First try with Low Light

[Tri Danimal]

All captured on Sony A7iii with 90mm Macro G, these photos are straight out of the camera. C&C is welcomed.


f2.8, 1/5sec, ISO-100



f2.8, 3.2sec, ISO-100



f2.8, 1/50sec, ISO-20,000



f2.8, 1/50sec, ISO-4000

[Shadowman]

Nice efforts.

[Geoff F]

For me, Daniel, #1 is a nice idea but it isn't working at the moment. There are too many out of focus elements and too much blackness. I would crop from bottom and both sides; and remove those 3 very bright white lights under the bench.

#2 is almost there but I think I would try a slight crop from the top and left side.

#3 has the main subject too central so I would crop the right side.

#4 looks OK although I wonder about losing a bit from the top and going more panoramic?

Just starting point thoughts, there are several alternatives for all these images.

[Manfred M]

I would look at these as night time images, rather than low light. The shots seem to extend from the end of golden hour, through blue hour and into night. I personally find that it is usually easier (and better) to shoot at blue hour than at night because of the bit of extra light that is available to the photographer.

All the "rules" we follow in photography still apply; good lighting, good composition, protecting highlights and shadow detail, etc. White balance is always interesting because of the mixed light sources we often find in these settings.

You've made a good start, so next time. look at all of the other aspects of photography and keep them in mind when you frame up an image.

[Tri Danimal]

For me, Daniel, #1 is a nice idea but it isn't working at the moment. There are too many out of focus elements and too much blackness. I would crop from bottom and both sides; and remove those 3 very bright white lights under the bench.

I intentionally had the few bushes out of focus, I wanted some kind of "foreground" element in the image, but now looking back at it I see that it is just distracting.

I wont be able to get time to PP for a fw more days. Ill try these crop suggestions and see what it looks like, Ill post the results.

[Tri Danimal]

I would look at these as night time images, rather than low light. The shots seem to extend from the end of golden hour, through blue hour and into night. I personally find that it is usually easier (and better) to shoot at blue hour than at night because of the bit of extra light that is available to the photographer.

All the "rules" we follow in photography still apply; good lighting, good composition, protecting highlights and shadow detail, etc. White balance is always interesting because of the mixed light sources we often find in these settings.

You've made a good start, so next time. look at all of the other aspects of photography and keep them in mind when you frame up an image.

Just so everyone is aware, Land scape it stupid difficult with a 90mm prime ;-). But, Im sure you guys knew that.

[Geoff F]

When you come to edit these, Daniel, also look out for a faint spot towards the top right corner of #1. Possibly a bit of sensor dust?

I suspect with that image, if you remove the rather spindly small 'tree' on the right side (perhaps a mix of crop & clone) and crop a little tighter to the main subject those well blurred bits of foliage on either side of the subject won't matter.

ps. I have a friend who specialises in wall sized panoramic prints (up to 12 x 4 feet) from a number of stitched together shots and his favourite landscape lens is 90 mm.

[Manfred M]

I don't agree Daniel, especially about the longer focal length. I use my 70-200mm lens for landscape work from time to time. A fixed focal length lens does create some restrictions, but virtually all of my landscape work prior to 2010 was done with those types of lenses.

There are some people who seem to think that landscape = wide angle, but nothing can be further from the truth. Depending on the subject, just about any lens can be used for landscape work. I have quite a few landscapes taken in the 70mm and longer focal lengths. It all depends on the subject.

[Rufus]

From a purely aesthetic perspective, I tend to favour landscapes that are not taken with a wide angle lens as the sky tends to look unreal with clouds fanning out from the centre. It is just a personal preference; rather like a preference for water that shows some detail rather than being silky smoooth. For me they are both my general preferences, but with many, many exceptions!

[Tri Danimal]

ps. I have a friend who specializes in wall-sized panoramic prints (up to 12 x 4 feet) from a number of stitched together shots and his favorite landscape lens is 90 mm.

If you have the ability to share their work I would love to see it. I have no clue how to stitch together photos in post so to my landscape with a 90mm is increadibly frustrating. I would love to learn how to do it.


Manfred and Rufus. I appreciate your words. I will keep on trying with this lens and see if I can get some good stuff. Looking forward to learning from you guys.

