cf-banner.jpg
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Low Light Photography #185079 02/16/02 07:58 PM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Many lighthouse photographs that you see are taken in the daytime and there's nothing at all wrong with that. Architecturally, lighthouses are a beautiful part of our maritime heritage. Personally, however, I find photographing them in low light, the conditions that a mariner would find their beacons most hospitable, to be a rewarding challenge.

For wackos and others who don't have any good feel for how to go about doing this, I thought I'd put together several threads on this forum to give you some tips and ideas with photos to illustrate what I'm talking about. Unfortunately, most of what I'll talk about below in this thread can't be applied if you're using a point and shoot camera.

THE RULE OF RECIPROCITY

Exposure is based on what is known as the Rule of Reciprocity. Basically, that rule states that if you halve the amount of light getting to the film but double the exposure time, you get the same result. Conversely, if you double the amount of light and halve the exposure time, again, you get the same result. What does this translate to with an adjustable camera? Let's assume that you've got a correct exposure with 1/125th sec and an aperature of f5.6. OK, if you were to set the camera to 1/250th sec and f4 or 1/60th sec at f8, you would get identical results for all three exposures. That is a working illustration of the Rule of Reciprocity.

In the example that I just described, each of the exposure times that I mentioned differ by what is referred to a 1 "stop." Likewise, the aperature changes each represent 1 "stop" (f-stop). The full stops on your lens (you may not have all of these) typically might include f2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32. Your lens may also have intermediate values between those I just listed, in steps of 1/2 or 1/3 stops. If you've got one intermediate choice, your lens operates in 1/2 stops; two intermediate values and you're working with 1/3 stops.

YOU vs. YOUR CAMERA'S LIGHT METER

When you aim your camera at some object with the intent of taking a photograph of it, a metering system in your camera interprets the light levels for you. Great, you think! Well, maybe, maybe not.

Your light meter assigns "normal" as the equivalent of 18% grey, which is a medium grey color. What does that mean, you sit there asking yourself about now? Well, if your camera is aimed at pure white snow, the meter thinks that is average and it's going to make it look sort of dull greyish if you trip the shutter. Ever had that happen? How about if you're aimed at something that is coal black? Yep! Medium grey again here I come! OK, what's going on? The meter is doing EXACTLY what it is supposed to do for you. If you're not aiming it at something that is a medium color, the meter doesn't know that. If you're aimed at clear blue sky, that's about a medium blue and it turns out correct. To make snow look pure white the way it is supposed to, you have to adjust the settings of your camera to intentionally overexpose by 2 to 2 1/2 stops of light. In other words if your aperature was f5.6 when you took that reading of the snow at some shutter speed, you need to open the lens by two full stops, i.e. to f2.8 or some combination of aperature and shutter speed that gives you the equivalent of about two full stops to get the snow to look right. How about that lump of coal? Same thing, but in the opposite direction, you need to underexpose it by 2 to 2 1/2 stops relative to what your meter is telling you to make it look coal black. That's the way things are supposed to work with your light meter. The range of light is about 5 full stops from pure white to pure black. That's all film can "see." In contrast, the human eye has a sensitivity to light that spans about 14 stops, nearly three times the range!

WHAT'S THE CORRECT EXPOSURE?

The "correct" exposure isn't necessarily what your camera's metering system dictates. However, if you're shooting in an automatic mode, what it thinks is right is what you'll have to accept when you trip the shutter. Rather, the correct exposure is whatever segment of the image in your viewfinder that you, the photographer, decide to assign as medium whatever color it is. The sky, as I mentioned above, is usually a good value for medium blue on a clear, blue sky day.

If your camera allows you to adjust the metering area, you'll usually have three choices: matrix metering covering the entire viewfinder; center weighted metering, which usually center's the meter "attention" on a circular region about 12 mm in diameter in the center of the 24x36 mm are of what will be your image on the slide or negative; and a spot meter that is about 4 mm or so in diameter.

For puposes of this discussion on low light photography, let's say that you're photographing a lighthouse at sunset. OK, set your camera to meter the entire scene first. Take your light reading, and the camera will give you settings that will make your sunset sky medium red/orange/yellow or whatever it is. Your lighthouse is going to end up silhouetted in this scenario, which is fine if that's what you want.

The image below, shot a few weeks ago at South Haven, Michigan was done exactly this way.



