What lens should I used for Fireworks?

[Albert Sim]

Hi, Goodday to everyone,

I'll be shooting fireworks display tomorrow night as it is Malaysia's National Day celebration.

I had picked up some knows-how from here and there but could not find any recommendation of lens used.

Looking from images on the nets, it seems like the lens most used is prime lenses.

Well, I am thinking to go with my 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II.

Any advice from fellow photographers?

Thank you.

[AB26]

Well, I am thinking to go with my 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II.

Fitted to a D800. How can you go wrong?

Enjoy the shoot and post a few images.

[RustBeltRaw]

Depends on whether you want to capture just the fireworks, or the surroundings (audience, buildings, cool fore and mid-ground objects, etc.) as well. For the former, it'll depend on your distance from the display, but the 70-200mm is probably a safe bet. For the latter, I'd break out the 10-24mm.

[Albert Sim]

Fitted to a D800. How can you go wrong?

Enjoy the shoot and post a few images.

Haha.. TQ Andre.

Just hope that the results are good enough to be posted here.

[Albert Sim]

Depends on whether you want to capture just the fireworks, or the surroundings (audience, buildings, cool fore and mid-ground objects, etc.) as well. For the former, it'll depend on your distance from the display, but the 70-200mm is probably a safe bet. For the latter, I'd break out the 10-24mm.

Understood. TQ Lex.

[Polar01]

Albert: I would say use the D800 with a 70-200mm, if I remember seeing images for there it is a display set off over a large area, so you may not be up close, I would also take along the 24-70mm instead of the 10-24mm as it is a DX lens (15-36mm on a FX body), so you would not make complete use of the D800's sensor, and I feel that from a distance the width would be too wide.
Enjoy looking forward to the shots.

Cheers:

Allan

[Albert Sim]

Albert: I would say use the D800 with a 70-200mm, if I remember seeing images for there it is a display set off over a large area, so you may not be up close, I would also take along the 24-70mm instead of the 10-24mm as it is a DX lens (15-36mm on a FX body), so you would not make complete use of the D800's sensor, and I feel that from a distance the width would be too wide.
Enjoy looking forward to the shots.

Cheers:

Allan

That is cool............

[DanK]

The focal length really depends on how far you are and which body you use, as Allan suggested.

Keep in mind that you don't need a fast aperture because you will want the shutter open long enough to get some of the trails. it seems to me that when I did this a year ago, I ended up at f/8 to get the shutter speeds I wanted. if you google "photographing fireworks," you will get lots of detailed discussions of all of this.

[RustBeltRaw]

...I would also take along the 24-70mm instead of the 10-24mm as it is a DX lens (15-36mm on a FX body), so you would not make complete use of the D800's sensor, and I feel that from a distance the width would be too wide.

Good call. Didn't think of that little detail.

[William W]

Looking from images on the nets, it seems like the lens most used is prime lenses. . .

Any advice from fellow photographers?

Yes, given the choice, I would use Prime Lens(es). That's really not of assistance to you, if you have only zoom lenses or the Prime Lens(es) that you do have are not suitable Focal Lengths

As already mentioned the Focal Length is simply dependent upon the Field of View (FoV) that you require from the Vantage Point (the Camera Position) that you select.

It is important to select a good Vantage Point perhaps one that allows you to have a range of Fields of View open to you to make a variance of images.

For example - an image only of Fire-works, this one was using a telephoto lens:

'Just Fireworks' #21889


And also some wider shots, in this example it is an image at the end of the fireworks display and image of the 'Aftermath':

'Buildings and Smoke' #04679


If you do not gave a long enough lens, you can always crop a bit tighter later, so in this regard I would advise against putting all your eggs in one basket and taking ONLY a medium telephoto zoom lens such as the 70 to 200 - making any exclusive choice of lens is usually the reason why that choice could go wrong - i.e. because of the exclusivity - if you do not have a wide enough lens and you want a wider shot - then you are stuffed.

A good Tripod is almost essential.

I would use Mirror-Up Technique and also a Remote Release.

Select a low ISO.

Then establish the SHUTTER SPEED that you require, to make the TRAILS the length that you want.

Then calculate the Aperture that you require.

Being around F/11~16 is generally good - but balance your choice of ISO with the Aperture, for example if you need to open up to F/8 because that will allow you to drop to ISO200~400 and not be around ISO800 to 1600 - then I would open up the lens to F/8.

But, I re-iterate the choice of SHUTTER SPEED is the priority: it is this choice that 'makes' the picture the way you want it to be.

