How to Take Better Night Photos

  • Thread starter Thread starter gary.hendricks.user
  • Start date Start date
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.
Click to expand...

More properly, noise generated by long exposures, as opposed to bad
pixels. Some DSLRs have a custom setting that does this automatically.
 
William Graham said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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?!
Click to expand...
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......
 
Do check it out:
http://www.basic-digital-photography.com/night-photos
Click to expand...


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......
 
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
 
From that link above....."This is how it works. The next time you're out to
take night photos, go ahead and snap a picture of Scene A, as you normally
would. Then, when it's convenient, take a photo of the exact same Scene A
again, but with the lens cap on."

Why would you have to be in the exact same Scene A again to take a picture
with the lens cap on?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Doug said:
Google "films for astrophotography".
Click to expand...

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:
 
Kernix said:
Huh? Who has the same name as whom?
Click to expand...

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
 
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. :-)
 
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I've done night shots of the Hal Bop comet and got good exposures at
approx 1 minute. Have done the bulb thing while trying to get 4th of
July shots but no good results - you need a quality subject in the
foreground or background to make it work. Done some long exposures at
late dusk of a waterfall - over a minute - got the classic blue shift.

I know some people who would wait for a full moon, shoot an entire roll
of the moon in a corner witha telephoto, rewind and shoot different
scenes later to get a cool double ex thing going on.

I actaully got some good results doing double and triple exposures at
night. The 1st thing I did was shoot xmas lights with combinations of:
1 shot in focus, 1 shot slightly out of focus, 1 shot with camera
shake, 1 shot zooming, etc. Usually always with an in focus shot as the
base.

I've done the same thing with scenic city scapes at night - different
combos of the above.

Jim
 
There are some problems with night shots that differ a bit between film and
digital cameras.

The digital sensors are subject to a random noise that can increase
drastically with exposure time, and sensitivity settings (ISO emulation)
The film camera also has problems, but the "noise" is really more a film
grain/processing issue.
Color fringing may occur quite differently between film and digital cameras
on very bright objects.
Digital camera Auto Focus may not work properly at low light levels, and the
LCD viewfinder may not be bright enough to obtain a decent manual focus.
 
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Bill Funk said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't pictures taken at a campfire, where your facing does affect
the tempreture, even if the fire is not in the shot, be a counterexample?
That is, if you want to make a "dummies guide", its way easier to say
"exactly same scene" and not bother about listing some of the exceptions
where more or less teh same scene makes a difference vs where it doesn't?
 
Wouldn't pictures taken at a campfire, where your facing does affect
the tempreture, even if the fire is not in the shot, be a counterexample?
That is, if you want to make a "dummies guide", its way easier to say
"exactly same scene" and not bother about listing some of the exceptions
where more or less teh same scene makes a difference vs where it doesn't?
Click to expand...

I doubt it, unless you had the camera near enough long enough to be
'heat soaked' by the radiated heat. It really takes time for things to
heat/cool to the ambient temp.
Plus, if your camera has a serious problem with hot or stuck pixels,
such that the exact temp needs to be achieved for the dark frame,
maybe a replacement is in order, rather than an attempt to change the
rules.
 
Back
Top