Taking pictures of lights at night...

I'm intrigued a bit with existing light photos, and have recently tried a few with my E20 with mixed results and am looking for some general tips...

First, I tried to take a few shots of the 'Towers of Light' in Manhattan from across the river. Though generally happy with the results as far as exposure and color, they came out a bit blurry. I shot with a tripod at 1-2 second shutter speeds. It was kinda windy, and I didn't have the remote cord, so I chalked it up to camera shake...plus my viewfinder was set a bit off center because I was playing with it the night before.

Next, I took some pictures of the moon rising in a sky with scattered clouds. I think I got some nice exposeures of the lit up clouds, but the moon just looks like a bright blur in most of them. I've seen a few really crisp moon shots here, with crater detail even, and was wondering how they were done. A little more info and links to some of my samples here:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=2440471

Then I went back and tried again with the 'Towers of Light'. Much calmer night, but the light wasn't as pleasing, and the river was choppier, so no reflections off the water . Still got a bit of blurriness, though. By now I bought a remote cord, but left it in the car...> :/

Much of the bluriness seems to be concentrated around the lights (moon, window lights, etc..), and not on the other subjects in the photos (buildings). I think this bluriness may just be too much of the light 'aura'. I tried underexposing a bit on some of the shots, but it didn't seem to work. Should I try a ND or some other filter to cut the glare off the lights? Is there a way to cut the 'glare' without underexposing the rest of the photo? I'm also wondering if there was a way to get a little more color depth from night shots.

TIA for any feedback! The Towers of Light are only up for another week or so, and I want to take another crack at them!

---Lee

What type of focusiing were you using. I took some fireworks shots on the 4th last July and experimented quite a bit. A tripod and the cable release helped quite a bit but I was surprised to see the difference with MF (not just turned as far as the focus ring would go) adjusted to the object itself. Others have commented on this as well, that "all the way out" at "infinity" may in most cases be focusing too far (gee, I wonder what's really out there beyond infinity anyway). If the images are fuzzy it sounds less like an exposure issue than a focus issue.--DM

Mostly, I focused manually. On my second round of trying the Towers of Light, I was very careful with the focusing. I zoomed in to focus on a building off to the side of the lights, thinking it wouldn't be easy or even neccesary to put the TOLs themselves in focus , and then zoomed out to take the photo itself at wide-angle. (BTW - Does this technique still apply when using a WCON lens, or does the WCON lens cause a change in the focus based on the zoom setting?)

Maybe I'm being too critical of myself, but here's a cropped 200% zoom on one of the better images from that night:



I don't think it's too bad focus-wise, the edges of the buildings are pretty crisp, but notice how the lit-up building off to the right is looking a bit washed out with the lights? That's why I thought it may just be an over-exposure. I would've liked a bit more detail in that building. With the moon shots, likewise I think I was able to adjust the 'focus' of the light by stepping down exposure, which produced a 'rounder' moon, or maybe it was just the 'haze' effect of the passing clouds?

Thanks for the feedback!
---Lee

Lee,

When shooting the moon you have to remember that it is lighted by direct sunlight and expose accordingly. The rule of thumb for sunlit subjects is at f16 the shutter speed equals the ISO setting. Since the E-xx only stops down to f11 you can compensate by setting the shutter speed to twice the ISO setting -- 1/160 for ISO 80 for instance. The moon probably looks washed out in your photos because its significantly overexposed. Of course, correctly exposing the moon will likely mean underexposure for the rest of the shot, but with a little experimentation you can probably come up with a combination you can live with.

Ed

Lee Mychajluk said:

Next, I took some pictures of the moon rising in a sky with
scattered clouds. I think I got some nice exposeures of the lit up
clouds, but the moon just looks like a bright blur in most of them.
I've seen a few really crisp moon shots here, with crater detail
even, and was wondering how they were done.

Click to expand...

I have to agree with Ed's take on exposing the moon. It is a tough and intriguing subject. It's obvious that I have a connection with the moon ;-0

There are some variable factors you have to consider. It appears that you live in or around NYC. Unfortunately this has got to be one of the worst places to try to single out the moon. The light 'pollution' instantly kills a lot of detail. I have tried in NYC as well (I live in Florida, but I work there often). Here's what I do:

(I suggest getting the TCON 14b and/or the 300)

I put the camera in M mode. I change the metering to 'spot', although it does not really matter. It does not matter because you can't pay attention to the + - readings that the camera gives you. Tighten the aperture to f/11. Then, depending on the phase and/or brightness, vary the shutter speed accordingly. The LCD live preview helps, but do not trust it completely. Fortunately the medium is digital, so it costs nothing to experiment. I have not really found a secret formula since the moon's brightness varies almost by the minute.

Oh yeah, manual focus to infinity...Good luck and post your results soon, I'd love to see them...

The bluring around the building lights reminds me of some photos I took
of christmas lights on houses. The problem I had was overexposure.

