|
QQ: When shooting night photography do longer exposures ie 1/8 or longer at a wide aperture (on a tripod generally) mean there is more light let into the sensor and therefore a better exposure overall? I went out last night on the street and my photo's were ending up a bit dark even at 6400 ISO or 12800 ISO. Tips please thanks.
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 05:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 09:11 |
|
|
Auditore posted:QQ: When shooting night photography do longer exposures ie 1/8 or longer at a wide aperture (on a tripod generally) mean there is more light let into the sensor and therefore a better exposure overall? I went out last night on the street and my photo's were ending up a bit dark even at 6400 ISO or 12800 ISO. Tips please thanks. This is quite a basic exposure question. Everytime you double the length the shutter is open you are doubling the amount of light that is hitting the sensor. So yes, going from 1/8 to 1/4 means more light, means the picture will be brighter. Just as going to 1/2, 1, 2, 4, 8 etc will be. So a 4 second exposure will let in 32 times more light than an exposure that is .125 (1/8) of a second (if im doing this right?). Aperture works the same way except the numbers are a bit more confusing because they follow a logarithmic scale. Same with ISO. The understanding exposure book does a great job of explaining.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 06:03
|
|
|
Auditore posted:QQ: When shooting night photography do longer exposures ie 1/8 or longer at a wide aperture (on a tripod generally) mean there is more light let into the sensor and therefore a better exposure overall? I went out last night on the street and my photo's were ending up a bit dark even at 6400 ISO or 12800 ISO. Tips please thanks. I'm not really sure what the question is? A larger aperture (a lower number) lets in more light, yes, which is why the required shutter speed is reduced. One stop up of aperture, reduces the shutter speed needed for a correct exposure by one stop. Depending on what you are doing though, you can just increase the shutter speed as you decrease aperture. If you want to use f/22 at night there's nothing actually WRONG with that, it's just going to require upwards of a 15 second exposure. ISO is just another part of the "exposure triangle" in that if you increase ISO you can decrease the aperture or shutter speed. Edit since I was beaten anyways I'll give the "generalization" - If you want to shoot at night you generally want to use as wide as an aperture as possible. It doesn't give you a "better" exposure it just makes for faster shutter speeds to get a CORRECT exposure, which makes hand-holding possible. subx fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Feb 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 06:08
|
|
|
Fists Up posted:This is quite a basic exposure question. Okay thanks. I''ll try that when I head out tonight in town. Apologies if the question is a bit badly worded, I'm relatively new to exposing correctly re. the relationship between aperture and shutter speed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 06:37
|
|
|
If its very dark out and you have no tripod then you may struggle to get anything usable. As a general rule its difficult to handhold something that is 1/ your focal length. So say your lens is at 35mm then you would struggle to use slower than 1/30 or so. At night you may find you need exposures of at least a second even with the aperture wide open and iso pushed up. So you need to find something for the camera to sit on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 07:05
|
|
|
Coolies. Went out last night to take some around town. I found a decent way to take long exposures is by standing them on power access boxes (about 1.3m high). Of course nothing like a real tripod but they did the job well enough. My best photo is in the night exposure thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2011 00:10
|
|
|
You definitely don't need a tripod if theres something to sit it on. A tripod just means that you can most likely point it up or down or tilt. But remember to put it on self timer so you dont bump the camera pressing the shutter button (although your photo looks good. theres no shake at all so I assume you did that?)
