Struggling with nightscapes - help welcome

[Spam]

I'm in awe of some of the nightscapes I've seen posted here, and would love to try something even vaguely along those lines. I realise I have inherent limitations in my hardware (Canon 100D, 18-55mm kit lens, cheap and flimsy tripod) but think the greater part of the problem is the wetware (ie me). For starters, I find it very difficult to focus or compose night shots. I wear multifocal specs and sometimes struggle to focus even in good light, but at least in good light I can always fall back on the autofocus, even if this sometimes goes wonky.

At night I have two options: either obtain infinity focus on far away bright lights, or, if there aren't any, send someone with a torch a few hundred metres away and get them to shine it back at me. Neither of those options is an aid to composition, however, because I can still see nothing in the dark areas. I'm struck by how some of you take excellently composed shots with sharp focus even when there is clearly little light to start with, and presumably didn't send your partner/son/friend down into the valley or out to sea with a torch.

PS: I know a little bit about focus stacking, but that wouldn't help unless I could get the basics right.

I've attached some amateurish attempts here. Any advice or tips would be much appreciated.

[Shadowman]

Your attempts look good so far, with the fourth image the cars may not be the main focal point but grabbing a bit more detail might just give this image that added pop.

[Manfred M]

What I will tend to do is to use LiveView to focus. I set up the camera and will magnify the screen close to the max. This tends to work out reasonably well.

I see a fair bit of chromatic noise in your images. What ISO setting are you shooting at? For night shots (and in fact any shots) I try to shoot at the base ISO to minimize this issue.

[Stagecoach]

Manfred, the exif is showing on just the last shot as 20s, f/10, ISO 3200, 25mm

[Manfred M]

Manfred, the exif is showing on just the last shot as 20s, f/10, ISO 3200, 25mm

Thanks Grahame - I was viewing on my tablet and don't have an EXIF reader on it.

[DanK]

Simon,

I really recommend that you read an introduction to night photography. A good basic introduction that has lots of practical tips is Mark Bowie's 'The Light of Midnight,' which you can get here However, I'll make a few suggestions:

--your camera is fine for this, unless you want to take very long exposures. The risk is the sensor overheating, and high-density sensors will overhead more quickly. However, I would be very surprised if you were to have problems before you hit 5 minutes or so. I have done 10-minute exposures with a 50D, which is an older APS-C camera than yours. Here's a 2 minute exposure with that camera:



--Re a tripod: there is no alternative. You can't get sharp long exposures without a stable tripod. I would also get a remote release. You can get wired ones very cheaply on eBay.

--As Manfred said, shoot at base ISO. On rare occasions, I have gone up a stop, but avoid it if you can.

--Expose to the right and darken in postprocessing, rather than vice versa. If your histogram is bunched on the left, you will have more noise.

--shoot raw, to give yourself the most headroom for editing.

--Re focusing: it's sometimes tough. Like Manfred, I often use live view, and I generally focus manually. Also, avoid shooting wide open, since the narrower the depth of field, the less leeway for mistakes. This is particularly hard in wilderness shots, which often don't have the lights or lighted surfaces that you can use for focusing in an urban setting. A very bright flashlight can help, if the distance to the focus point is not too far. Alternatively, if it is far enough, you can focus manually at infinity or at a hyperfocal distance that will give you infinity focus.

Dan

[george013]

And I want to add to this: mirror up.

George

[Manfred M]

And I want to add to this: mirror up.

George

Agreed, to a point. I find that I use mirror up for exposures in the 1/4 sec to 5 sec range. After that, I find that I don't see any difference as the time that the mirror slap needs to damp out is relatively short when compared to the total exposure time

[DanK]

Agreed, to a point. I find that I use mirror up for exposures in the 1/4 sec to 5 sec range. After that, I find that I don't see any difference as the time that the mirror slap needs to damp out is relatively short when compared to the total exposure time

Beat me to it. Bob Atkins suggests a somewhat different range, 1/60 to 1/4 sec, but the principle is the same. If the light level is such that the exposure is long enough, the amount hitting the sensor during the period of vibration becomes trivially small.

[Manfred M]

Beat me to it. Bob Atkins suggests a somewhat different range, 1/60 to 1/4 sec, but the principle is the same. If the light level is such that the exposure is long enough, the amount hitting the sensor during the period of vibration becomes trivially small.

Dan - while there is an overall range where mirror slap affects images, I have found that to some extent it is not only shutter speed, but also camera related. My old film Leica R3 had excellent damping (I believe they used pneumatic dampers) and seemed almost impervious to mirror slap, I've found that the D800 is a bit noisier. The D90 was a bit better, but I suspect that had a lot to do with the size of the mirror mechanism, which is smaller and lighter than on a FF body. I find I have less impact if I shoot with a heavy duty tripod with no column while on the other hand a tripod with a small diameter column can be a significant contributing factor.

Bottom line is that your have to do some testing with your own gear to figure out what works.

