dmr
Registered Abuser
Aaaaargh! Frustrating.
You know those shots, those you see and take and when you click the shutter you know you are gonna have a winner, right?
WRONG!
To make a long story long ...
Almost 2 years ago, coincidentally I was trying out the Walgreens/Agfa 400 film and that's what I had loaded in the GIII, when I was on my way home from a meeting in the city in a part I very seldom go, when I came across a scene that just seemed to click. And so I did! It had a lot of lights, and a lot of play of the lights on buildings, street signs, things like that. I *KNEW* I had a winner, or so I thought.
The shot was a photographic train wreck! The original one is the first attachment below. Bad disappointment, let me count the ways ...
1. The astigmatism, GIII lens wide open. Those lights look like bright footballs! The gang here helped me identify what aberration this is. Yeah, I was probably pushing the limits here.
2. That annoying "swoosh" that appears to eminate downward and to the left from that bright light between the second and third tenements. Looking at it closely, that's a circle, the center of which is out of frame to the left and up, at the street light on the pole where the one-way sign is. Internal reflections.
3. The worst and most frustrating of them all, which makes the scene in the photo something totally different from what I saw. The weak blue channel on the Agfa film! Yeah, yeah, I know, it's daylight balanced, but I know Fuji films are more forgiving in mixed and available light. You TOTALLY lose the play of the cooler lights toward the corner, and all you see are the exaggerated warmer lights along the block!
So anyway, I've always intended to go re-shoot that scene, but I seldom get to that neighborhood and very seldom at night. Oh well ...
My first abortive attempt to re-shoot was last summer. It was one of those hot days where the heat lingered well on into the evening. This is not by any means the scariest neighborhood around, but it is hard-core inner city, and one area where the local Guardian Angels chapter is focusing upon. Anyway, I was driving by slowly, looking for a place to park (parking can be a challenge in that area) and there were some groups of younger adult guys whistling and "hey baby!" and all that so I decided to put it off.
Last Saturday I was again in the area, later in the evening, and it was cooler, so no groups hanging out on the corners and such. I took the Mamiya this time, mainly to compare the astigmatism at full aperture, and Fuji 800 film, one stop faster and more able to take a joke as far as light is concerned.
I shot several frames this time, varying the angle, my positing, and sometimes stopping down to 2.8 at 1/15, which I can hand-hold if I concentrate.
I was SURE I had a winner in there! Not really.
The second shot below is wide open (1.7) at 1/30. You can see that the lights to the far right down the block are footballs, but not as bad as with the GIII. Several points for the Mamiya lens on that one!
However, UFO city!
The most obvious one has the axis pointing right to the street light out of frame on the pole with the one-way sign. That light seems to be the most challenging one, but it adds the cooler light to the foreground, which is more evident in the shots here with the Fuji film.
The one I like best is the third one. This was at 2.8 and captures the scene the closest to what I want, showing the cooler tones in the foreground, and no footballs! It is, however, underexposed a wee bit, and I want more detail in the left foreground.
I think I'm going to try once again when I can get to that area again at night, which may not be for a few weeks or months, but I'm thinking of trying Fuji 1600, maybe using both the Mamiya and GIII, but stopped down to 2.8.
Any comments as to what to do here?
Thanks
You know those shots, those you see and take and when you click the shutter you know you are gonna have a winner, right?
WRONG!
To make a long story long ...
Almost 2 years ago, coincidentally I was trying out the Walgreens/Agfa 400 film and that's what I had loaded in the GIII, when I was on my way home from a meeting in the city in a part I very seldom go, when I came across a scene that just seemed to click. And so I did! It had a lot of lights, and a lot of play of the lights on buildings, street signs, things like that. I *KNEW* I had a winner, or so I thought.
The shot was a photographic train wreck! The original one is the first attachment below. Bad disappointment, let me count the ways ...
1. The astigmatism, GIII lens wide open. Those lights look like bright footballs! The gang here helped me identify what aberration this is. Yeah, I was probably pushing the limits here.