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2011 00:52
|
|
|
Actually no I didn't even think of that. To get it straight in portrait I had to prop up the lens (18-55mm kit) with my lens cap underneath it. Then I just took care pressing the shutter button.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2011 01:58
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Dust on the sensor? Not sure. Have you held the lens up to a light and looked through it? Sometimes you'll notice stuff you don't normally see. Hey, just to let you know, Canon instructed me to send it to them and I did today. We'll see what they have to say once they've gotten a look.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2011 02:18
|
|
|
Quick gear question: I'm going to be camping for a couple weeks away from electricity. Is there some kind of gadget that will allow me to copy the contents of my SD cards onto it? I'm thinking of like a large external hard drive with an SD card slot that operates on batteries and doesn't require a computer connection. Am I trying to go unicorn hunting, or does such a beast exist?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 23:08
|
|
|
slartibartfast posted:Quick gear question: I'm going to be camping for a couple weeks away from electricity. Is there some kind of gadget that will allow me to copy the contents of my SD cards onto it? I'm thinking of like a large external hard drive with an SD card slot that operates on batteries and doesn't require a computer connection. You can get them, but last time I looked almost as cheap to just get a netbook (which has longer battery life than the ones I was looking at anyway). Guess you don't want to be carrying any more weight than necessary though. http://www.google.com/products/cata...ved=0CDQQ8wIwAw
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 23:17
|
|
|
slartibartfast posted:Quick gear question: I'm going to be camping for a couple weeks away from electricity. Is there some kind of gadget that will allow me to copy the contents of my SD cards onto it? I'm thinking of like a large external hard drive with an SD card slot that operates on batteries and doesn't require a computer connection. Just buy more SD cards. Cheaper and lighter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 00:01
|
|
|
Fists Up posted:Just buy more SD cards. Cheaper and lighter. Or, torture yourself but live in style, and bring a generator.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 07:32
|
|
|
slartibartfast posted:Quick gear question: I'm going to be camping for a couple weeks away from electricity. Is there some kind of gadget that will allow me to copy the contents of my SD cards onto it? I'm thinking of like a large external hard drive with an SD card slot that operates on batteries and doesn't require a computer connection. I am going to start some poo poo with this comment, but: there is this fantastic stuff called film, it doesn't need power and it sounds perfect for what you're doing. If you're dead-set on bringing electronics into the wild, extra batteries/SD cards are really your only way to roll.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 08:57
|
|
|
King Hotpants posted:your only way to roll.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 12:06
|
|
|
Thanks for the help, everyone.King Hotpants posted:I am going to start some poo poo with this comment, but: there is this fantastic stuff called film, it doesn't need power and it sounds perfect for what you're doing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 14:23
|
|
|
King Hotpants posted:I am going to start some poo poo with this comment, but: there is this fantastic stuff called film, it doesn't need power and it sounds perfect for what you're doing. I love film for some things, but that would weigh more and be more expensive than extra cards. You can take 500+ photos depending on the card/camera combo and that can easily be gotten for less than $30 for most cameras at the highest resolution. Also if you turn off image review and don't use the LCD constantly batteries last a really, really long time. For the original question, I can't think of anything that does that offhand, but you can get an iPad and use the camera transfer cable. Of course you'd pay $700 for a 64GB iPad and just to buy 64GB worth of SD cards would cost like $100. And it would be a lot smaller.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 17:14
|
|
|
Batteries + extra SD cards is really your best bet. Or, you could be more selective in what you take pictures of...
