How to Take Better Night Photos

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by gary.hendricks.user, Jan 10, 2006.

  1. gary.hendricks.user

    Doug Payne Guest

    Google "films for astrophotography".
     
    Doug Payne, Jan 10, 2006
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. gary.hendricks.user

    Bill Funk Guest

    Definitely some interesting water, with light reflections that don't
    match.
     
    Bill Funk, Jan 10, 2006
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Depending on the circumstances that may be beneficial, but higher ISO
    also equals more noise/grain and less dynamic range and colour fidelity.
    Of course if you want to have any hope in catching a moving subject in
    low natural light, high ISO is pretty much the only option.
     
    Graham Fountain, Jan 10, 2006
    #23
  4. gary.hendricks.user

    Tony Guest

    Here is some useful advice on the subject. It was written for film but the
    only difference is that one can see the results immediately.
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/mani/techs/mniteshot.html
    And here are some specific examples of how to do some typical shots.
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/mani/techs/mmlongood2.html

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
     
    Tony, Jan 10, 2006
    #24
  5. Apparently, the author wants to find the bad pixels, and taking the
    lightless photo under the same temperature conditions is some kind of
    advantage for this. - If this is true, he should have explained this to
    avoid confusion.
     
    William Graham, Jan 10, 2006
    #25
  6. gary.hendricks.user

    Doug Payne Guest

    More properly, noise generated by long exposures, as opposed to bad
    pixels. Some DSLRs have a custom setting that does this automatically.
     
    Doug Payne, Jan 10, 2006
    #26
  7. gary.hendricks.user

    How Bizarre Guest

    Yeah I understand that but how much light does the camera let in when taking
    a picture with the lens cap on?

    I would hazard a guess you can take the picture anywhere with the cap on and
    the results would identical?!
     
    How Bizarre, Jan 10, 2006
    #27
  8. How bad it is depends on the temperature and the camera. I do
    astrophotography with a Canon 1D Mark II and a 5 degree temperature
    change shows a significant effect at temperatures above 50 degrees F.
    When I worked with a Canon 10D, it was worse (the amp glow on one
    side especially. As temperatures drop, the need for dark
    frames would be less. But P&S cameras, with their smaller pixels,
    probably have a worse problem with readout noise, thermal noise and
    amp glow.
    Some simple errors should be corrected. If he hasn't corrected
    the lens page within a week or more, then it would appear
    that he is just spamming and has no interest in feedback.
    He posted how to take sunset photos a year or so ago and
    I criticized his writeup. His website article is better now.
    It is basic, but some people need that level.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jan 11, 2006
    #28
  9. Well, perhaps not.....If the ambient temperature affected the noise level,
    for example, it would be better if you got your noise reading right there,
    as soon after you took the original photo as possible.....If you waited
    until you got home in the comfort of your living room, the temperature would
    be different, and the pixel noise might be different too. - I don't even
    own a digital camera, however, so I don't know much about all this
    stuff......
     
    William Graham, Jan 11, 2006
    #29
  10. Do check it out:
    Hey there, Gazzaaa!

    You seem to *always* be stumbling over sites like these, don't you?
    Eg, recent (cross)posts from you turn these up:

    http://www.desktop-video-guide.com/capture-video.html
    http://www.build-your-own-computers.com/chose-a-motherboard

    (CHOSE-a motherboard? - oh dear.....)

    And often you suggest these sites are not yours. But they all look
    STRIKINGLY similar, and seem to indicate that the author knows just a
    little bit about a lot of stuff, but has a bit of a problem with
    blazingly obvious errors, and proofreading...

    Personally, I find those sites rather, er.. 'twee'... error laden and
    condescending. And I don't particularly approve of people who do NOT
    make it clear that the sites are *theirs*.

    I note you rarely return to these posts, also......
     
    mark.thomas.7, Jan 11, 2006
    #30
  11. Try doing a whois on all those sites - same registrant! If he says the
    sites aren't his, he is simply not telling the truth.

    You might even get the impression that these sites are there to make a
    profit, and that the purpose of promoting the sites in so many newsgroups
    was to maximise the profit. If there were the case, then SPAM might be a
    fit description!

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 11, 2006
    #31
  12. gary.hendricks.user

    How Bizarre Guest

    Try doing a whois on all those sites - same registrant! If he says the
    Original poster was ,

    He has also been spamming uk.comp.homebuilt with "choose a good
    motherboard".

    Domain name: BUILD-YOUR-OWN-COMPUTERS.COM

    Administrative Contact:
    Hendricks, Gary
    P O Box 880
    Potsdam, NY 17252
    US
    3197822658
    Technical Contact:
    Hendricks, Gary
    P O Box 880
    Potsdam, NY 17252
    US
    3197822658
     
    How Bizarre, Jan 11, 2006
    #32
  13. gary.hendricks.user

    Kernix Guest

    I noticed the guy has some links on the right to Amazon.com, NY shool
    of Photog, etc. I wonder if he makes $ for the # of hits to his page
    from the company links. That would inspire any clueless wonder to learn
    the basics and post BS.

    I could be wrong though.
    Jim
     
    Kernix, Jan 11, 2006
    #33
  14. gary.hendricks.user

    Bill Funk Guest

    Obviously, you don't.
    I think what the OP is trying to say is that using a dark frame
    reduction will get rid of any hot or stuck pixels that the long
    exposure might make.
    However, you obviously don't need to aim the camera at the same scene,
    as the lens cap would intrude; just being in the same place will
    suffice. Because...
    The temp at the time the shot is taken can make a difference.
    So, saying "at your convenience" is wrong, too, since, in order to
    have the same environmental conditions, the dark frame shot should be
    taken immediately.
     
    Bill Funk, Jan 11, 2006
    #34
  15. This is a little bit freaky. Finding people with the same name as you
    when you're not looking for them is a novel experience for me, but I
    just found you (c:
     
    Douglas Payne, Jan 11, 2006
    #35
  16. gary.hendricks.user

    Kernix Guest

    Huh? Who has the same name as whom?

    Jim
     
    Kernix, Jan 11, 2006
    #36
  17. Well its nearly the same name.

    I'm Douglas Payne see, and elsewhere in the thread there's a Doug Payne.

    Apologies, I'll be moving along now...

    Douglas
     
    Douglas Payne, Jan 11, 2006
    #37
  18. gary.hendricks.user

    Kernix Guest

    No need to apologize. I wasn't sure who you were referring to.

    That's cool by the way. My name is realtively unique and I googled it
    once - found my doppelganger is an asst mgr at a Walmart in Western PA,
    or at least he was 5 yrs ago when I checked. :)
     
    Kernix, Jan 11, 2006
    #38
  19. gary.hendricks.user

    Draco Guest

    There was an article in a photo rag several
    years ago that featured a gentleman
    who took some wonderful night scenics.
    He used a large format camera and
    double exposed the film. What he would do
    is pick a spot near dusk and shot the first
    image. In a couple of hours he would
    re-meter for the new exposure and
    shoot the second image. Having the
    camera and film remain in the same
    position allowed for some spectacular
    images. All done before the ease of
    Photoshop cxII or what ever.
    They looked surreal and wonderful.

    I haven't looked at the thread link for
    information. But I have taken my share
    of night photography. It is always
    fun to do with a group and see the
    magicial images later.


    Draco


    Getting even isn't good enough.
     
    Draco, Jan 12, 2006
    #39
  20. have you thought of waiting for that moment
    when the setting sun and the artificial light balance?

    easy to bracket the change by shooting every minute or so.
     
    bob crownfield, Jan 12, 2006
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.