By way of example, in the first image above the Shutter Speed was very short - it would have been around 1 second only - if you want really long trails then you will be shooting up to shutter speeds, typically about 20 seconds.

In fact I have seen Photographers use a 1 Stop ND filter to maintain the Shutter Speed that they required and they wanted to NOT move smaller than F/11 (their argument being diffraction limits of the lens) - but I think it would be difficult to really see the diffraction - but there you go: I have seen a 1 stop ND filter used at night-time for shooting Fireworks.






WW

[jcuknz]

I have used a thre stop ND for night shots of traffic to achieve a long exposure but probably less needed for fireworks as if of the rocket/burst kind they are moving and probvide a 'shutter speed' in theior kovement. I would also go for tight shots of individual bursts which you assemble into interesting pictures in editing. I have yet to encounter a static display but here again the merging of two exposuires [perhaps at quite different ISO settings] to capture the fireworks and the surrounds without firwaorks. The problem wioth fireworks is that they are a light source requiring considerably less exposure than their surrounds To illustrate this is not a fireworks but a firewalking display combined with fire dancing or whatever it is called.


Firewalkers 800 ISO 1/100 f/3.2
Fire Dancer 100 ISO 2 seconds f/7.9
If you have family with you .... you could use flash to light them in front of you combined with fireworks. It was an ex[periement for me and I simply let the camera do its stuff. It would be better to use second shutter [ or whatever it is called] as the camera I was us=ing didn't have this and firing off at the start of the two second exposure there is a bit of ghosting to the man's jacket

[William W]

I'll be shooting fireworks display tomorrow night [30th August] as it is Malaysia's National Day celebration.

How did you go?


WW

[Albert Sim]

Hi everyone,
try to upload my firework images here but it comes out like this :-
"This IP address has been banned for violating our Terms of Use" !
emmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Albert Sim]

Ok everyone especially to AB26, RustBeltRaw, Polar01, Dank, William W and jcuknz,

I already have uploaded my fireworks images in a new thread; Fireworks Images - Follow-Up 01

Please feel free to drop in.

Thank you so much guys !

[Dave Humphries]

Hi everyone,
try to upload my firework images here but it comes out like this :-
"This IP address has been banned for violating our Terms of Use" !
emmmmmmmmmmmmm

Hi Albert,

It is nothing personal - and also nothing we do here - this is "the standard answer", the fact I have one shows it occurs often enough to warrant one.

TinyPic Banned IP Address reply

Very rarely a member will suddenly find themselves unable to upload any pictures to TinyPic and will receive a message that their IP address was responsible for uploading unsuitable material. This can be quite worrying, but due to the way some ISP (Internet Service Providers) use dynamic IP addresses for their customers, it is usually only a temporary problem where the one you get (for a day or so) happens to = the one the real culprits used. TinyPic doesn't/can't differentiate, but they still 'ban' the address (I guess they have to do something). If this happens; usually switching your router/switch off for 5 minutes, and on again, cures it.

Sorry for the inconvenience, but these things occur outside of CiC, so there's nothing we can do.

I have edited your post to provide link to the new thread.

Best regards,

[William W]

. . . due to the way some ISP (Internet Service Providers) use dynamic IP addresses for their customers, it is usually only a temporary problem where the one you get (for a day or so) happens to = the one the real culprits used. TinyPic doesn't/can't differentiate, but they still 'ban' the address (I guess they have to do something). If this happens; usually switching your router/switch off for 5 minutes, and on again, cures it.

It is worthwhile communicating with your ISP (IMO a LETTER is best) explaining that in your view they are NOT filtering their dynamic addresses quickly enough.

The way I have had this explained to me is - once an IP address is identified as bogus or creating a problem it goes to list, which is easily obtainable.

But, it seems, in the interest of having the maximum number IP addresses available, many ISP check this list infrequently and or do not withdraw suspect IP addresses until a certain threshold of problem is achieved.

The above is technically paraphrased, someone more specialist than I could give better technical details: but the bottom line is, I got my friend, an IT expert, to fill in the technical paragraph describing the fault and the reasons for it - i.e. my ISP's lack of diligence and their exceptionally poor customer service because they were NOT providing me with only "CLEAN" dynamic IP Addresses.

My problem happened about two years ago and I have never had it since and we use a lot of computers logging in via the same ISP but a lots of different locations and therefore we attract various dynamic addresses when we do log in.