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 17:51
|
|
|
spf3million posted:I think you want to make sure that you make LR move your photos for you, don't just drag and drop the folders with the RAWs from one location to another. This guys did a video to walk you through it: http://thelightroomlab.com/2010/06/...op-lightroom-3/. I think the first video is what you want. Moving my catalog from the old to the new computer was as easy as copying over my photos (it made sense to put them in the same directory as on the old laptop), copying the one-file Lightroom 2 app into my apps folder (try doing that poo poo in Windows, ha), and then copying over the Lightroom folder and catalog that contained my preferences, and again, putting it in the same place as before. No imports, no questions asked - hell, when I fired up Lightroom for the first time it even remembered which gallery, and which photo I'd been working on before the switchover.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 21:39
|
|
|
jackpot posted:I'm not a fanboy, but goddamn do I love using a Mac sometimes. This is how I move my library on Windows. I don't see how that is any different. It's actually got nothing to do with Microsoft or Apple and everything to do with Adobe observing proper file storage practices.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 21:56
|
|
|
KennyG posted:This is how I move my library on Windows. I don't see how that is any different. It's actually got nothing to do with Microsoft or Apple and everything to do with Adobe observing proper file storage practices.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 23:43
|
|
|
jackpot posted:I guess I haven't done it in Windows for a while. If it's just an Adobe thing, then kudos to them for making it so damned easy. I'd say that it more a case of Adobe, surprisingly, not being dicks for a change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2011 04:11
|
|
|
I have a telezoom related quandry. I'm getting married in a week, and then headed off on a 2 month honeymoon. Everything is sorted, except my drat photo gear. I am definitely taking the 7D with 10-22, 17-55 and siggy 30f1.4. But what is the general consensus on taking a (long) telezoom? We are going to (approx a week each, give or take) Bora Bora, NYC, Swiss alps, Venice, Rome, London, Paris, Victoria Falls (with a side trip to Botswana and the Okavango), Capetown/Stellenbosch/Garden Route and then a private game reserve near the Kruger. I have an 85f1.8 and 100f2.8 (both too short), could probably borrow a 55-250... and a 150-500mm Bigma. I'm probably too broke to buy a 70-200f2.8 IS + extender. I could probably buy a 70-300 IS (non-L) or even a 70-200f4 (which I would later replace anyways). Pro * Some of these practically demand a long lens, Africa especially. * I'd definitely use it in other places, tele compression is hot, and I love detail shots... but not sure how much I'd *really* use it Con * Africa, where I would get the most use, is the end of a 9 week trip. * If I'm being honest, I probably wouldnt carry it often while elsewhere * Where I was using it, I would have to carry it around on foot all day (no cars anywhere) * The Bigma is, uh, big. It weighs almost 5lbs, takes up a significant chunk of space, and would have to be part of my carryon luggage... on 19 flights. So, wtf do I do? Lug it around, bring it along for 1 day in each city (which would mean I'd be easily carrying 10-15lbs that day) and potentially annoy the crap out of my new wife and/or me? Or miss a bunch of shots that I wont have another chance to get, especially in the last couple of weeks.. but not have to deal with carrying a small house in my backpack? Or do I just go for the 55-250 and accept that it will lead to *some* missed shots, a bunch of cropping and possibly being eaten by a god drat lion? Also, tripods? yay or nay? There is alot of sunsetting and landscapesing to be done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2011 14:40
|
|
|
joelcamefalling posted:I have a telezoom related quandry. Failing that, borrow the Bigma.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2011 14:47
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:The 100-400 is pretty much the safari lens for people who can't buy/carry huge primes. I realize you don't have time to be patient, (and I don't know exactly what your budget is) but I've seen them go used for $1000. You could also consider the 400 f/5.6 for $800-900 used. Sorry, its late and my brain is retarded. I own the Bigma, but could borrow the 55-250.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2011 14:59
|
|
|
joelcamefalling posted:2 Month Honeymoon at Bora Bora, NYC, Swiss alps, Venice, Rome, London, Paris, Victoria Falls (with a side trip to Botswana and the Okavango), Capetown/Stellenbosch/Garden Route and then a private game reserve near the Kruger for a week each. Hey, just a real quick and bitter gently caress you for making me read this. And then a more friendly trip report thread request when you get back.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2011 16:25
|
|
|
