«

Hey all,

I do a lot of night shoots and I like to use the natural light if possible.
I do most of my shooting outdoors with a Sony PSC-P71. I love what it can
do but the problem is that I would love for it to collect more light. Any
ideas? Any general ideas for shooting at night would be appreciated as
well... Another question I have; can someone tell me how I can get better
depth-of-field with a digital camera? I usually do my DoF in Photoshop
after the fact. I have tried to use the "Macro" feature on my camera but it
only really works well at very close distances. I know I really need a
telephoto lens (which I can't put on my P71) but any ideas would be
appreciated.

Thanks
________

"Sammie Garvin (Mobile)" wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> I do a lot of night shoots and I like to use the natural light if possible.
> I do most of my shooting outdoors with a Sony PSC-P71. I love what it can
> do but the problem is that I would love for it to collect more light. Any
> ideas?

A good tripod and longer exposures. Use the night mode on the camera
which allows slower shutter speeds.If you don't want to use a tripod,
try using the ISO 400 mode, and use the lens at wide angle. You
might be able to get an acceptable shutter speed to shoot without a tripod?
Now you know why I am obsessed with cameras that have fast lenses
(let plenty of light in). The Olympus C5050 for example has an f1.8-f2.6
lens, which lets in around four times as much light at the telephoto end
as the lens on your P71. Having manual exposure modes is also very
useful for this type of photography.

> Any general ideas for shooting at night would be appreciated as
> well... Another question I have; can someone tell me how I can get better
> depth-of-field with a digital camera?

With a camera with a manual mode, one would lose the aperture a few stops.


> I usually do my DoF in Photoshop
> after the fact.

What?

> I have tried to use the "Macro" feature on my camera but it
> only really works well at very close distances.

That is what macro is for. What are you trying to do?

> I know I really need a
> telephoto lens (which I can't put on my P71) but any ideas would be
> appreciated.

If you want nice night shots, get a camera with manual modes and
a good tripod. A camera with a fast lens and an ISO 400 mode
will allow you to get existing light images in moderate light without
a tripod, such as indoors in well lit rooms. Since you seem interested
in existing light photography, I suggest that you sell the P71 and
get an Olympus C5050 or Canon G3 or G5 and a decent tripod.
If you want to spend less, you might want to consider an Olympus
C4000 or a used Olympus camera in the C3000 series(C3000,
3020, 3030, or 3040).

>
>
> Thanks
> ________

Sammie Garvin (Mobile) wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> I do a lot of night shoots and I like to use the natural light if
> possible. I do most of my shooting outdoors with a Sony PSC-P71.
> I love what it can do but the problem is that I would love for it
> to collect more light. Any ideas?

If it has a manual or aperture priority mode use that and open it up as
wide as it'll go (lowest F number).

Otherwise, try taking lots of shots (on a tripod) and 'stacking' them

Using (for example):

http://www.tawbaware.com/is_help/imgstack_help.htm

> Any general ideas for shooting at night would be appreciated
> as well...

Tripod of course. Auto focus can get confused (though the laser
assist on my old 707 helps with close subjects) so you may want to
try manual focusing.

Get neatimage - it'll help reduce the image sensor noise that is all too
apparent in low light images.

If the camera has a TIFF mode try that instead of JPEG (it might make
make the noise less obtrusive).

This is the best I've managed so far...

http://www.pbase.com/image/20125774

(30 seconds @ F2 on a moonlit night)

Of course, the real fix is to get yourself a DSLR.

> Another question I have; can someone tell me how I can get better
> depth-of-field with a digital camera?

Which is 'better' - more or less?

> I usually do my DoF in Photoshop after the fact.

You want less DOF?
Aperture priority (if the P71 has it?) and low F numbers if you can.

HTH,


Rob.

"Sammie Garvin (Mobile)" <> wrote in message
news:r56cnVRGh7cf_aiiU-...
> Hey all,
> Another question I have; can someone tell me how I can get better
> depth-of-field with a digital camera? I usually do my DoF in Photoshop
> after the fact. I have tried to use the "Macro" feature on my camera but
it
> only really works well at very close distances. I know I really need a
> telephoto lens (which I can't put on my P71) but any ideas would be
> appreciated.
>
> Thanks
> ________

Sounds like your trying to get less depth of field from the camera......blur
the background behind the subject?

If so try manual focus one step in front of the subject. Ie, putting your
subject at the back of the range that is in focus.

Clear as mud?

For general night photography ideas you might drop by my night
photography site:

http://www.nightfolio.co.uk/

To be frank I am still working with film but there might still be
something relevant to digital capture.

Best wishes,

David Baldwin

Why most of them are suffering from vignetting ?

Wishes

<> wrote in message
news: ps.com...
> For general night photography ideas you might drop by my night
> photography site:
>
> http://www.nightfolio.co.uk/
>
> To be frank I am still working with film but there might still be
> something relevant to digital capture.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> David Baldwin
>

Looks like to me he is doing a good job.

Besides what is vignetting?


"David Zou" <> wrote in message
news:crsins$rjb$...
> Why most of them are suffering from vignetting ?
>
> Wishes
>
> <> wrote in message
> news: ps.com...
> > For general night photography ideas you might drop by my night
> > photography site:
> >
> > http://www.nightfolio.co.uk/
> >
> > To be frank I am still working with film but there might still be
> > something relevant to digital capture.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > David Baldwin
> >
>
>

I think he is doing a good job.
I saw no vignetting , where do you see it or what is your idea of vignetting
..



"David Zou" <> wrote in message
news:crsins$rjb$...
> Why most of them are suffering from vignetting ?
>
> Wishes
>
> <> wrote in message
> news: ps.com...
> > For general night photography ideas you might drop by my night
> > photography site:
> >
> > http://www.nightfolio.co.uk/
> >
> > To be frank I am still working with film but there might still be
> > something relevant to digital capture.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > David Baldwin
> >
>
>

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:06:14 -0600, "Bub" <> wrote:

>"David Zou" <> wrote in message
>news:crsins$rjb$...
>>
>> <> wrote in message
>> news: ps.com...
>> > For general night photography ideas you might drop by my night
>> > photography site:
>> >
>> > http://www.nightfolio.co.uk/
>> >
>> > To be frank I am still working with film but there might still be
>> > something relevant to digital capture.
>> >
>> > Best wishes,
>> >
>> > David Baldwin
>> >
>>
>> Why most of them are suffering from vignetting ?
>>
>> Wishes
>
>I think he is doing a good job.
>I saw no vignetting , where do you see it or what is your idea of vignetting

Darkening towards the corners of the frame. I see quite extreme
examples on nearly every landscape shot. Not that it looks unpleasant.

Here is a specific example:
http://www.nightfolio.co.uk/subpages/la11.html

Even the bottom corners are darkened. This is vignetting.

--
Owamanga!

Yeah they are great photos...
I am just curious that there is vignetting on almost every photo....is it a
natual outcome from such lighting conditions, or due to other reasons?

"David Zou" <> wrote in message
news:crsins$rjb$...
> Why most of them are suffering from vignetting ?
>
> Wishes
>
> <> wrote in message
> news: ps.com...
>> For general night photography ideas you might drop by my night
>> photography site:
>>
>> http://www.nightfolio.co.uk/
>>
>> To be frank I am still working with film but there might still be
>> something relevant to digital capture.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> David Baldwin
>>
>
>