NickTrop
Veteran
If you survey the photography books on the subject - say via Amazon reviews, you generally find a measure of disappointment. It's as if readers are expecting some kind of "revelation" but there's none to be had - the same general photographic principles apply, it seems, and so readers feel cheated.
I picked up a hardcover on the subject over the summer at a used book store, and I can see where readers might have had a gripe had I paid $50 for the text, rather than a few bucks.
I can't recall the title, author though he looked a bit like a monk... (it's around here somewhere!), and think it came out in the early to mid-90's. Like those who are critical of books on the subject, the author seemed to struggle filling up a text with an amount of information would be more appropriate for a one-page "tip" sheet.
However, there were a couple "take aways" from the book:
1. The author prefered a fast lens over high-speed film, seeming partial to 400 speed film. So, he suggests you get better results with 400 speed film and a solid f1.4 lens that preforms well wide open - than say, an f2.8 lens with 1600 speed film or even a faster lens with faster film, inferring you tend to push things beyond acceptable capabilities (1600 graininess + f1.4 = soft grainy image...)
2. The author liked the 1.4 focal length. He felt that faster lenses cost "silly money" and that they're not really practical for hand-held shots because of DOF issues.
Since reading this, I have to admit, I did agree. However, I would up the film speed to 800 asa - and rarely use faster speeds. Where I do use (or rate/develop) beyond this has more to do with focal length. For example, I have 1600 Fuji in my SLR right now because I have an 85mm Jupiter 9 on the camera and need to shoot at 1/125 due to the focal length. I want to take some available light portraits with the set-up.
Do you agree with these recommendations? Does anyone have any other tips or opinions for getting best results in available darkness?
Thanks all,
Nick
I picked up a hardcover on the subject over the summer at a used book store, and I can see where readers might have had a gripe had I paid $50 for the text, rather than a few bucks.
I can't recall the title, author though he looked a bit like a monk... (it's around here somewhere!), and think it came out in the early to mid-90's. Like those who are critical of books on the subject, the author seemed to struggle filling up a text with an amount of information would be more appropriate for a one-page "tip" sheet.
However, there were a couple "take aways" from the book:
1. The author prefered a fast lens over high-speed film, seeming partial to 400 speed film. So, he suggests you get better results with 400 speed film and a solid f1.4 lens that preforms well wide open - than say, an f2.8 lens with 1600 speed film or even a faster lens with faster film, inferring you tend to push things beyond acceptable capabilities (1600 graininess + f1.4 = soft grainy image...)
2. The author liked the 1.4 focal length. He felt that faster lenses cost "silly money" and that they're not really practical for hand-held shots because of DOF issues.
Since reading this, I have to admit, I did agree. However, I would up the film speed to 800 asa - and rarely use faster speeds. Where I do use (or rate/develop) beyond this has more to do with focal length. For example, I have 1600 Fuji in my SLR right now because I have an 85mm Jupiter 9 on the camera and need to shoot at 1/125 due to the focal length. I want to take some available light portraits with the set-up.
Do you agree with these recommendations? Does anyone have any other tips or opinions for getting best results in available darkness?
Thanks all,
Nick
Nachkebia
Well-known
Depends, sometimes I load HP5 or t-max 400, minus the exponometer for -1 or even -2, on any lens, aperture can jump from f/1.4 to f/2! or I just load up neopan 1600 and shoot everything nonstop 
recently I shot neopan 1600 with summilux 50 asph wide open, it was wild
recently I shot neopan 1600 with summilux 50 asph wide open, it was wild 
Wayne R. Scott
Half fast Leica User
The best tool that I have found for available darkness photography is a solid tripod, or at least a solid support like a wall, bench or table top.
Wayne
Wayne
Last edited:
dmr
Registered Abuser
Low-light/available-light photography is an interest of mine. I think that a fast lens and fast film are both important. (The combination of 1970s glass and 21st. century film is hard to beat!)
Todays film in 800 and even in 1600 perform quite well and give you 1-2 stops over 400. I do use 400 for night scenes often, however.
I like to stop down to at least f2, better to 2.8 or even 4. Not only depth of field, but I can show you some downright ugly artifacts and aberrations when shooting the GIII wide open.
And yes, the RF is the camera to use for low-light, in preference to the SLR. The >>SLAP<< of the mirror costs you another f-stop.
Todays film in 800 and even in 1600 perform quite well and give you 1-2 stops over 400. I do use 400 for night scenes often, however.
I like to stop down to at least f2, better to 2.8 or even 4. Not only depth of field, but I can show you some downright ugly artifacts and aberrations when shooting the GIII wide open.