2. That annoying "swoosh" that appears to eminate downward and to the left from that bright light between the second and third tenements. Looking at it closely, that's a circle, the center of which is out of frame to the left and up, at the street light on the pole where the one-way sign is. Internal reflections.
3. The worst and most frustrating of them all, which makes the scene in the photo something totally different from what I saw. The weak blue channel on the Agfa film! Yeah, yeah, I know, it's daylight balanced, but I know Fuji films are more forgiving in mixed and available light. You TOTALLY lose the play of the cooler lights toward the corner, and all you see are the exaggerated warmer lights along the block!
So anyway, I've always intended to go re-shoot that scene, but I seldom get to that neighborhood and very seldom at night. Oh well ...
My first abortive attempt to re-shoot was last summer. It was one of those hot days where the heat lingered well on into the evening. This is not by any means the scariest neighborhood around, but it is hard-core inner city, and one area where the local Guardian Angels chapter is focusing upon. Anyway, I was driving by slowly, looking for a place to park (parking can be a challenge in that area) and there were some groups of younger adult guys whistling and "hey baby!" and all that so I decided to put it off.
Last Saturday I was again in the area, later in the evening, and it was cooler, so no groups hanging out on the corners and such. I took the Mamiya this time, mainly to compare the astigmatism at full aperture, and Fuji 800 film, one stop faster and more able to take a joke as far as light is concerned.
I shot several frames this time, varying the angle, my positing, and sometimes stopping down to 2.8 at 1/15, which I can hand-hold if I concentrate.
I was SURE I had a winner in there! Not really.
The second shot below is wide open (1.7) at 1/30. You can see that the lights to the far right down the block are footballs, but not as bad as with the GIII. Several points for the Mamiya lens on that one!
However, UFO city!
The most obvious one has the axis pointing right to the street light out of frame on the pole with the one-way sign. That light seems to be the most challenging one, but it adds the cooler light to the foreground, which is more evident in the shots here with the Fuji film.
The one I like best is the third one. This was at 2.8 and captures the scene the closest to what I want, showing the cooler tones in the foreground, and no footballs! It is, however, underexposed a wee bit, and I want more detail in the left foreground.
I think I'm going to try once again when I can get to that area again at night, which may not be for a few weeks or months, but I'm thinking of trying Fuji 1600, maybe using both the Mamiya and GIII, but stopped down to 2.8.
Any comments as to what to do here?
Thanks
Attachments
Finder
Veteran
Have you thought about a tripod? You can then make longer exposures.
antiquark
Derek Ross
A lens hood would help eliminate some flares, like the "swoosh" in #1.
Other than that, I think that it's hard to get a high quality night picture if you want to avoid a tripod. You either have to use a wide aperture, which increases optical distortion, or a fast film, which increases grain.
(Of course, a tripod isn't the only way to stabilize a camera, you can use a bench, a mailbox, etc. )
Other than that, I think that it's hard to get a high quality night picture if you want to avoid a tripod. You either have to use a wide aperture, which increases optical distortion, or a fast film, which increases grain.
(Of course, a tripod isn't the only way to stabilize a camera, you can use a bench, a mailbox, etc. )
Last edited:
Tuolumne
Veteran
You aren't going to like this, but... Nothing beats digital for shooting challenging scenes. You can keep shooting until you like what you see. Makes a big difference for scenes like this.
/T
/T
DougK
This space left blank
A tripod/support would help a great deal, I think. An alternative approach is to see how these shots look in black-and-white. I sometimes find that when I take what I think will be a really cool shot in color and it doesn't work, I convert it to black-and-white and the shot I originally saw jumps out at me.
EDIT: I also like Tuolumne's suggestion and it's another solution I use quite frequently.
EDIT: I also like Tuolumne's suggestion and it's another solution I use quite frequently.
