«

Hi, anyone got suggestions about taking night shots. I don't know how a
digital camera works but I am used to using film. If I want to take night
shots I just expose my film for a longer period of time. When I try to take
digital, I just get a black image. Here in Ireland at the moment we have
great clear and frosty nights and I would love to be able to go up our local
mountain and take scenic shots of the local town and villages. Can this be
done digitally. I use a Pentax Optio but I can't see how it may be done (if
it even can be). Waiting hopefully,
Eugene

Eugene wrote:
>Hi, anyone got suggestions about taking >night shots.

I've done plenty - most of "Christmas houses" locally. I just rest my Sony
quasi-SLR on the car windowsill - and leave exposure on "auto." Some photos
like that I use flash for fill. Photoshop Elements takes care of the rest when
I get home.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<B>Dissident news - plus immigration, gun rights, nationwide weather
<I><A HREF="http://www.alamanceind.com">ALAMANCE INDEPENDENT:
official newspaper of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy</A></b></i>

In principle, digital and film work the same way. Which Pentax Optio?

For night shots, I use Tv and an ISO of 100. I set it at 30 seconds and let
it use the smallest aperature it can. I don't know what kind of noise your
camera will generate over that long of an exposure, so it may require some
trial and error (if your camera even allows for it.)

eugene wrote:

> Hi, anyone got suggestions about taking night shots. I don't know how a
> digital camera works but I am used to using film. If I want to take night
> shots I just expose my film for a longer period of time. When I try to
> take digital, I just get a black image. Here in Ireland at the moment we
> have great clear and frosty nights and I would love to be able to go up
> our local mountain and take scenic shots of the local town and villages.
> Can this be done digitally. I use a Pentax Optio but I can't see how it
> may be done (if it even can be). Waiting hopefully,
> Eugene

I am not very experienced, but a big difference between digital and
analogical is the noise generated by the heat of the sensor in long
exposures, I think.

--
al-Farrob
--
http://www.al-farrob.com

al-Farrob <> wrote in news:c13ang$1dvbhs$1@ID-
166011.news.uni-berlin.de:

> I am not very experienced, but a big difference between digital and
> analogical is the noise generated by the heat of the sensor in long
> exposures, I think.

Yes.

You can expose a night shot for hours on film without adding any noise.
As a matter of fact you can "dark" expose it for years and still
get a useful picture, i.e. you store it in the casette

With a solid state sensor you add noise during the whole exposure.

Now - modern cameras use noise cancelling by meassuring the dark
current nosie. So - they are much better.

Cooling of a sensor might give extremely low noise for solid
state sensor. This is used in astronomical sensors.

BTW - it really is no use to expose a film for hours, because
of the reciprocity failure. At a certain amount of exposure,
added exposure will not really add up.


/Roland

eugene wrote:

> Hi, anyone got suggestions about taking night shots. I don't know how a
> digital camera works but I am used to using film. If I want to take night
> shots I just expose my film for a longer period of time. When I try to take
> digital, I just get a black image. Here in Ireland at the moment we have
> great clear and frosty nights and I would love to be able to go up our local
> mountain and take scenic shots of the local town and villages. Can this be
> done digitally. I use a Pentax Optio but I can't see how it may be done (if
> it even can be). Waiting hopefully,
> Eugene



RTM?

"Roland Karlsson" <> wrote in message
news:Xns9494E99B614F5klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
> al-Farrob <> wrote in news:c13ang$1dvbhs$1@ID-
> 166011.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> > I am not very experienced, but a big difference between digital and
> > analogical is the noise generated by the heat of the sensor in long
> > exposures, I think.
>
> Yes.
>
> You can expose a night shot for hours on film without adding any noise.
> As a matter of fact you can "dark" expose it for years and still
> get a useful picture, i.e. you store it in the casette
>
> With a solid state sensor you add noise during the whole exposure.
>
> Now - modern cameras use noise cancelling by meassuring the dark
> current nosie. So - they are much better.

There is a lot of misunderstanding of this noise correction method. For one
thing, camera makers don't tell you quantitatively how well it works. The
noise is only reduced by 30%. (From elementary statistics theory.) It
helps, but only a little.

You can get decent shots with a digicam of city nightime scenes. It won't
work so well for a really dark scene. Indoor shots with less than bright
room lighting tend to come out with a brown tint, but that can usually be
corrected nicely in an image editing program.

>
> Cooling of a sensor might give extremely low noise for solid
> state sensor. This is used in astronomical sensors.
>
> BTW - it really is no use to expose a film for hours, because
> of the reciprocity failure. At a certain amount of exposure,
> added exposure will not really add up.
>
>
> /Roland

"Marvin Margoshes" <> wrote in
news::

>
> There is a lot of misunderstanding of this noise correction method.
> For one thing, camera makers don't tell you quantitatively how well it
> works. The noise is only reduced by 30%. (From elementary statistics
> theory.) It helps, but only a little.

No, not at all. It is you that is misunderstanding. The long exposure
"noise" reduction does not reduce purely statistical noise. It reduces
the effect of dark current. This is a noise in the spatial domain, but
it is predictable from pixel to pixel by using meassurements. This kind
of noise reduction is very effective. Look at camera review sites where
they have compared with and without the reduction. A dramatic effect.

> You can get decent shots with a digicam of city nightime scenes. It
> won't work so well for a really dark scene. Indoor shots with less
> than bright room lighting tend to come out with a brown tint, but that
> can usually be corrected nicely in an image editing program.

The brown tint is mainly caused by the low temperature of the lamps.


/Roland

Marvin Margoshes wrote:

> "Roland Karlsson" <> wrote in message
> news:Xns9494E99B614F5klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
>
>>al-Farrob <> wrote in news:c13ang$1dvbhs$1@ID-
>>166011.news.uni-berlin.de:
>>
>>
>>>I am not very experienced, but a big difference between digital and
>>>analogical is the noise generated by the heat of the sensor in long
>>>exposures, I think.
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>You can expose a night shot for hours on film without adding any noise.
>>As a matter of fact you can "dark" expose it for years and still
>>get a useful picture, i.e. you store it in the casette
>>
>>With a solid state sensor you add noise during the whole exposure.
>>
>>Now - modern cameras use noise cancelling by meassuring the dark
>>current nosie. So - they are much better.
>
>
> There is a lot of misunderstanding of this noise correction method. For one
> thing, camera makers don't tell you quantitatively how well it works. The
> noise is only reduced by 30%. (From elementary statistics theory.) It
> helps, but only a little.
>
> You can get decent shots with a digicam of city nightime scenes. It won't
> work so well for a really dark scene. Indoor shots with less than bright
> room lighting tend to come out with a brown tint, but that can usually be
> corrected nicely in an image editing program.
>
>
>>Cooling of a sensor might give extremely low noise for solid
>>state sensor. This is used in astronomical sensors.
>>
>>BTW - it really is no use to expose a film for hours, because
>>of the reciprocity failure. At a certain amount of exposure,
>>added exposure will not really add up.
>>
>>
>>/Roland
>
>
>
Noise is VERY noticeably reduced by the noise reduction on some cameras.
MUCH more than 30%. You can probably do better by chilling the camera
a few degrees before taking a picture, however.