Try taking two photos on a very steady tripod:

The first one that properly exposes for the lights. I fould that the area covered by the lights was too insignificant to show up on the histogram, so I had to extensively "bracket" to find the right exposure. The lights should looksharp, but everything else will be very dark.

The second photo should be properly exposed for the bulk of the photo, but will almost certainly show overexposed blobs for the light sources.

Combine the the two photos by overlaying them in photoshop, by erasing transparent hole in the second photo to expose the light sources in the first photo.

RAW format may have a greater dynamic range, which might also help.

This is a picture of a kidney stone taken with one of those small camera thingy things. Probably an E-.0001

The E-.0001 is the Olympus SLR for doctors.--Forum: http://pub57.ezboard.com/bthedigitaldinguscommunityWebsites:http://e10club.topcities.com/http://d100lounge.topcities.com/-- 'I do just about everything in my CCDs...'

Thanks for the tips.

I've also been doing a little re-reading of the basics. Most of these shots were taken with the aperature wide open at shutter speeds of 1-2 seconds. I think that if I decrease the aperature and increase the shutter speed (while trying to minimize camera shake), I may get a little more depth of field, which would help with the focusing issues. Then I can dabble with the exposure settings to increase or decrease the halo effects around the building lights to my liking.

I think I will be shooting primarily in RAW mode, since I've gotten a few suggestions to go this route already.

---Lee

Lee Mychajluk said:

I
shot with a tripod at 1-2 second shutter speeds. It was kinda
windy, and I didn't have the remote cord, so I chalked it up to
camera shake...plus my viewfinder was set a bit off center because
I was playing with it the night before.

Click to expand...

Lee,

No advice on exposure (haven't done much night shooting) but you can avoid tripod shake when you don't have the remote with you by using the timer -- that way you don't have to touch it at all while the shutter is open. And if you can, try to block the wind with your body while the shot is exposing.

-Aron

Lee,

Looked at some of your pics, and read the replys. First, I like the gable on your moonshots -- that foreground detail is nice. Anyway, I think the problem you have is twofold....

1st: Max aperture. Whenever you're dealing with point sources of light, your aperture setting affects the spread of 'flare' or 'bloom' around the light source. Slower apertures tighten that flare, wheras fast aperture exagerrates and enlarges that 'flare.' That effect tends to blur areas around the lights.

2nd: Overexposure. Thos lights make for miserable exposure, and it'll probably be less than you think you need.

For this work, I'd go to M, and adjust aperture to f/8-f/11. Then set shutterspeed to the shortest that still leaves you with a crisp black sky. (watch the LCD while adjusting exposure in M) Then I'd bracket down from there, until the lights start to look dim. One of 'em should give you what you want. It's really trial and error, until you develop the feel. Just remember to keep in mind that the longest exposure that has a chance of working is the shortest one that keeps the sky relatively black.

You have that added complication of trying to capture the Towers. As they are dim, the exposure will tend to be a touch longer, but you'll still want the sky dark for the contrast.

Hope some of that helps,

F.J.

P.S. Keep safe on them Jersey roads -- I remember tham well....

-------------------See with eyes and heart, create with heart, hands, and mind. --Frank

The least you could do, as a bud, is back me up when I lie. Remind me not to tell you about all of the affairs I am having, you'd probably just blab it to my wife...DOH!

Jason Busch said:

This is a picture of a kidney stone taken with one of those small
camera thingy things. Probably an E-.0001

The E-.0001 is the Olympus SLR for doctors.
--
Forum:
http://pub57.ezboard.com/bthedigitaldinguscommunity

Websites:
http://e10club.topcities.com/
http://d100lounge.topcities.com/
--

'I do just about everything in my CCDs...'

Click to expand...

Lee Mychajluk said:

I'm intrigued a bit with existing light photos, and have recently
tried a few with my E20 with mixed results and am looking for some
general tips...

Click to expand...

Hi Lee

OK, here's my experience with night shots FWIW.

I've struggled with this for ages and have recently got what I think works consistently for me.

1. Rock solid tripod
2. Remote (I use the IR supplied with the camera)
3. f5.6
4. Auto or manual focus seems OK

5. ESP metering when there is a a range of different brightnesses as in the two shots below:





Both images much squashed. Full size image... colour and focus OK. Noise much better than expected.

Finally, I'm quite pleased with this one on the same settings although the very bright lights are getting a bit close to being blown out.



Rgds

Paul

-- http://www.djfalse.btinternet.co.uk/Paul/Photography/E10/resources/squawk_ident_small_white2.jpghttp://www.btinternet.com/~djfalse/Introduction/index.htm

Hi Lee,

I just posted a picture of the moon...Subject is "Moonstruck". If you read my replies to BKKSW & Jim Bracegirdle you will see it was realatively simple. It just took a number of tries to get it...
Regards, Leslie
--Leslie C http://www.pbase.com/lesliec

Looking at your show reminds me of when I push the contrast too far in PhotoShop. Do you have your sharpness or contrast settings at high? If so, try normal. Not sure, but I wonder what impact that would have.