There are some people who seem to think that landscape = wide angle, but nothing can be further from the truth. Depending on the subject, just about any lens can be used for landscape work. I have quite a few landscapes taken in the 70mm and longer focal lengths. It all depends on the subject.

Would you be able to share any of that work? I would love to learn from it.

[Manfred M]

Would you be able to share any of that work? I would love to learn from it.

Both these shots were taken with a mFT (2x crop factor) camera.

1. Annapurna South - 64mm focal length = 128mm Full Frame equivalent






2. Machachupare (Fish Tail Mountain) - 125mm focal length = 250mm Full Frame equivalent

[DanK]

Daniel,

I do a fair amount of night photography, and I have a few thoughts that might be helpful.

First, for some types of night photography, e.g., astrophotography, the type of lens matters. For most night photography, it doesn't matter much. Speed doesn't matter, because typically, people shoot somewhat stopped down because it is very hard to focus accurately. Focal length should be whatever fits the subject and framing. I have done night photography with everything from 17mm to 400mm (FF).

Second, unless there is a reason to use high ISO, most night photographers stick with a low ISO and long shutter speed to avoid noise.

Third, it often works better to expose to the right and then pull the brightness down in post, again to lessen noise.

Finally, my big question: what were you aiming for? For example, in the last one, did you want any of the details of the buildings to show? All of the details? Questions like this determine how best to expose. For anything I would do, I would consider the last one badly underexposed, but you might have different aims. For example, here is a shot for which I wanted the bridge structure to be blacked out, but I wanted the buildings to be somewhat underexposed but clearly visible. This is ISO 100,f/8, 30 seconds.



I hope this helps

[Tri Danimal]

Both these shots were taken with a mFT (2x crop factor) camera.

1. Annapurna South - 64mm focal length = 128mm Full Frame equivalent






2. Machachupare (Fish Tail Mountain) - 125mm focal length = 250mm Full Frame equivalent

It's hard to believe these are captured at the stated focal length. I understand that the cameras positino dictates the needed focal length but its still hard to believe.

BTW I looked up MFT cameras and holy crap what's with the price tags? I thought Full Frame setups were expensive

[Tri Danimal]

Daniel,

I do a fair amount of night photography, and I have a few thoughts that might be helpful.

First, for some types of night photography, e.g., astrophotography, the type of lens matters. For most night photography, it doesn't matter much. Speed doesn't matter, because typically, people shoot somewhat stopped down because it is very hard to focus accurately. Focal length should be whatever fits the subject and framing. I have done night photography with everything from 17mm to 400mm (FF).

Second, unless there is a reason to use high ISO, most night photographers stick with a low ISO and long shutter speed to avoid noise.

Third, it often works better to expose to the right and then pull the brightness down in post, again to lessen noise.

Finally, my big question: what were you aiming for? For example, in the last one, did you want any of the details of the buildings to show? All of the details? Questions like this determine how best to expose. For anything I would do, I would consider the last one badly underexposed, but you might have different aims. For example, here is a shot for which I wanted the bridge structure to be blacked out, but I wanted the buildings to be somewhat underexposed but clearly visible. This is ISO 100,f/8, 30 seconds.

I hope this helps

I think I will be stacking this image on itself, (1) Ill lighten up the shadows to pull details of the buildings and (2)mask out the sky to keep it a dark night sky. I dont know what it will look like but im going to try it anyways. I dont know what my thought process was on that photo I just remember the city looking pretty while I was walking on the trail.

[Manfred M]

It's hard to believe these are captured at the stated focal length. I understand that the cameras positino dictates the needed focal length but its still hard to believe.

I'm not sure I understand what is so hard to believe here; the focal length selection is dependent on the composition. Fortunately, at the altitude I was working at (3210 m / 10,530 ft) at temperatures around freezing means there was little humidity in the air to cause problems (other than being cold). I had a small tripod along on the trek; looking at the date; these were taken 4 years ago yesterday.

BTW I looked up MFT cameras and holy crap what's with the price tags? I thought Full Frame setups were expensive

I paid around $1000 for my Panasonic GX7. The current model, the GX9 lists at $1000 at B&H. When I bought mine it was one down from the most expensive still camera that Panasonic made at the time. The video cameras, on the other hand are expensive.