My letter to my ISP, was quite terse and sought to have the problem fixed, promptly, indicating that the next step would be a formal complaint to the Telecoms and Communications Ombudsman as it was my opinion that my Service Provider was valuing Profit way above Product and Customer Service and was cutting corners and also playing on Customer Ignorance, so to do.

WW

[Colin Southern]

It is worthwhile communicating with your ISP (IMO a LETTER is best) explaining that in your view they are NOT filtering their dynamic addresses quickly enough.

The way I have had this explained to me is - once an IP address is identified as bogus or creating a problem it goes to list, which is easily obtainable.

But, it seems, in the interest of having the maximum number IP addresses available, many ISP check this list infrequently and or do not withdraw suspect IP addresses until a certain threshold of problem is achieved.

The above is technically paraphrased, someone more specialist than I could give better technical details: but the bottom line is, I got my friend, an IT expert, to fill in the technical paragraph describing the fault and the reasons for it - i.e. my ISP's lack of diligence and their exceptionally poor customer service because they were NOT providing me with only "CLEAN" dynamic IP Addresses.

My problem happened about two years ago and I have never had it since and we use a lot of computers logging in via the same ISP but a lots of different locations and therefore we attract various dynamic addresses when we do log in.

My letter to my ISP, was quite terse and sought to have the problem fixed, promptly, indicating that the next step would be a formal complaint to the Telecoms and Communications Ombudsman as it was my opinion that my Service Provider was valuing Profit way above Product and Customer Service and was cutting corners and also playing on Customer Ignorance, so to do.

WW

Hey Bill,

Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple for a couple of reasons:

1. It isn't just one list -- there's zillions of them.

eg

http://mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx?...1&run=toolpage


2. IPs are limited (they've actually run out of v4 address now, and nobody seems particularly interested in getting v6 up to spped in a hurry) - so if ISPs were to remove addresses that are listed on DNS Block Lists then (a) they'd run out of addresses they could allocate and (b) spend a lot more time trying to get them removed from these lists and (c) give attackers another attack surface to target (hey bro - cool new denial of service attack - lets shut down that ISP by getting all their IP address pool blacklisted).

[Colin Southern]

Hi everyone,
try to upload my firework images here but it comes out like this :-
"This IP address has been banned for violating our Terms of Use" !
emmmmmmmmmmmmm

Hi Albert,

For what it's worth, great as the TinyPic service is, there are other better services for image hosting, such as facebook, PBase, Flickr etc - that way you retain control over your images - and - (bonus!) - the hosting actually works properly.

[William W]

. . . Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple for a couple of reasons:

1. It isn't just one list -- there's zillions of them.

2. IPs are limited.

Hey Colin,

I love it when you start talking "computer talk" . . . it's almost as good as when you describe Post Production Sharpening . . .

To be frank - when I was typing the above I was thinking to myself:
"Bill - take a step back. No, Bill. Don't do this. You are paddling at the deep end of computer talk now and perhaps you are in way too deep and Colin will be on whatever you write, like a blow-fly on doggy poo" . . . you didn't disappoint!

But hey: I did honestly feel REALLY good writing that letter (and hold on to your hat - also - receiving a reply), because I was so annoyed at three of our computers being repeatedly fouled, all with in a few days of each other.

Maybe co-incidence, but anyway I will live in the belief that my letter did me some good.

You have a great weekend, and watch out for the low flying helicopters!


Cheers for now,

Bill

[Colin Southern]

Hey Colin,

I love it when you start talking "computer talk" . . . it's almost as good as when you describe Post Production Sharpening . . .

To be frank - when I was typing the above I was thinking to myself:
"Bill - take a step back. No, Bill. Don't do this. You are paddling at the deep end of computer talk now and perhaps you are in way too deep and Colin will be on whatever you write, like a blow-fly on doggy poo" . . . you didn't disappoint!

But hey: I did honestly feel REALLY good writing that letter (and hold on to your hat - also - receiving a reply), because I was so annoyed at three of our computers being repeatedly fouled, all with in a few days of each other.

Maybe co-incidence, but anyway I will live in the belief that my letter did me some good.

You have a great weekend, and watch out for the low flying helicopters!


Cheers for now,

Bill

It was probably just a double-buffer re-entry problem! (insider IT joke!)

Helicopters - yeah. Just reading reports of a fatality in New York with one (much bigger than mine). Had a lady and her grandson walk across the field I was flying in the the other day (I moved the heli out of the way). What part of walking under a flying lawnmower being unsafe do you think they just don't get?