Photography Help

“We'll start w/ the link to the pics in question.

The two pics were taken 4 minutes apart. The first was with a flash the second without.

The second pic accurately displays what it was like outside... dusk. But, because the shutter stayed open a bit longer to let in some light (I assume), the moving person (that's Q's son) came out very blurry. I realize the obvious thing to do is use a flash, but, as you can tell from the first pic, it makes it look like it was pitch dark outside, which it wasn't. And, lots of times the flash causes the subject to be too bright.

So, to you photography guru's out there, what can I do?

It's a digital camera. It has both auto and manual options (apeture, shutter, ISO). Should I be changing the film speed or something? Or does even the expert photographer have trouble at dusk?

Thanks for your help.”

“Get a tripod.”

“Got one, bacpac. If you look at the pic, you'll notice that everything is clear except the moving object. Are you suggesting I put Q's son on a tripod to keep him still?”

“A tripod won't do anything if the subject is moving. Use of a tripod allows a slower shutter speed, but then movement is blurred. If light is low the options are to either use flash or open the aperture wider. However, in low light opening the aperture wider cuts the depth of field (at least with film cameras; don't know about digital).

So in very low light like that, your choice narrows down to using the flash or shooting something that is not moving with no flash and slower speed.

If the subject is not moving, then a tripod would be useful. But at slow shutter speed, anything that moves will cause a blur with or without the tripod.”

“i think bacpac was volunteering to be your love slave.”

“lyra LMFAO!!

Geo - Sorta what I figured. Moving objects = flash. No moving objects = no flash.

I'm gonna read up on apeture settings some more. I'm gonna make me a photography expert yet!”

“Aperture settings let in more light, but give you a shorter depth of focus. You could have gone with a wider aperture setting and faster shutter speed, but the background would probably be out of focus. You also have to focus more carefully on the subject with a wide aperture setting.”

“I did not look at the pic.

Appeture settings and shutter speed are directly proportional. If you open up the F-stop one click you can increase the shutter speed one click.

Moving items will blur at less than 1/60 shutter speed and if they are really moving the shutter speed would have to be 1/125.

I am not into a love slave relationship, but am always open to a mutual agreement.”

“Does the camera gave a "boot" for an external flash? You can get some pretty bright flashes which illuminate the entire forest, I'll tell you.”

“Faster film speed. 800 or 1200. With real film you run into graininess issues. Might not have the same problem with digital.”

“How old is the child?

If you want to take a shot without flash, try this. Just ask the child to not move. (maybe make it a contest to be still?)

Sometimes the blur can be cool. I shot a Relay for Life last weekend. I got a shot of a guy looking down at a luminaria. He was blurred. I was shooting handheld, although I laid on my belly to get my steady support for the camera. It was OK, but would have been better with a tripod. whatever the case, I wanted the blur of the walkers.

So it depends on what you want.

I shot kids from behind for a newspaper photo. They were watching a harpist. Or, in real life, they were yapping and looking back at me (away from the harpist). So, I asked them if they could watch the harpist while I took a photo. They did. I got a nice shot of kids whose heads outlined the harp. And they actually looked interested, one laying down with hands holding his head up. That ended up being the "keeper" shot. And it would never have happened if I would not have asked. (sometimes they won't comply, but a lot of times for a newspaper photo they will)”

“tara...

The simpler point-and-shoot digital cameras are generally not as versatile as most of their 35mm SLR counteparts. Unless you invest mucho denario in an expensive digital camera, you can't expect a relatively simple one to perform like a sophisticated model with precise manual override settings and controls.

In pic #96, the automatic exposure control in your camera did exactly what it's designed to do, and the result is typical for flash pictures when light levels are *relatively* low. Pic #97 is also what's to be expected with low light levels while the flash is disengaged... that's because the automatic exposure control in your camera slowed the shutter down to let in more of the available light for "good" exposure ...but also ended up producing some blur effects in the moving subject. Very common.

Two possible solutions:
1. Try using the "Fill Flash" setting when taking pictures in lower light situations. I always use fill flash indoors ...and outdoors too on overcast/rainy days, at/near dusk or dawn, etc.
2. If your digital camera has an Exposure Increase/Decrease Control (many do), you could increase (+) the exposure to slow the shutter down and combine it with flash for a nicer result.

Solution #1 is probably the easiest. No promises though, because each camera model has its own little idiosyncracies. Additionally, simpler digital camera flash units are usually not very powerful ...can reach and illuminate subjects up to only maybe 8-12 feet away, depending on the model.

Another thing I would recommend is to read the owner's manual carefully ...it probably has some information that applies to these kinds of situations.

And don't worry too much about depth of focus in relation to aperture at this time in your photography career (that's more advanced stuff that can be fussed over at a later time) ...just take things one step at a time.

Good luck!”

“msilver does not know what he is talking about.

Photography is all about light.”

“The Previously Undisclosed Solution...

