overall Getting back to the item about the tripod; I have seen some people who would weigh down their tripod with something like a bag of sand or a plastic bag of water, the thought being that this further helps to stop any movement. Have you ever tried this? If you did, did it work? Thanks, George
Getting back to the item about the tripod; I have seen some people who would weigh down their tripod with something like a bag of sand or a plastic bag of water, the thought being that this further helps to stop any movement. Have you ever tried this? If you did, did it work?
Thanks,
George
Things like water bags and sand bags if used right will definatly help as they act to dampen any vibrations that would resonate (like wind) with the typical tripod materials.
I also used a big glass insultor from a high voltage line to add mass (not for the weight) to my video tripod for more fluid movement. I thought it worked well.
Re: ISO
Film speed is a function of the size of the silver halide crystals in the film. Big crystals expose faster than small, which is why the resolution of the picture was inversely proportional to the speed of the film. If you wanted really good resolution, you shot at very low ASA/ISO's - which often meant long exposure times.
ISO 400 is generally about as fast as you want to go with conventional film, although it can be "pushed" (specially processed) to 800. Still, you're starting to get grainy.
The sensors now being used in DSLRs are a far different animal, which makes speeds like 12,500 possible. Barring new photosensitive chemicals, I don't think you could make film that would shoot at that speed.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
MP173 So, is the ISO the same as the "speed" of old films? I used Plus X and TriX (125 and 400 speeds) which obviously affected the shutter and F stops.
So, is the ISO the same as the "speed" of old films? I used Plus X and TriX (125 and 400 speeds) which obviously affected the shutter and F stops.
Yes, ISO is a measure of the sensor's sensitivity to light, the same as film speed, film ISO, or film ASA. There are some mathematical differences but in practice, they're all exactly the same thing and the numbers correspond between film and digital.
MP173 If so, then you are now shooting 1600 which would give incredible light gathering ability....correct? I need to get up to speed (pun intended) on all this.
If so, then you are now shooting 1600 which would give incredible light gathering ability....correct? I need to get up to speed (pun intended) on all this.
Compared to the 400 speed film you used to shoot, 1600 is indeed incredible. It's now possible to shoot handheld in dark indoor spaces where film would require additional light or a tripod.
The lead photo in this story was shot in a subway tunnel repurposed as a first responder training facility, during a bombing simulation which "knocked out" the station's main lights. At ISO 1600 and f/2.8, my shutter speed was 1/40, handheld successfully thanks to lens stabilization technology and my own technique (which has a lot in common with marksmanship regarding breathing and trigger/shutter control). At ISO 400, that exposure time would have jumped to 1/10 and I'd have to use my knee as a tripod.
The range of usable ISO speeds depend on the camera's sensor size and technology. Manufacturers are constantly pushing the limits upwards, so the following numbers are from a couple years ago -- the latest models may go higher. Point-and-shoot cameras generally are go to 400 or so, while most DSLRs (with sensors smaller than 35mm film) are usable at 1600. Full frame cameras, with sensors the same size as 35mm film, are moving up to incredible places. My new 6D shoots at ISO 12,800 with the same publishable quality that my 40D has at 1600 (with +3 stops of light) and boosts to 25,600 (+4 stops) in a pinch. That same shot above at ISO 12,800 would be exposed at 1/320!
Of course, spaces are still dark and modern photography's accessibility to everyone has caused photographers like me to be hired to shoot things that are on the new edge of what cameras can do -- out of range of film and starting to get iffy for digital. 1600 is amazing, but I still have jobs where I breathe like a sniper and get hand shake blur on some images. I actually purchased my 6D when I was asked to do a job (on a night I was already booked) where I wouldn't have been able to deliver. A no-flash donor event in an incredibly dim museum gallery would've had me on a tripod! (and photos of the donors enjoying the exhibit...not happening). Easy peasy at ISO 12,800.
So yes, new technologies have made light sensitivity absolutely AMAZING.
Ed
Good Stuff, Chris.
Re: Tripods. Sometimes they can be handy if you're setting up a shot - maybe you want just the right picture of that special locomotive, so you get it framed up, check for distracting stuff (telephone pole sticking out of a head, anyone), and have your camera right where you want it when the time comes.
It can also be handy if you're one of those folks who can't seem to hold the camera still, no matter how you try, or never seem to have it level.
I have one I bought at K-Mart years ago - it's aluminum, reasonably sturdy, and does everything I ask it too. I've also got one of those little ones that has bendable legs. Sometimes a fencepost or the hood of the car can provide a stable platform, but you still need to be able to make adjustments.