I did my honeymoon in Europe w/ the original digital rebel and the sigma equiv of the 24-70 L. Honestly, I can't even remember needing a tele. I wouldn't bother with it personally.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2011 17:25
|
|
|
Cannister posted:Hey, just a real quick and bitter gently caress you for making me read this. And then a more friendly trip report thread request when you get back. Also requesting major trip report from joelcamefalling. Sounds amazing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2011 17:50
|
|
|
macx posted:I did my honeymoon in Europe w/ the original digital rebel and the sigma equiv of the 24-70 L. Honestly, I can't even remember needing a tele. I wouldn't bother with it personally. It's more about the wildlife though. You can never have a long enough lens for all the little critters of the earth. You can walk in with a 400mm lens and that elephant will still be a wee speck in the frame. Such is the law of the land. Also, I'm planning on a two-week vacation in Europe this year. Yes, I've resigned myself to the fact that we won't be able to do everything we want to do there in that amount of time. I'm considering bringing a similar kit though, opting for my Rebel XTi over my 40D because of size and weight and probably running with my 17-50, 30mm Sigma and my 135mm f/2.8 because it's small and light. I'd love to bring my 11-16, but I'll have to see how it all works out baggage-wise. HPL fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Mar 2, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2011 17:53
|
|
|
joelcamefalling posted:I have a telezoom related quandary. Are you going on a honeymoon or a photo trip? The 55-250 sounds much more reasonable, you don't really want to carry the Bigma on 19 different flights. You'll want something small and light, but you will be kicking yourself if you don't have a tele. If you have a small and light tripod, bring that, and only if you're willing to spend time getting up at sunrise, and willing to miss awesome sunsets with her, while taking photos. (Also that's a crazy schedule, but let's not get into that.) Is she into photography at all?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2011 18:00
|
|
|
DanTheFryingPan posted:Are you going on a honeymoon or a photo trip?... This is really more what I was getting at. If she isn't in to photography, then seriously consider minimizing your camera gear. If she is in to it and wants to be photographing along side of you, then sure, bring a tele.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2011 18:26
|
|
|
macx posted:This is really more what I was getting at. If she isn't in to photography, then seriously consider minimizing your camera gear. I was out on a walk once and saw this old couple. He was carrying a camera with a ginormous lens on it. She was carrying the tripod.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2011 19:25
|
|
|
HPL posted:It's more about the wildlife though. You can never have a long enough lens for all the little critters of the earth. You can walk in with a 400mm lens and that elephant will still be a wee speck in the frame. Such is the law of the land.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2011 20:32
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Bring your LF setup and come to Uppsala. Payment in beers. I think you're confusing me with Pompous Rhombus. He's crazy large format traveling man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2011 21:09
|
|
|
How do you get 10 weeks off work? Sounds awesome. Also id take a 70-200 f4. Not really big and still a great lens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2011 21:12
|
|
|
Cannister posted:Hey, just a real quick and bitter gently caress you for making me read this. And then a more friendly trip report thread request when you get back. I can see how I came across a bit dickish. HAI GUYZ MY MONEYBAGS ARE TOO HEAVY, SHOULD I BRING THE BENTLEY?! In reality, its alot less glamorous. I work for a bunch of jerks and have had one (short) holiday in four years (not counting the half day I got off for Christmas each year), but getting married is basically the one time they cant really say no to me asking for leave. She is in a similar situation. Combine that with some cheap round the world tickets that I got on sale and some heavy skimping on accomodation. (will definitely write up a trip report) DanTheFryingPan posted:Are you going on a honeymoon or a photo trip? Point taken. DanTheFryingPan posted:(Also that's a crazy schedule, but let's not get into that.) There are only four major flight legs, but a bunch of 1-3hr connections in between (rome->london, JNB->LVI, etc). Sounds alot worse than it is. DanTheFryingPan posted:Is she into photography at all? macx posted:This is really more what I was getting at. If she isn't in to photography, then seriously consider minimizing your camera gear. She is tolerant, I guess. Loves the results, likes going shooting with me (take a photo of that! and that!), but she is happy with her little pink digicam. I have a spare 400D/50D that I've never got around to ebaying, but she has never had any interest in using either (or even learning to use an slr). In short; she wont be mad at me having a bunch of gear, but she wont be