Cheat! LOL

1) Photograph the Desired Backgound with ambient light.
2) Photograph the Squirming Subject with the flash.
3) Diligently cut Squirming Subject from second image using PhotoShop or similar and paste into the Desired Background.


Or... use an SLR and accidently on purpose forget to advance the film between exposures, <G>”

“lol... Tilt, there ya go!

I will never forget the photo I had (pre-digital days) of rutting elk with softball players.

LMFAO!!”

“.... and the Elk were Not Amused! LOLOL!

I shot an entire roll of film that way once... er... Twice(?), <G>”

“M Silver. Thanks. I did, actually, have the fill flash on.

The camera I have, while not top of the line, if fairly nice...in the $400/500 range. (Olympus Camedia UltraZoom 720, or something like that0. I'm still learning about all the options. I'm going to give your #2 suggestion a try. I am fairly certian I have the option you reference. It just might be called something else.

Thanks, to everyone, for the help.”

“With a digital camera, set the ISO as high as possible in low light situations. It doesn't really change anything except how much light the camera "thinks" there is.

Disregard depth of field/depth of focus issues. They don't really apply to digital cameras.

With the ISO set as high as possible and the "aperature" set wide open (lowest number) you need a shutter speed of about 1 over the focal length of the lens to freeze human motion blur, both your's and the subject's. A tripod will reduce yours, not theirs. For a 100mm lens that means a shutter speed of 1/100 second or faster. This is taken from 35mm optics and is probably a little loose for digitals. Better to drop a stop on the shutter speed to make sure, so a 100mm zoom would require 1/200 sec shutter speed.

If these shutter speeds are less than a stop or a stop and a half underexposed, shoot anyway and punch up the brightness and contrast after the fact using Photoshop.

If you can't get these shutter speeds without underexposing more than a stop and a half, either use flash and live with the results or don't take the shot. Flash works best when all the major image elements are in the same plane of focus and have similar reflectivities.”

“Ask them to be still. Sorry, it's not very technical. lol”

“Stop time, then take as many pics as you want. When done, start time back up again.

Quod erat demonstratum...”

“Some comments...

Regarding ISO and digital cameras, ISO does matter -- higher ISO means higher gain in the amps on the sensors, causing more noise. This looks a lot like film grain and doesn't show as bad in print as it does on screen. How much noise you get at an ISO depends on the camera; you cannot judge how an individual camera will do by the results from a different brand/model.

Another thought is the Canon SLR's using ETTL and aperture-priority mode typically will set the shutter for ambient lighting even when using the flash. This has the nice effect of getting a properly lit (and stopped due to the brief flash duration) subject with the background exposed for a longer time with ambient light. This can have some very pleasing effects. Perhaps there's something akin to this available?”

“You guys all gave some really great advice. Thanks. But, now I'm greedy and I want more...

I'll be headed pretty far north in a few days. If I get an opportunity to see the aurora borealis, what's my best option for getting a good pic...

Using the tripod and the slowest shutter speed makes the most sense to me... what about the ISO?”

“Yowza! I get lots of my pics for 'wallpapers' from there. It looks like those folks were using 400 to 800.”

“In Fairbanks, they used to sell ISO 1000 stuff for photographing the lights.”

“You have to use high speed. I used 50 speed slide film once. LMFAO.. and crying, cuz the absolutely glorious and beautiful northern lights I saw were NOT captured on the film.

But beware... the high speed film can be zapped by airport radars, if you're flying.”

“Wait, you're doing digital, aren't you? never mind.........”

“yes, digital. but it was great advice, anyway, lizs. thanks. :-) lol

tilt, those pics are something else, eh? all that color swirling, that's over time, right? i mean, the sky doesn't actually look like that does it? wow

pathman, i think i can do up to 800 on my camera.”

“with 800, you might pull it off.

Now all you need is some luck. The more you are out, the more likely you are to see them. I saw the most when I was XC skiing 4-5 nights a week, most others in town never saw them.”

“Pathman - We'll be out for 8 nights way up in the U.P. It'll be between the third quarter and the first quarter... so during the new moon. Hopefully, the lack of moon light will make it easier to see.”

“The comment about aperture vs. depth of field not being pertinent to digital cameras is completely false. The exact same principle applies for digital as film. The smaller the aperture setting, the greater your depth of field. However, for you purposes, the more pleasing picture would involve a very sharp subject (person or people) with the background out of focus due to a large aperture setting (also allowing a shorter exposure, thus a sharper image). All of this may be moot if you don't have a camera with manual settings available, and a good light meter.

This will piss off some folks, but my suggestion to you is invest in a good film camera and a couple of good lenses and keep the digital for family reunions, using your film camera for the creative/artsy work.

As for the northern lights, an extremely fast film is not only not necessary, it's probably not going to net you the best photograph. (again, perhaps moot as you're shooting digital). May I suggest that you try FUJI's Provia, 400F. It's a relatively fast film with a very tight grain structure. Use a tripod, and meter your exposure properly, and you'll get some wonderful shots.

I'm envious. Have a great trip, and don't forget to share your photos, no matter HOW you acquire them.”