This photograph was taken with my camera mounted on a tripod - I happen to use a Bogen 3021Pro tripod (legs) with a Bogen 3039 pan/tilt head. I was shooting with an 80-200 mm f2.8 Nikkor lens on my camera and the film that I was using was Fuji Velvia slide film (iso 50). There are any number of possible aperature/shutter speed combinations that I could have chosen, but it so happens that I used 0.625 sec and an aperature of f22 with the lens set at 200 mm to capture this image. When I composed this image, I matrix metered the entire scene, knowing that the lighthouse would be silhouetted against the colorful sunset, which is what I wanted in the image. OK, that's where the exposure settings ended up before I tripped the shutter. That ISN'T how I metered the scene.

With the lens stopped down that far (f22 is a very small aperature) everything in the viewfinder at sunset is going to be pretty dark. Rather than trying to see where things were in a dark viewfinder, instead, I composed the image with my f2.8 lens wide open at f2.8 so that things were as bright as possible to allow me see what I was doing with my composition. In most cases, unless you're using a professional level lens, your lens won't open that wide, but open it to whatever it's maximum aperature is at the focal length you're using. If, for example, I had been using a Tamron 28-200 mm lens, which is a good, general purpose travel lens, and I have one of them and a Tamron 28-300 mm as well, it would open to about f5.6 at 200mm so that's where I'd start. Take your meter reading. At f2.8 with my camera and lens, I would have been metering at 1/100th sec at f2.8 (this is 1/3 stop slower than 1/125th sec). For each full stop you close the aperature down, double your exposure time. So, for f4, you'd use 1/60th if you began at 1/125th and f2.8. For f5.6 you'd be at 1/30th sec, which might be where you'd start with a 28-200 mm lens open to f5.6 at 200 mm. Continue doubling the exposure time for each stop as you close down the lens until you get to whatever aperature you wish to use. In this case, I had my lens stopped down as far as possible to the minimum aperature to give me the longest possible exposure time under the conditions, which happened to be 0.625 sec at f22. Why the smallest aperature? Quite simply, with Velvia, I've found that with long exposures using very small aperatures I can get the most saturated colors in my images, which translates to the result in this post above, which was what I wanted in the photograph.

SOME FINAL THOUGHTS FOR THE MOMENT...

A good tripod is essential if you're going to do good, low light photography. The heavier the better! My Bogen 3021 with the 3039 head weighs about 12 pounds without the camera on it, which adds about another 5 pounds between the Nikon F5 that I use and the 80-200mm f2.8 Nikkor lens. If Terry reads this, she might want to comment on the differences in her own photos that she's seen between the lightweight tripod that she used on her first visit to Michigan vs. my older, heavy Bogen 3221 tripod with a 3047 head that I let her borrow on her second visit here.

The other thing that you'll need is a cable release. If the exposure time that you'll use is one that you can dial in on your camera (mine happens to allow me to dial in exposures of up to 30 minutes before I have to resort to the "B" (bulb) setting on it, but that is certainly not typical) dial it in and if you don't have a cable release, use your camera's self-timer to trip the shutter for you so that you don't touch the camera itself. If the exposure you want to use can't be dialed in, you'll have to get yourself a cable release to trip your shutter.

I'll add more on this topic a little later, probably in a separate thread, but I'll quit here to let anyone who's curious or didn't understand what I'm talking about to ask questions.

Gary



[This message has been edited by lighthouse_photo (edited 02-16-2002).]

Re: Low Light Photography #185080 02/17/02 01:50 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 467
B
Bud Schrader Offline
Wacko
Offline
Wacko
B
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 467
Gary, I understand the concept but I see there will be some trial and error there, and maybe just a little bit of practice. I am shooting with a Minolta X-700 so there may be areas I'm limited in? I have the Tamron 28-200 and the Minolta 100-300 5.6. My tripod is a lightweight. Thanks for all the information you're feeding us!

------------------
Bud Schrader


Bud
Re: Low Light Photography #185081 02/17/02 02:11 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Bud, you're more than welcome. I hope some of this helps folks to improve their lighthouse photography and photography in general. There is some trial and error involved. I just gave the example of shooting a photo to generate a silhouetted lighthouse at sunset, which is pretty straight forward... Other lighthing conditions can get much tricker... You have to be willing to experiment, realizing that you're going to waste some frames. On the other hand, when you start getting some really good ones, the rewards are worth the effort and the wasted film to be sure. Professional photographers don't get it right all the time either. Mangleson, the nature photographer who has a great poster of a brown bear standing in a river with a salmon jumping on a trajectory staight into the bear's mouth (he caught and ate the fish) shot 200 rolls of film to get that one shot that he'd conceived. I'd like to think I can help people get at least good lighthouse photos with a lot fewer rolls of film being consumed! After all, photographing a lighthouse isn't a tricky as catching a fish dumb enough to jump into a hungry bear's mouth to be eaten!

Gary

[This message has been edited by lighthouse_photo (edited 02-16-2002).]

Re: Low Light Photography #185082 02/18/02 12:15 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 458
1
1of3trees@prodigy.net Offline
Member
Offline
Member
1
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 458
Okay, Gary, you asked me to comment on the differences I found in my photos between the 1st time I was photographing with you in Sept. when I used the lightweight tripod and the 2nd time in Dec. when you allowed me to use 1 of your 3 tripods. The big difference and by big -- LOL -- I mean HUGE, is that from having a lot of slides that were out of focus the first time (far too many for my "tastes") ESPECIALLY when I used my large 70-300mm lens, in most cases my slides the 2nd time using Gary's heavier duty Bogen tripod were nearly all in focus. I'd have to double-check but I believe I took 10-12 rolls of slide film the 2nd time. With 37 shots in each 36, you're talking most of 370-444 shots being in focus. In 2 particular rolls of slide film when we were shooting a couple of old barns, there were only 2-3 shots that weren't in focus. The biggest difference I found in using the lighter weight tripod in Sept. versus the heavier one in Dec. was in taking photos of the swans, ducks, geese and other birds at the Kellogg's Bird Sanctuary. In Sept., out of approximately 4-6 rolls of slide film, there were maybe 6-12 shots that were in focus; in Dec. most of the 2-4 rolls or so were in focus. With the lighter weight tripod in Sept. when I used my 70-300mm lens, there were times in my excitement at seeing these HUGE waves break over the top of the South Haven lighthouse (a definite 1st for me), the sensational sunset and twilight colors (a 1st having the opportunity to photograph them)and the breathtaking beauty of the lovely swans taking off and landing, when I almost knocked everything over - $350 camera, $200 lens, $80 2x teleconverter, $25 (?) circular polarizing filter - approximate costs. ENTIRELY DIFFERENT STORY in Dec. using Gary's heavier duty tripod. By the same token, the encouragement, support and unceasing patience this great guy has shown me the times when I've been photographing with him, also contributed to my having much more confidence using ANY tripod (even the lighter weight one) and in my confidence in myself as a photographer. Bottom line of this is that my brand new Bogen 3021 Pro Tripod and 3047 3-way panhead w/adapter plate arrived recently from B&H in NY!

------------------
Terry (Teresa) Forrest


Terry (Only my mother, brothers & sisters call me Teresa) Forrest
Re: Low Light Photography #185083 02/18/02 01:04 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Thanks for the feedback re the difference in the tripods you saw Terry. I knew you were a lot happier with your slides form December but I guess I hadn't realized that the difference was quite that large!

Gary

Re: Low Light Photography #185084 02/18/02 01:09 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
I don't often shoot a pair of shots when I'm doing reciprocity failure shots in which I end up with one in RF and the other with a "correct" exposure, but I inadvertantly ended up doing that when I was testing a screw in 3 stop ND filter a few weeks back out at St Joseph. That said, I've got an RF shot, which, technically, is incorrectly exposed, and one which is techincally properly exposed! I'd normally trash the correctly exposed member of this pair, so this will be an interesting way to launch a discussion on CORRECT EXPOSURE and RECIPROCITY FAILURE on here. If th is thread gets lengthy with very many images in it, it could get time consuming to load after a while on a dialup modem, so I'm more inclined toward a new thread for this continuation. Stay tuned.....

Gary

[This message has been edited by lighthouse_photo (edited 02-17-2002).]

Re: Low Light Photography #185085 02/19/02 01:18 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 458
1
1of3trees@prodigy.net Offline
Member
Offline
Member
1
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 458
Gary: I think there was quite a big difference. For example, the sunrise photos we took at Big Red were either all or almost all in focus, because -- color "freak" that I am, you know I got excited seeing the lovely sunrise colors, especially not only my 1st sunrise photos but my 1st lighthouse sunrise photos. Using your heavier duty tripod gave me -- even in this excitement -- little to no camera shake because I wasn't anywhere near able to move that tripod as I was in Sept. with my lighter weight one.

------------------
Terry (Only my mother, brothers & sisters call me Teresa) Forrest


Terry (Only my mother, brothers & sisters call me Teresa) Forrest

Forum Statistics
Forums39
Topics16,978
Posts184,640
Members2,579
Most Online10,155
Jan 14th, 2020
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 1,328 guests, and 5 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
SafeHarbor, Toots, Bluffhill, phtate, TexLight2022
2579 Registered Users
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.2