proposing 5am photowalks. HPL posted:It's more about the wildlife though. You can never have a long enough lens for all the little critters of the earth. You can walk in with a 400mm lens and that elephant will still be a wee speck in the frame. Such is the law of the land. Yeah, that's my main worry. I love shooting (photos of) animals, and its god drat Africa and I will be pissed if I dont get a chance to take some decent shots - especially on safari. But if I were being totally honest, I doubt it would get much usage in the preceeding 6 weeks; I'm just not going to be motivated enough to carry a bigass lens around all day on the offchance that I might want to use it. Which just means I would be lugging around 5lbs of (fragile) dead weight and trying to get it not stolen. Me claiming otherwise is just some self justification at work. But from what I have been told, it's basically pointless to take a lens < 300mm for wildlife in Africa. But flickrstalking the place we are staying and focal lengths (checking EXIFs on travel shots is the nerdiest thing I can remember doing, ever) make it seem like it wont be a total waste. http://www.flickr.com/photos/safaripartners/4841484847/meta/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/ciaronandsarah/1507611281/meta/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/grahammacf/1107814938/ http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotos-g471865-d502926-w2-Garonga_Safari_Camp-Makalali_Private_Game_Reserve_Limpopo.html#28164404 http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotos-g471865-d502926-w7-Garonga_Safari_Camp-Makalali_Private_Game_Reserve_Limpopo.html#22553724 Does anyone know if rental in SA is an option? Google brings back one uninformative company website and no substantial discussions. BrosephofArimathea fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Mar 2, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2011 21:13
|
|
|
HPL posted:I was out on a walk once and saw this old couple. He was carrying a camera with a ginormous lens on it. She was carrying the tripod. That's cool when it isn't the honeymoon. Not withstanding missing once-in-a-lifetime events, a honeymoon only happens once and people can go to Africa any old time. If joelcamefalling fiance is as tolerant as he says, then it shouldn't be a problem. Personally, I would be super cautious. What do you need more-- that photo of a lion yawning, or a lifetime of nagging that you didn't pay enough attention to your new spouse during the one time that it is 100% about the happy couple?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2011 22:36
|
|
|
macx posted:
Eh, it's two months. He can take pictures all morning and mutter sweet nothings in her ear all evening and she'll still have a solid 350 hours of pure honeymooning.. when most people get a couple days at most.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2011 22:38
|
|
|
macx posted:That's cool when it isn't the honeymoon. Not withstanding missing once-in-a-lifetime events, a honeymoon only happens once and people can go to Africa any old time. Chances are his fiance is probably going to be all like OMGALIONLOOKLOOKLOOK! as well. Plus once you get into the real work world and get stuck in the grind, your chances of going to Africa again are about as great as going on another honeymoon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2011 22:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 09:11 |
|
|
joelcamefalling posted:But from what I have been told, it's basically pointless to take a lens < 300mm for wildlife in Africa. But flickrstalking the place we are staying and focal lengths (checking EXIFs on travel shots is the nerdiest thing I can remember doing, ever) make it seem like it wont be a total waste. You might be okay with a 55-250 at that game park. I went through Etosha Park (Namibia) and some spots in SA years back with a little Nikon 995 and was actually fairly happy with how it worked out. We spent a lot of time driving around to the various watering holes in the park, and you could often find all sorts of animals standing <20yards from the car. We drove by a couple of lions hanging out in the shade of a bush in a parking lot, so we ended up ~10ft from them and they were more than happy to lay there and have their pictures taken. The few times I really wished for a longer/faster lens were during the sunsets at the larger watering holes by the campgrounds in Etosha, where you're sitting a good 50+ yards from the water, and the skittish animals don't come in until dusk. I missed getting shots of a leopard at the hole (well after dark) due to camera limitations, but I managed to get shots of every other animal you'd hope for when we ran across them during the daylight hours. Based on what I was able to see on that trip, if I went back to South Africa again, I would not take the Bigma that I own now. I'd stick to something in the 200mm range, maybe with a 2x extender in the bag. Given that you're going on a honeymoon in a game reserve rather than stalking large game on the plains of Kenya, I think you should consider leaving the Bigma behind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2011 22:58
|
|