Anupam
Well-known
Tuolumne said:
You have gotta be kidding. For night scenes like this dynamic range is crucial and color negs or BW film will whip digital or color slides at this one area. If you don't have a clue and need to keep guessing then instant feedback might be good, but you don't need it if you aren't doing much guesswork - bracket wildly if you must.
Here's a 4x5 with tripod and spot meter:
And another on 35mm Bessa T handheld, Tri-X, metered by eye:
DMR, a tripod and slightly smaller apertures and proper metering might help, and a hood or a carefully placed hand might help with flare.
-Anupam
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
take a tripod.
Borrow one if you have none.
It really really really helps in such cases.
Also..you can try polariod or (god forgive me!!!)digital. Something you can check right there.
Borrow one if you have none.
It really really really helps in such cases.
Also..you can try polariod or (god forgive me!!!)digital. Something you can check right there.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Also, what i seem to see on the third image especially, is that your scanning/displaying is not consistent with your exposure idea.
Meaning, you expose in a way that the shadows go dark, but then, you bring them up / brighten them when you scan or after scanning. Therefore the shadows still have no details on the third image but they do have lots of noise/grain/color shifts.
My suggestion would be: either measure the light differently, and give the film more exposure, and then you get your shadows in order (and your street lamps will be more out) OR keep the exposure as it is now but just increase contrast / bring down the brightness of the image. Would look MUCH better imo.
The choice is up to you.
But right now it looks, that both the metering of the scene AND the image processing/scanning is just left to the artifficial intelligense. I.e. camera autoexposure, scanner auto brightness/contrast.
Night scenes are the most difficult lighting and way over the guesswork capability of any autoexposure device.
Meaning, you expose in a way that the shadows go dark, but then, you bring them up / brighten them when you scan or after scanning. Therefore the shadows still have no details on the third image but they do have lots of noise/grain/color shifts.
My suggestion would be: either measure the light differently, and give the film more exposure, and then you get your shadows in order (and your street lamps will be more out) OR keep the exposure as it is now but just increase contrast / bring down the brightness of the image. Would look MUCH better imo.
The choice is up to you.
But right now it looks, that both the metering of the scene AND the image processing/scanning is just left to the artifficial intelligense. I.e. camera autoexposure, scanner auto brightness/contrast.
Night scenes are the most difficult lighting and way over the guesswork capability of any autoexposure device.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Finally (sorry for the triple post!) if you want normal colours in the shot, either get tungsten balanced film or have a cooling filter and longer ?(much longer) exposures. Again, the tripod is necessary.
Where blue light is scarce, there's nothing else to do than to cut on the red side.
Or you can avoid the whole issue using black and white
Where blue light is scarce, there's nothing else to do than to cut on the red side.
Or you can avoid the whole issue using black and white
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Also to comment on Tuolumne's point, how the heck can you peer at a small screen on the back of a camera and be sure that you have achieved proper focus and are free of the weird light effects? That's one of the things I don't get about digital cameras --it's very hard to make any sort of critical evaluation of an image based on the LCD screen.
OK, sorry the rant. I agree with the others' suggestions -- a lens hood, a slower shutter speed and smaller aperture are what you need. And a tripod is probably best for the purpose, though it does slow things down considerably if you need to beat a hasty retreat.
OK, sorry the rant. I agree with the others' suggestions -- a lens hood, a slower shutter speed and smaller aperture are what you need. And a tripod is probably best for the purpose, though it does slow things down considerably if you need to beat a hasty retreat.
Gumby
Veteran
In addition to the tripod, tungsten balanced film (or appropriate filter) suggestions, may I suggest considering a mild star filter. I know, it is often a cheezy over-used effect... but a mild star filter can add some pizzazz to streetlights, etc.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
KoNickon - you can bring a laptop along. At least that's how i imagine "instant gratification " of digital
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Gumby - actually stopping down to f/16 or such WILL act like a "mild star effect" on the strong highlights without distorting the rest of the image
Finder
Veteran
The only problem with the tungsten film/filter suggestion is the street lights are not tungsten. Use daylight and come to peace with whatever color the sodium vapor gives you.
ywenz
Veteran
KoNickon said:
Digital is your friend.. digtal cameras excel in scenarios like these due to lower noise at high iso..
both shot @ f/1.2, 1600, hand-held.