And yes, the RF is the camera to use for low-light, in preference to the SLR. The >>SLAP<< of the mirror costs you another f-stop.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
What Wayne said. Solid support does not have to be a huge, honking 20-kilo tripod either. My most used tripods: a little Bogen mini ball-head table top tripod (can be braced against a wall, lamp-post etc or placed on a table, wall or other support), a Bogen 3011 (which is small, but not mini). Bean-bags also work. Ditto on the lens-hood. Urban nighttime can be very high-contrast, with a lot of direct, harsh, specular light. Think about films with excellent reciprocity characteristics. TMAX 100 is slower than Tri-X at normal speed, but has much, much better reciprocity characteristics at exposures over 1 sec. For an indicated exposure of several seconds it is quite a bit faster than Tri-X, in terms of exposure time. If you must hand-hold SLR's with mirror lock-up can function as well as a RF -- maybe even more important is the type of shutter. In my experience, the between-the-lens shutter of a Hexar AF, Yashica Lynx, GIII, or Rolleiflex allow slower hand-held speeds than a focal-plane shutter like a Leica, Hexar RF or G2.
On lens speed: it's a style thing, don't go nuts. A $20 tripod can help you a lot more than a $1,000 lens. On the other hand, many people (and I count myself among them) are susceptible to fast lenses. So take my hypocrisy with a grain of salt.
Good night and good luck. And have fun!
Ben
On lens speed: it's a style thing, don't go nuts. A $20 tripod can help you a lot more than a $1,000 lens. On the other hand, many people (and I count myself among them) are susceptible to fast lenses. So take my hypocrisy with a grain of salt.
Good night and good luck. And have fun!
Ben
telenous
Well-known
Hi Nick,
Like you I most often push to 800 (TriX or HP5 are good for that). Alternatively I use Neopan 1600 rated at 1250. I find f1.4 indispensable but there's no getting around the fact that fast lenses cost silly money. If you shoot at close quarters the DOF is pretty thin but at greater distances it increases somewhat - even so, you still need to focus. Contrasty situations, with strong light sources within the frame or right outside it are also a challenge for most ultrafast lenses - again you have to pay top money to get around hot spills, ghosting and flare (avoiding filters and using the hood does help though). But, for me, the greatest challenge of all is not aperture or flare related, but rather shutter speed related. In very low light you use f1.4 and handheld shutter speeds around 1/4-1/15s (NB only doable with a rangefinder) and the smallest motion from the subject creates motion blur. I have found that increasing a bit the contrast in PS hides some of the motion.
I hope this helps. For illustrative purposes I will upload a couple of pics later.
Best,
Like you I most often push to 800 (TriX or HP5 are good for that). Alternatively I use Neopan 1600 rated at 1250. I find f1.4 indispensable but there's no getting around the fact that fast lenses cost silly money. If you shoot at close quarters the DOF is pretty thin but at greater distances it increases somewhat - even so, you still need to focus. Contrasty situations, with strong light sources within the frame or right outside it are also a challenge for most ultrafast lenses - again you have to pay top money to get around hot spills, ghosting and flare (avoiding filters and using the hood does help though). But, for me, the greatest challenge of all is not aperture or flare related, but rather shutter speed related. In very low light you use f1.4 and handheld shutter speeds around 1/4-1/15s (NB only doable with a rangefinder) and the smallest motion from the subject creates motion blur. I have found that increasing a bit the contrast in PS hides some of the motion.
I hope this helps. For illustrative purposes I will upload a couple of pics later.
Best,
Last edited:
VinceC
Veteran
I generally stick to 400-speed film. I can handhold an RF camera reliably down to 1/8 of a second and use a 50/1.4 and 35/1.8 lenses.
Nachkebia
Well-known
Alkis when you upload pic`s please include 100% crops, I want to see your motion blur
telenous
Well-known
Nachkebia said:Alkis when you upload pic`s please include 100% crops, I want to see your motion blur
LOL!!!
Will do. Gotta ask people to stop moving in the street, don't they know they 're ruining it for me :bang: VinceC
Veteran
The blur adds interest in many pictures. It shows motion and action.
Nachkebia
Well-known
I made a mistake, I wanted to say hand shake blur, motion blur usualy is for moving subjects
40oz
...
IMHO, the point about fast lenses is dependent on the type of available-darkness photography you want. I spend a lot of time taking pictures with my friends in bars and restaurants, where the distances involved don't really favor anything wider than maybe f2, even though I tend to shoot at either 1.7 or 1.5 (depending on camera/lens) with my film. I've focused on the wall behind friends far more times than I can count. :banghead:
I find I get the best results when shooting at a minimum of 3200 EI. You just can't get fast enough shutter speeds to avoid subject blur otherwise. A tripod is useless when your subjects are drinking and carousing I use Tri-X because I have a bulk roll of it, but a faster film might be better if you don't have any stock. IMHO, a person would be best off starting at 6400 EI, and if the results are over-exposed, say a prayer of thanks and back off the speed a bit. I'd rather have faster shutter speeds than deeper DOF but it's a close contest between the two, and if you can get both you're golden. A fast lens is great but focus is more critical with a wide aperture and yet more difficult in poor lighting. Let's not even consider the effects of alcohol on focus I'd have a much higher success rate with faster film and broader depth of field.
Now, if your subjects are stationary and you are using a tripod, I'm not sure what difference the lens speed makes. If you are taking landscapes by moonlight or twilight, you'll probably get better results from slower films, and I don't know why you'd want a faster lens for a shot that would be better served by f8 or so.
Cliff notes: fast lenses for people shots in dim light are great for eliminating subject motion blur, but film speed is probably more valuable than wider aperture. For static scenes on tripods, a faster lens is a waste of money.
The beauty of film cameras is you can buy faster film far cheaper than faster lenses. You aren't tied to one sensor and forced to compensate with pricey lenses.
I find I get the best results when shooting at a minimum of 3200 EI. You just can't get fast enough shutter speeds to avoid subject blur otherwise. A tripod is useless when your subjects are drinking and carousing
I use Tri-X because I have a bulk roll of it, but a faster film might be better if you don't have any stock. IMHO, a person would be best off starting at 6400 EI, and if the results are over-exposed, say a prayer of thanks and back off the speed a bit. I'd rather have faster shutter speeds than deeper DOF but it's a close contest between the two, and if you can get both you're golden. A fast lens is great but focus is more critical with a wide aperture and yet more difficult in poor lighting. Let's not even consider the effects of alcohol on focus I'd have a much higher success rate with faster film and broader depth of field. Now, if your subjects are stationary and you are using a tripod, I'm not sure what difference the lens speed makes. If you are taking landscapes by moonlight or twilight, you'll probably get better results from slower films, and I don't know why you'd want a faster lens for a shot that would be better served by f8 or so.
Cliff notes: fast lenses for people shots in dim light are great for eliminating subject motion blur, but film speed is probably more valuable than wider aperture. For static scenes on tripods, a faster lens is a waste of money.
The beauty of film cameras is you can buy faster film far cheaper than faster lenses. You aren't tied to one sensor and forced to compensate with pricey lenses.
Last edited:
Jonathan_100
Jonathan
I shoot most of my RF work in bars, pool rooms, and from moving cars. I use a combination of fast film (TriX at 1600), a lens of 2.5 or faster, and a shutter speed between 1/8 and 1/30. Depending on the light I can get fairly decent DOF at 4 or 5.6 if I'm lucky. I'm less interested in catching tack sharp images and concerned more about composition, light, and shadow.
When I shoot color low light I stick with 400 print. But I'm usually looking for something else all together when I'm shooting this way. Light–neon to be specific—and motion take precedence. I prefer negs over slides because of the latitude.
Jonathan
When I shoot color low light I stick with 400 print. But I'm usually looking for something else all together when I'm shooting this way. Light–neon to be specific—and motion take precedence. I prefer negs over slides because of the latitude.
Jonathan
furcafe
Veteran
Did you mean to write "the 50mm focal length?"
NickTrop said:
furcafe
Veteran
Agreed.
To me, shooting people in available darkness is photography boiled down to its essence. There are no easy technical solutions, as fast lenses & fast film both have drawbacks (& you often need both just to get a decent shot) & tripods & other supports offer limited help if your subjects are moving. All you can do is practice, practice, practice.
To me, shooting people in available darkness is photography boiled down to its essence. There are no easy technical solutions, as fast lenses & fast film both have drawbacks (& you often need both just to get a decent shot) & tripods & other supports offer limited help if your subjects are moving. All you can do is practice, practice, practice.
40oz said:
shg005
Established
I like night shooting a lot. Usually I use Hassel and high speed films for night pictures. RF not often.
Films - Delta 3200 or Delta 400 push to 1600. I found that developing Delta 3200 in Preceptol give to me very good result and tonal range. I almost never used tripods, just a special traning that has to exclude moving and vibratrion of your hands during shooting. Expose usually from 1/8 to 1/2 sec.
.
Here is a couple of examples of the night shots:
.
Films - Delta 3200 or Delta 400 push to 1600. I found that developing Delta 3200 in Preceptol give to me very good result and tonal range. I almost never used tripods, just a special traning that has to exclude moving and vibratrion of your hands during shooting. Expose usually from 1/8 to 1/2 sec.
.
Here is a couple of examples of the night shots:
.
Attachments
wintoid
Back to film
shg005 said:
Aww yeah! Love those.
DMG
waiting for friday
like the last pic Gene
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
shg...what on earth are you doing that at 1/8 to 1/2 s with a hasselblad your images are that sharp? without a tripod...
are you supporting the camera by some other means? the third one looks like you were kneeling or something
are you supporting the camera by some other means? the third one looks like you were kneeling or something
Xmas
Veteran
Even if you can hold steady at 1/8 or 1/4 the subject motion may destroy the shot, it like subjects having their eyes shut in high speed shoots, at slow speeds you get a bit of both open anc closed. So you need to shoot lots of bad ones for one good shot.
People need to be seated.
When you get to 1 second the subjects can turn to ghosts, even when seated.
So you need to have lens speed or film (sensor) speed to keep the shutter speed up for people, seated or standing.
A monopod is good enough for people shots, or a lamp post or wall. For a formal (posed) phot you need to provide similar support for the subject
Noel
People need to be seated.
When you get to 1 second the subjects can turn to ghosts, even when seated.
So you need to have lens speed or film (sensor) speed to keep the shutter speed up for people, seated or standing.
A monopod is good enough for people shots, or a lamp post or wall. For a formal (posed) phot you need to provide similar support for the subject
Noel