Also.... I agree that exposing for both the tower and the buildings is going to be tough. You might try "compositing" two shots together -- one properly exposed for the towers, and the other for the rest of the buildings.

Lee Mychajluk said:

Mostly, I focused manually. On my second round of trying the Towers
of Light, I was very careful with the focusing. I zoomed in to
focus on a building off to the side of the lights, thinking it
wouldn't be easy or even neccesary to put the TOLs themselves in
focus , and then zoomed out to take the photo itself at wide-angle.
(BTW - Does this technique still apply when using a WCON lens, or
does the WCON lens cause a change in the focus based on the zoom
setting?)

Maybe I'm being too critical of myself, but here's a cropped 200%
zoom on one of the better images from that night:



I don't think it's too bad focus-wise, the edges of the buildings
are pretty crisp, but notice how the lit-up building off to the
right is looking a bit washed out with the lights? That's why I
thought it may just be an over-exposure. I would've liked a bit
more detail in that building. With the moon shots, likewise I think
I was able to adjust the 'focus' of the light by stepping down
exposure, which produced a 'rounder' moon, or maybe it was just the
'haze' effect of the passing clouds?

Thanks for the feedback!

--
-Lee

Click to expand...

-- http://www.jacemouse.com

Paul, Those look great. did you do something special to get rid of the noise? J-

Paul Taverner said:

Lee Mychajluk said:

I'm intrigued a bit with existing light photos, and have recently
tried a few with my E20 with mixed results and am looking for some
general tips...

Click to expand...

Hi Lee

OK, here's my experience with night shots FWIW.

I've struggled with this for ages and have recently got what I
think works consistently for me.

1. Rock solid tripod
2. Remote (I use the IR supplied with the camera)
3. f5.6
4. Auto or manual focus seems OK
5. ESP metering when there is a a range of different brightnesses
as in the two shots below:





Both images much squashed. Full size image... colour and focus
OK. Noise much better than expected.

Finally, I'm quite pleased with this one on the same settings
although the very bright lights are getting a bit close to being
blown out.



Rgds

Paul

--



http://www.btinternet.com/~djfalse/Introduction/index.htm

Click to expand...

In my WTC photos http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1005&message=2485307 , the key to me getting sharp images was a rock solid tripod. My $50 ambico wouldn't do it, so I went and bought a SLIK Pro on Ebay. MAN wnat a difference. Also - since it's always windy there on the water, make sure you lock down all the tripod controls. I have a bad habit of leaving them a little loose so I can move them quickly, and that just doesn't work in the wind.

Remote cable is a must, thought you can use the self timer in a pinch.

Auto focus worked fine for me except on really far shots like the Empire state Building from JC.

Also - take LOTS of pictures. I took probably 80 or so pics, of which half are still OOF due to the wind.

This is also a cool oppurtunity to use the slow second curtain feature with the self timer.

GAD

Aron Hsiao said:

Lee Mychajluk said:

I
shot with a tripod at 1-2 second shutter speeds. It was kinda
windy, and I didn't have the remote cord, so I chalked it up to
camera shake...plus my viewfinder was set a bit off center because
I was playing with it the night before.

Click to expand...

Lee,

No advice on exposure (haven't done much night shooting) but you
can avoid tripod shake when you don't have the remote with you by
using the timer -- that way you don't have to touch it at all while
the shutter is open. And if you can, try to block the wind with
your body while the shot is exposing.

-Aron

Click to expand...

---Lee

john a said:

Paul, Those look great. did you do something special to get rid of
the noise? J-

Click to expand...

Hi John

Nothing special, these are straight from the E20 with just resizing and compression for embedding. I was taken with the lack of noise too.... especially as they were shot in IS mode. ie without the long exposure noise reduction turned on!

Exif follows:

Image Description: OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
Make: OLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTD
Model: E-20,E-20N,E-20P
Orientation: Upper Left (1)
X Resolution: 144.00
Y Resolution: 144.00
Resolution Units: Inches
Software: 29-1102
Exposure Time: 2.00
F Number: 5.60
Exposure Program: Aperture Priority
ISO Speed: 80
Date/Time: 2002:04:03 21:05:19
Date Digitized: 2002:04:03 21:05:19
Exposure Bias: 0.00
Max Aperture: f/2.04
Metering Mode: Vendor Unique (5)
Flash Fired: No
Focal Length (mm): 24.00
Color Space: sRGB

Rgds Paul

johna said:

johna said:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

johna said:

johna said:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

-- http://www.djfalse.btinternet.co.uk/Paul/Photography/E10/resources/squawk_ident_small_white2.jpghttp://www.btinternet.com/~djfalse/Introduction/index.htm