Anupam Basu said:
You have gotta be kidding. You need all that setup? Even my POS Ricoh GRD excel in night time photography..
This one shot while drunk and a slight drizzle from the sky:
This one shot on the window sill of my car while waiting at the red light:
Camera pressed up agains the side of a building 10 stories up:
A little night time gem in my pocket wherever I go. Sorry no room for a tripod or cable release.
Last edited:
mackigator
Well-known
My advice, YMMV:
Tripod, cable release, low ISO film (If fuji, try velvia 100 or provia 100f) and a large f-stop number. If your film camera's meter won't read correctly in low light with long exposures, shoot a small digital camera (that has a manual mode) alongside and adjust from its meter readings. At high f/stops you'll get nice tight star effects in the shape of the lens aperture blades. Shoot a couple at the highest f/stop and a couple in the middle, whatever the sweet spot is for that lens, for best contrast and sharpness.
Give up on normal colors and shoot instead for something you think is beautiful. At night our minds constantly correct for color anyway; as long as you like it, shoot it however you want as far as color balance and light temperatures. Especially true where there are no skin tones or other important/innate colored things that a viewers mind will stumble on when your camera records all the orange light.
Tripod, cable release, low ISO film (If fuji, try velvia 100 or provia 100f) and a large f-stop number. If your film camera's meter won't read correctly in low light with long exposures, shoot a small digital camera (that has a manual mode) alongside and adjust from its meter readings. At high f/stops you'll get nice tight star effects in the shape of the lens aperture blades. Shoot a couple at the highest f/stop and a couple in the middle, whatever the sweet spot is for that lens, for best contrast and sharpness.
Give up on normal colors and shoot instead for something you think is beautiful. At night our minds constantly correct for color anyway; as long as you like it, shoot it however you want as far as color balance and light temperatures. Especially true where there are no skin tones or other important/innate colored things that a viewers mind will stumble on when your camera records all the orange light.
Last edited:
Finder
Veteran
That is funny, film cameras don't have any noise.
uhligfd
Well-known
I wonder what exactly you consider a "Winner". In these pictures, the scene(s) suffer from too much contrast from street level up to the roofs. The scene is compositionally bland and I would not take it. But you might enjoy the view (which no medium can replicate; our eyes work through many more stops all at once). Moreover you did tilt the camera up for convergence which annoys me.
So, try again with a tripod and longer exposure times at a medium f stop and learn to like what you can get here. I am afraid it will not win ever. The later night pictures posted in the replies have much more even lighting and thus they look much more suitable for a good photo.
So, try again with a tripod and longer exposure times at a medium f stop and learn to like what you can get here. I am afraid it will not win ever. The later night pictures posted in the replies have much more even lighting and thus they look much more suitable for a good photo.
Anupam
Well-known
I don't know if you are being facetious but as my next shot showed, I can also shoot handheld if I want to with film. As for 4x5, yes, I do need it when I want to be able to hold texture over 10 to 12 stops of brightness and print as large as I want. I am not satisfied with shots so overexposed that I can't tell if they are night or day shots and I don't know of any digitals yet that have a dynamic range of 12 stops. If the results you get satisfy you, that is fine. But if you claim that a digital sensor has as much dynamic range as negative film, then I have to disagree.ywenz said:
-A
Gumby
Veteran
Pherdinand said:Gumby - actually stopping down to f/16 or such WILL act like a "mild star effect" on the strong highlights without distorting the rest of the image
True to certain degree, but what if not shooting f/16 or smaller? BTW, stars aren't "distortion", they are an element of artistic interpretation
p.s. mi nombre es Eduardo, senor.