[Spam]

I see a fair bit of chromatic noise in your images. What ISO setting are you shooting at? For night shots (and in fact any shots) I try to shoot at the base ISO to minimize this issue.

As Grahame pointed out, 3200, but , actually, most of the noise is from having to lighten the dark areas in post processing. I don't have anything to compare it to, but that 100D seems pretty good at reducing noise even at quite high ISOs.

[Spam]

Simon,

I really recommend that you read an introduction to night photography. A good basic introduction that has lots of practical tips is Mark Bowie's 'The Light of Midnight,' which you can get here However, I'll make a few suggestions:
Dan

Thanks for the link and the suggestions, Dan. I was going to ask how one gets sufficient light and a good depth of field and yet still has a fast enough exposure to get stars as pinpoints, but I see that's covered in Bowie's books. I was thinking I'd get "After Midnight" instead of "The Light of Midnight" — it seems to cover much the same ground and has more examples, and is $5 dollars cheaper (about ZAR80 at current rates, if our finance minister hasn't been arrested yet, and double that if he has). Is there a significant difference between the two books?

[george013]

Agreed, to a point. I find that I use mirror up for exposures in the 1/4 sec to 5 sec range. After that, I find that I don't see any difference as the time that the mirror slap needs to damp out is relatively short when compared to the total exposure time

It also depends on the gear you're using. It only takes a little time to set it. I understand your argument. We had a discussion about this before.

George

[DanK]

Simon, I don't recall the difference between the books, but After Midnight is twice the length, so my guess is that it has more in it.

Manfred, it makes sense that the interval would vary among cameras, not only because the source of the vibration differs, but also because things like the mix of materials in the body would have some effect. I do my night photography with a 5DIII, which as a "silent" mode in which the mirror is heavily damped. That probably shortens the interval during which vibrations would matter. I've never tested this, but I think it would make an interesting thing to do some long winter evening.

In any event, with respect to night photography: it won't matter in most instances.

[Manfred M]

As Grahame pointed out, 3200, but , actually, most of the noise is from having to lighten the dark areas in post processing. I don't have anything to compare it to, but that 100D seems pretty good at reducing noise even at quite high ISOs.

Simon - a couple of things for you to remember about shooting at high ISO.

1. There is far less data in the dark areas (pure black = 0 data), so any noise picked up by the camera's electronics is going to be more apparent in areas of darkness. If it is properly exposed, this can be fine, but by lightening this in post, you are in fact bringing out more noise.

2. Dynamic range is reduced as you crank up the ISO, so subtlety in shadow details is lost at higher ISO values. Your camera will lose several stops of dynamic range as you crank up ISO as high as you have.

3. Colour depth also drops as ISO is increased, so you will have less colour range in high ISO shots, so your colour range will be more muted.


Bottom line is you should be shooting with as low an ISO value as you can. For night shots I will shoot at base ISO. You are shooting with a decent wide angle setting (25mm) , so depth of field is on your side. Test shooting at wider apertures; f/5.6 and f/8 to see how these shots turn out for you. Also remember that most cameras do not let you do more than a 30 second exposure unless you use an external timer / remote and have the camera set to "bulb" mode.

[Spam]

Simon, I don't recall the difference between the books, but After Midnight is twice the length, so my guess is that it has more in it.

I've bought it, and from just a quick skim through it it looks like it has loads of useful info. Thanks for the link, Dan.

[Spam]

Also remember that most cameras do not let you do more than a 30 second exposure unless you use an external timer / remote and have the camera set to "bulb" mode.

Yeah, I tried shooting in bulb mode and it took me a while to realise it would only work if I kept my finger on the shutter button! I've now bought a small infra-red remote. Thanks for the useful advice, Manfred.

[Wayland]

Most things have already been said but on the matter of focussing, I often use a laser pointer which produces a spot that my camera can focus on for solid subject in the mid to foreground. I used that in my "Circle of Fire" shot for example.

For stars, I usually use manual focus lenses with my own markings on the focus barrel for infinity. ( Not always the same as the manufactures marks I must add.)

[Spam]

Most things have already been said but on the matter of focussing, I often use a laser pointer which produces a spot that my camera can focus on for solid subject in the mid to foreground. I used that in my "Circle of Fire" shot for example.

For stars, I usually use manual focus lenses with my own markings on the focus barrel for infinity. ( Not always the same as the manufactures marks I must add.)

Aw jeez, Wayland, if I didn't have gammy knees I would have kicked myself when I read this. I've been carrying a laser pointer around for years (my full-time hobby is lecturing) and it never occurred to me to use it for focussing. My 18-55mm kit lens doesn't have a marking for infinity, but I've tried to use the marking on (borrowed) prime lenses and the true focus always seems to be a fraction left or right of it.

[Wayland]

That's why I add my own mark.

Two sticky lables, one on the lens barrel and one on the focus sleeve. Focus on a distant point in daylight and then draw a line across both lables.

I actually use glow in the dark sticky backed vinyl for my lables which means I don't need a torch to find my focus point.