can question his technique all you want but shooting at base ISO at night (with lights) is still possible. It will yield an underexposed image. Which is sometimes appropriate for Christmas lights.

If he exposes for the lights, no it will not look like day. But neither does it look like day in any of the images above. The difference is there is more ambient light from the street lamps.

The difference is we wanted to capture more light and details on poorly lit areas. So it will look closer to day shots. And they do look closer to day. Your second one looks like dawn.

You understand now? Is it that hard? Do I have to shoot later at night of an underexposed image just to show you how it looks like?

If you keep things really basic I'll see if I can wrap my little old brain around what you just said. Give me a break,

Well... Just imagine your image without all the details. Just the brightest of the lights showing. Boring I know, but that's obviously what he's aiming for it it's definitely possible at base ISO.

What he's aiming for is not all that clear from the OPs original post. Read it again. First he talks about shooting a 1/125 for just a little motion blur. He says a tripod is probably not needed, then he says maybe he'll bring one to get a "LOT of motion blur". The only thing for sure is he wants to expose for the lights, and let everything else be underexposed, but from his original post there is little that is "obvious" about what he's aiming for.

You got a lot of it right, actually. There are focal lengths where 1/125 doesn't need a tripod. He was probably mulling about going slower than that hence the tripod and motion blur. He's a little... ADHD(?) in explaining things, but you got his main point anyway. Which brings us to the discussion on how it can be possibly done without a tripod. He actually gave a lot of scenarios, including the one he was unfortunately in. It's time we move on from the easy-peasy tripod, high ISO one, shall we? Let's also not discount the fact that for some reason, even if they know they'll be shooting at night, some photographers deliberately don't bring a tripod...

 greenarcher02's gear list:greenarcher02's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 UMC Fisheye MFT Panasonic 20mm F1.7 II +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow