Pictures in the dark

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Paul Heslop, Oct 20, 2003.

  1. Paul Heslop

    Paul Heslop Guest

    Waiting for a ship to set sail from the river this morning I took some
    pics in the dark, leaving the flash off and without a tripod (freezing
    cold too!) this was all just for fun and much of what I got had that
    slight double image caused by my hands being unsteady, which I kind of
    expected so no biggy, but a lot was actually badly out of focus too. Is
    it harder for autofocus to fix on stuff in the dark or near dark?

    --
    Paul. (Love with tongues of fire)
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Not what it seems...
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
    Paul Heslop, Oct 20, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Paul Heslop

    druidh Guest

    "Paul Heslop" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Waiting for a ship to set sail from the river this morning I took some
    > pics in the dark, leaving the flash off and without a tripod (freezing
    > cold too!) this was all just for fun and much of what I got had that
    > slight double image caused by my hands being unsteady, which I kind of
    > expected so no biggy, but a lot was actually badly out of focus too. Is
    > it harder for autofocus to fix on stuff in the dark or near dark?
    >


    Yes

    --

    druidh

    Not FAR to respond. . . . .
    druidh, Oct 20, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>,
    Paul Heslop <> wrote:

    > Waiting for a ship to set sail from the river this morning I took some
    > pics in the dark, leaving the flash off and without a tripod (freezing
    > cold too!) this was all just for fun and much of what I got had that
    > slight double image caused by my hands being unsteady, which I kind of
    > expected so no biggy, but a lot was actually badly out of focus too. Is
    > it harder for autofocus to fix on stuff in the dark or near dark?
    >
    > --
    > Paul. (Love with tongues of fire)
    > --------------------------------------------------------------
    > Not what it seems...
    > http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
    >
    >


    Autofocus becomes slower and less reliable in the dark. If it's
    handheld too, it will see too much motion blur to work at all. Some P&S
    digicams will guess 8 feet when they can't autofocus.
    Kevin McMurtrie, Oct 20, 2003
    #3
  4. Paul Heslop

    Paul Heslop Guest

    druidh wrote:

    > Is
    > > it harder for autofocus to fix on stuff in the dark or near dark?
    > >

    >
    > Yes
    >
    >


    Wow, no beating about the bush for you :O)




    --
    Paul. (Love with tongues of fire)
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Not what it seems...
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
    Paul Heslop, Oct 20, 2003
    #4
  5. Paul Heslop

    Paul Heslop Guest

    Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

    >
    > Autofocus becomes slower and less reliable in the dark. If it's
    > handheld too, it will see too much motion blur to work at all. Some P&S
    > digicams will guess 8 feet when they can't autofocus.


    Oh well, thanks. I am afraid it look like patience til I get a camera with
    manual focus.



    --
    Paul. (Love with tongues of fire)
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Not what it seems...
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
    Paul Heslop, Oct 20, 2003
    #5
  6. Paul Heslop <> writes:

    > druidh wrote:
    >
    > > Is
    > > > it harder for autofocus to fix on stuff in the dark or near dark?


    > > Yes


    > Wow, no beating about the bush for you :O)


    Every now and then somebody actually asks a question which really does
    have a short, simple, answer. Like that one :).
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>
    David Dyer-Bennet, Oct 20, 2003
    #6
  7. Paul Heslop

    Paul Heslop Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

    > Paul Heslop <> writes:
    >
    > > druidh wrote:
    > >
    > > > Is
    > > > > it harder for autofocus to fix on stuff in the dark or near dark?

    >
    > > > Yes

    >
    > > Wow, no beating about the bush for you :O)

    >
    > Every now and then somebody actually asks a question which really does
    > have a short, simple, answer. Like that one :).
    > --


    :O) I've only tried this sort of stuff once or twice so it's very experimental for
    me, and with the c-220zoom being almost completely auto it makes it very hard to
    get something unusual out of it. I got one or two I quite liked though, including
    this one
    http://shuttercity.com/ShowPhoto.cfm?PhotoID=67264



    --
    Paul. (Love with tongues of fire)
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Not what it seems...
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
    Paul Heslop, Oct 20, 2003
    #7
  8. Paul Heslop

    Don Stauffer Guest

    Yes. In fact, with some film SLR cameras manual focus becomes difficult
    in low light. This is one area where a rangefinder shines.

    Paul Heslop wrote:
    >
    > Waiting for a ship to set sail from the river this morning I took some
    > pics in the dark, leaving the flash off and without a tripod (freezing
    > cold too!) this was all just for fun and much of what I got had that
    > slight double image caused by my hands being unsteady, which I kind of
    > expected so no biggy, but a lot was actually badly out of focus too. Is
    > it harder for autofocus to fix on stuff in the dark or near dark?
    >
    > --
    > Paul. (Love with tongues of fire)
    > --------------------------------------------------------------
    > Not what it seems...
    > http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/


    --
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
    Don Stauffer, Oct 20, 2003
    #8
  9. Paul Heslop

    Paul Heslop Guest

    Don Stauffer wrote:

    > Yes. In fact, with some film SLR cameras manual focus becomes difficult
    > in low light. This is one area where a rangefinder shines.
    >


    Thanks Don, I guess I still have much to learn



    --
    Paul. (Love with tongues of fire)
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Not what it seems...
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
    Paul Heslop, Oct 20, 2003
    #9
  10. Paul Heslop

    Azzz1588 Guest

    In article <>, Paul Heslop
    <> writes:

    > Is
    >it harder for autofocus to fix on stuff in the dark or near dark?


    Yes, but never stop trying. I can now routinely take 1 sec exposures
    handheld, and they come out with no shakes. Have some cool pic's
    of the park next to my house illuminated only by moonlight. Look
    very erie..

    Wnat to have some fun ??
    Set up on a tripod, set the focus to manual, and then set that to
    infinity. Leave the LCD on the camera OFF.
    Point at the sky (pick a constellation) and let the
    shutter go for a max of 15 seconds. You SHOULD get some nice
    star pic's.


































    "Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
    Azzz1588, Oct 21, 2003
    #10
  11. Paul Heslop

    Paul Heslop Guest

    Azzz1588 wrote:

    > In article <>, Paul Heslop
    > <> writes:
    >
    > > Is
    > >it harder for autofocus to fix on stuff in the dark or near dark?

    >
    > Yes, but never stop trying. I can now routinely take 1 sec exposures
    > handheld, and they come out with no shakes. Have some cool pic's
    > of the park next to my house illuminated only by moonlight. Look
    > very erie..


    Great stuff. It's just cool trying to picture stuff in a totally
    different lighting situation...

    >
    >
    > Wnat to have some fun ??
    > Set up on a tripod, set the focus to manual, and then set that to
    > infinity. Leave the LCD on the camera OFF.
    > Point at the sky (pick a constellation) and let the
    > shutter go for a max of 15 seconds. You SHOULD get some nice
    > star pic's.
    >
    > "Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."


    :O( I don't have a manual focus. The little Oly is almost entirely auto.
    I only started getting reasonable dim light pics by switching off auto
    flash to get the exposure time longer, otherwise everything would be
    taken on fasted speed. The only way I could get anywhere near 15 seconds
    shooting is to switch to movie mode

    I need a better camera!


    --
    Paul. (Love with tongues of fire)
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Not what it seems...
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
    Paul Heslop, Oct 21, 2003
    #11
  12. In article <>,
    (Azzz1588) wrote:

    > In article <>, Paul Heslop
    > <> writes:
    >
    > > Is
    > >it harder for autofocus to fix on stuff in the dark or near dark?

    >
    > Yes, but never stop trying. I can now routinely take 1 sec exposures
    > handheld, and they come out with no shakes. Have some cool pic's
    > of the park next to my house illuminated only by moonlight. Look
    > very erie..
    >
    > Wnat to have some fun ??
    > Set up on a tripod, set the focus to manual, and then set that to
    > infinity. Leave the LCD on the camera OFF.
    > Point at the sky (pick a constellation) and let the
    > shutter go for a max of 15 seconds. You SHOULD get some nice
    > star pic's.
    >


    Or 1158 seconds with a Digital Rebel:

    <http://www.pixelmemory.us/Photos/Outdoors/Mt. Hamilton/Oct 22 2003
    %20Star%20Spin/spin.jpg>
    Kevin McMurtrie, Oct 23, 2003
    #12
  13. Paul Heslop

    Azzz1588 Guest

    In article <>, Kevin
    McMurtrie <> writes:

    >Or 1158 seconds with a Digital Rebel:


    At that point, I just go with film...
    (with shots like these, you know in advance how they will turn out)


    I am thinking about one of the digital Rebel's next year,
    but for now in astrophotography, I am still heavilly commited to film...

















    "Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
    Azzz1588, Oct 23, 2003
    #13
  14. In article <>,
    (Azzz1588) wrote:

    > In article <>, Kevin
    > McMurtrie <> writes:
    >
    > >Or 1158 seconds with a Digital Rebel:

    >
    > At that point, I just go with film...
    > (with shots like these, you know in advance how they will turn out)
    >
    >
    > I am thinking about one of the digital Rebel's next year,
    > but for now in astrophotography, I am still heavilly commited to film...
    >


    True. The Digital Rebel is one of the best DSLRs when it comes to long
    exposures but it's still a bit slow and noisy for astronomy. It's still
    fun for artistic night photos, though.
    Kevin McMurtrie, Oct 24, 2003
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rafe B.

    Re: Taking pictures in the dark

    Rafe B., Jul 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    397
    Luuk Houwen
    Jul 21, 2003
  2. Luuk Houwen

    Re: Taking pictures in the dark

    Luuk Houwen, Jul 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    615
    Luuk Houwen
    Jul 21, 2003
  3. Ed Ruf

    Re: Nikon Collpix 2000 makes dark pictures

    Ed Ruf, Aug 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    396
    Ed Ruf
    Aug 6, 2003
  4. Jon

    Canon S50 Dark Pictures

    Jon, Oct 16, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    412
    HavingFun
    Oct 20, 2003
  5. Lars Bonnesen

    Spots on dark pictures

    Lars Bonnesen, Jan 1, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    522
    Ron Hunter
    Jan 2, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page