“One more quick comment for Lizs.... have you tried the new VELVIA 100F?”

“Good to hear from you Hobbit.”

“Here are some examples with notes on exposure settings and films. I don't know this person, just found them doing a search.

Aurora Photos”

“Ya'll have given me lots to digest.

Pathman, those photos are AWESOME! Wow. I would feel very fortunate to see the northern lights on my trip. I really have no idea what the odds are but cross your fingers.”

“And don't forget that the lights move. The curtains can be very distinct and ripple. With too long of an exposure time, you'll lose the crispness.”

“Yes, optical physics applies the same to digital glass as it does to film glass. In fact, the glass doesn't care what it is focussing onto. However.

The max aperature on many mid and low price digital cameras is so tiny (~1/8th inch) compared to the minimum aperature (~1/64th inch) that aperature choice does not produce noticable depth of field effects except under extreme conditions, such as macro photography. Here's an example of what I mean, f2.8, 1/600th, ISO 100:

http://www.in-motion.net/~jefft/mountains/flowerstream_sm.jpg

The fireweed is about 4 feet from the lens and the creek is about 60 feet down. Once you get up to the SLR type digitals that use standard SLR lenses, then of course, you'll begin seeing depth of field effects much more often.

Someone else posted that the noise levels will increase when using higher ISO's. I haven't noticed this per se. I use an Olympus C4000Z and in low light situations, there are noise issues. I don't see any difference in noise levels between say 100 ISO at 5.6 and a 16 second exposure and ISO 400 at f11 and the same exposure, both can be uniformly bad or good dpending on the lighting in the shot.

I will say this...I find digital to be a lot touchier in low light conditions than film work. Noise is a problem, slower lenses, slower allowable ISOs, and the delay to write a 16 second exposure runs close to 25 seconds, meaning my shutter is open less than half the time I'm shooting. Not at all good for lightning, a pain while I was shooting the eclipse recently, and I think you're going to have to work some and be lucky to get good results shooting the aurora.”

“Tarabull, you asked about how the northern lights move..... The time I saw them from a field near my home, they covered the northern half of the sky. And the shifting colors, curtains and ripples raced across the sky. Yes, RACED. It was freakin' amazing! I was in total awe.

You could possibly try to compare it to a large area of sheet (or heat?) lightning in a cloud.... and then pretend that cloud races across the sky. That's somewhat how it was.

I have only seen northern lights like that once. I was sure glad I had happened to run to the grocery store at 10 p.m. that night, which of course got me outside. Because I sure didn't know it was happening otherwise.”

“Ya know what I don't like about my Nikon 880 digital? The greens are never what I expect them to be. Then again, I am a child of Velvia slide film and do enjoy the saturation. (make your own leading jokes here)

Hobbit, and speaking of Velvia, nope, have not tried the film you mentioned. Seems I don't get the 35 mm out that often. Although, when I see those watered down greens, I always wish I had my other camera!! (Yes, I've tried to make the greens match the color in my memory through Photoshop, but it just never does... *pout*)”

“I should just print this thread and take it w/ me as a users guide. lol

Thanks!!”

“I have a great video "Aurora Explained", I think the geophysical institute at UAF did it. Wanna borrow it? email me.”

“"Ask them to be still. Sorry, it's not very technical. lol"
lizs
01:41:21 PM
08/15/03

hey, lizs, i thought of you when i took this pic . lol”

“Hey, c'mon now!! Your original question was in reference to CHILDREN, not moose!! LOL!”

“Wow, what were you drinking when you took that shot Tara?

can I have some?”

“lmao, lizs!

pennsy - drinking some vodka and such. and you're always welcome to some. (but, the reason it was blurry was cause it was dusk and the auto feature on my digital kept the shutter open too long.)”

“Tripod or really fast film are the choices here.

Flash would suck.”

“Hey pennsy -- and anyone else -- we should set up a photography hike. Where you got a destination with lots of great shots of different types... and everyone shoots and helps each other. And maybe get together to compare shots the last night or something (in that instance digital would be needed, or access to 1-hour film processing)

Hobbit and I talked about doing this long ago... and it never happened. You know, kind of the broke man's version of a classy photo seminar/tour. LOL!”

“Sounds like fun Liz, but I think I'd rather knock back some vodka with Tarabull. ;o)

Actually, that's a fine idea. It might be tough logistically because of how spread out everyone is, but it could happen.

Speaking of tripods... I might be dragging mine to Maine next week with my 300mm lens. I wanna snag me a big bull moose!”

“i read somewhere that you can use a pair of polarized sunglasses as a cheap filter, by just holding them in front of the camera.

any truth to this?”

“you could probably use a toilet paper tube and wax paper depending on the effect you want to achieve. Cheap sunglasses are usually not very optically correct. If you have a digital camera try it out and see what the effect is.”

“whats the deal with cable releases?

looks like the one for my camera (olympus 510uz) is like 60 bucks. WTH?

shouldn't they cost like 10 or less? it's just a little cable with a button right?”