A Couple of Night Shot trials

[Stagecoach]

In an endeavour to tackle different areas of photography I want to undertake a series of night time shots of our capital city here.

The two images below are from my first outing where my primary intention was to gather information as to what dynamic range I could capture and work with in PP. I have not worried about cloning or perfect distortion correction in these versions.

No 1 - 16mm, 20s, f/8, ISO100
This one is produced from a single frame worked primarily in ACR. The angle chosen was because it would enable me to incorporate the milky way into the sky which is a shot I want to tackle later.




No 2 - 35mm, 2s, f/13, ISO800
For this one I had to use the clock from a lower exposure as it was blown too far. The obvious mistake here was that there was no need to use the high ISO or f/13.



For future outings I will bracket and base the range on the test results I achieved.

Comments and suggestions welcome as always.

Grahame

[Shadowman]

Nice efforts and a good subject to experiment on, I often do the same in trying to maintain a low ISO if possible but as I usually handhold or place camera on stationary surface my shutter speeds are usually a bit shorter than yours.

[Cogito]

Looking at #1, I can't get my hrad around a 20 second exposure.......? Unless severe PP?

[Stagecoach]

Nice efforts and a good subject to experiment on, I often do the same in trying to maintain a low ISO if possible but as I usually handhold or place camera on stationary surface my shutter speeds are usually a bit shorter than yours.

Thanks John.

One of the 'photography' advantages of living where I do is the ease of parking a vehicle just about anywhere you want to take a shot from in the city at night. So tripods and a selection of gear are always easily on hand.

[Stagecoach]

Looking at #1, I can't get my hrad around a 20 second exposure.......? Unless severe PP?

Or, getting some vehicle light trails in the scene, or taking the maximum length exposure before star trails become evident, or catching some movement in the palms, or possibly eliminating people walking past.

[DanK]

Looking at #1, I can't get my hrad around a 20 second exposure.......? Unless severe PP?

I think the arithmetic works.

Going from the first to the second, he narrowed the aperture from f/8 to f/13. That's a loss of a little over 1 stop of light. He increased ISO from 100 to 800, which is +3 stops. So, he gained roughly 2 stops. Adjusting the shutter speed down by two stops would have been 1/5 second in the second shot. given the other settings, an equivalent exposure in the second scene would have required a shutter speed of 5 seconds. He shot at 2 seconds, so a bit more than a stop darker. The second scene is less well lit, so it's plausible that this is just about a stop darker, independent of differences in the scene.

[rpcrowe]

Nice images Grahame, I particularly like #1.

The way I shoot night scenes is to set the exposure on aperture priority with three stop bracketing and a minus 1 stop exposure compensation. The ISO is based on the exposures that I get, usually as low as I can manage based on the shutter speed Iwant and the aperture that I want...



ISO 160, 30 second exposure at f/14. Canon 7D with 70-200mm f/4L IS lens at 85mm

And yes, I had the IS on!

I have always had at least one good exposure out of the three bracketed shots. Many photographers refuse to bracket but, I consider bracketing just one more weapon in the digital arsenal...

Obviously a long exposure will smooth the water and a small f/stop will form star shapes around point light sources.

[Stagecoach]

Nice images Grahame, I particularly like #1.

Thank you Richard,

The way I shoot night scenes is to set the exposure on aperture priority with three stop bracketing and a minus 1 stop exposure compensation. The ISO is based on the exposures that I get, usually as low as I can manage based on the shutter speed Iwant and the aperture that I want...

I'm unclear of what you are meaning by this Richard, are you saying that;

a) You 'compensate/EC' your cameras metering method suggestion when set in Aperture Priority (due to experience/meter error) by - 1 stop and additionally take a 3 stop bracket (-3, -2, -1, +1, +2, +3)?

or

b) You are taking three bracketed additional shots of which would be -1, -2, and -3 from your already -1 compensated base exposure?

ISO 160, 30 second exposure at f/14. Canon 7D with 70-200mm f/4L IS lens at 85mm

That's a great image that I had seen previously and I'm impressed by both it's exposure and sharpness. I need to remember to weight my tripod when it's on grass for my attempts.

What your image does get me thinking about is the possible difference in light ratio intensity (dynamic range) with an image taken from a far distance like yours with one that is taken with a much wider lens where bright light sources are far closer to the camera.

The images I'll be shooting will primarily be on the wide side to include more of the environment.

I have always had at least one good exposure out of the three bracketed shots. Many photographers refuse to bracket but, I consider bracketing just one more weapon in the digital arsenal...

I will certainly attempt to use auto bracketing if I can un-confuse my brain and learn the methods available on my camera to take account of all the variables, aperture, speed, ISO wanted that will not only just provide an acceptable exposure for working with but results that can be used for producing a composite should it be necessary

[Cogito]

Or, getting some vehicle light trails in the scene, or taking the maximum length exposure before star trails become evident, or catching some movement in the palms, or possibly eliminating people walking past.

Vehicle light trails - OK. Star trails becoming evident - less exposure would. Did you really want movement in the palms? "Eliminate" passer's by? Hmm.
My problem is that at f8 and iso 100, a 20 second exposer should be much brighter! Which is why I ask about the PP.

[Stagecoach]

Star trails becoming evident - less exposure would.

Using the 500 rule theoretically star trails should not be present at 16mm so what we are seeing here is possibly influenced by, my unweighted tripod mounted on grass where the sprinklers had just been turned off and not using a remote shutter/mirror up technique which would be normal practice for serious shots of this type.

Edit; additionally the coma seen with this lens is not good.

As mentioned in the original post these were trials investigating dynamic range.

Did you really want movement in the palms?

Not sure that question has any relevance to a trial regarding dynamic range, but some movement in palms would be something you are not going to eliminate if you also want car lights trailing through the scene

"Eliminate" passer's by? Hmm.

You sound sceptical?

My problem is that at f8 and iso 100, a 20 second exposer should be much brighter! Which is why I ask about the PP.

Not sure why you would think the image as shot should be 'much brighter' but as mentioned in the previous post;

No 1 - 16mm, 20s, f/8, ISO100
This one is produced from a single frame worked primarily in ACR.

If it had been exposed 'much brighter' it would have been near on impossible to reduce the blown out areas to what they are now.