MP173 One question....when out and about I often see rail photographers using tripods during what I would call normal light....let's say F8 - 1/500 lighting. Why use this equipment in good light? Let's discount a slow shutter speed...is this done primarily for framing the photograph? I have always tended to frame the photo graph without the use of a tripod.
One question....when out and about I often see rail photographers using tripods during what I would call normal light....let's say F8 - 1/500 lighting. Why use this equipment in good light? Let's discount a slow shutter speed...is this done primarily for framing the photograph? I have always tended to frame the photo graph without the use of a tripod.
Three possibilities: they're shooting video, they grew up shooting low-ISO film (where tripods were helpful), or some misguided photographer taught them that tripods are still relevant tools in daytime lighting.
ISO 400 was considered fast back in the days of film and many photographers used slower film for quality. Because it was commonly possible to get handheld blur during some daytime conditions, many photographers were taught that a tripod will always make their images better. Nowadays, their use tends to restrict composition and variety and is absolutely unnecessary during the daytime.
Of course, modern DSLRs can shoot at higher ISO than was ever thought possible in the film days, with great results. Depending on the camera (I shoot a crop-sensor 40D and a full-frame 6D) I'll shoot at ISO 1600 or 6400 without hesitating, and if conditions warrant I'll push the 6D to 12,800!
Chris:I really appreciate your lessons. My first "real" camera was a Pentax 35mm back in the mid 70s with a hand held meter. Decent results, certainly wish I had those days over again, but am grateful for the photos taken.
Today's equipment is a 6 year old Nikon D40 which pretty much handles my every day family and occasional train needs. I don't push anything, pretty much point and shoot. You are motivating me to take the extra steps necessary to be a "photographer" rather than "taking pictures".
BTW your astronomy photo is outstanding. That is another of my hobbies. What constellation or part of the sky is that? My guess is in the Sagitarius region...but just a guess.
Also, loved the photo of the mom at Denver Union Station. As always, keep the lessons coming. You are motivating me.
MidlandMike I have a 50mm lens from my 30 year old Nikon SLR film camera. Will that work on a new digital SLR?
I have a 50mm lens from my 30 year old Nikon SLR film camera. Will that work on a new digital SLR?
Taking some of Chris' ideas, some point and shoot cameras have enough adjustments to get a decent night shot, without spending all the coin for a DSLR.
What I did on this shot was set the ISO as low as it would go (ISO 64), set the f-stop as high as it would go (f8), and leave the shutter open longer (16 seconds). I also set the camera on something solid. Somebody I'll bring a tripod along...
I use similar settings when taking close-up pictures of model trains indoors. With limited light, to get some depth of field the shutter needs to be open longer.
This next shot was from a pocket-sized camera. I took a lot of pictures with it, as it was close by when the opportunity presented itself.
On this one, ISO 160, f2.69, 1/26 second shutter speed. For a stable platform, I set the camera either on a window sill or on some of the trim.
Better equipment does make things easier, but decent results can be obtained with some knowledge of what is going on.
Mike WSOR engineer | HO scale since 1988 | Visit our club www.WCGandyDancers.com
Stunning shot Chris!!!!!!!
Very inspiring
Hey Gang,
Based on some of the responses to Lesson 2, I decided that it would probably be a good idea to cover the "how" of shooting in low light. It doesn't really help anyone if I tell you to shoot at night but don't give you some help on how exactly to do that.
While drama may increase as light levels drop, so do the problems associated with shooting. Remembering from Lesson 1 that photography is "painting with light," low light photography means that we have less "paint" to work with. I thought about this long and hard last night, and I came up with 5 solutions to the problem of working in low light conditions. I will preface this with the idea that my shooting is based around using a DSLR. Some of these tips will work for point and shoots, but with a few exceptions, point and shoot cameras just do not do well in low light because of their small sensors. I'll try to get an equipment article up soon that will cover some of this a little more. For right now, though, let's just say that the darker it gets, the more you're going to want a DSLR or a "MILC" (Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera).
OK, let's get started. The Sunny 16 rule of photography tells us that a "proper" exposure will be attained at a shutter speed of 1/ISO when shooting at f16 in perfectly sunny conditions. I'll cover this a bit more in an upcoming lesson, but for right now let's just pretend that we're shooting at f16 at ISO 100, so our shutter speed may be 1/125th of a second (You can round it a little bit). I'f you're shooting in an auto mode, your camera is worrying about all of this on it's own, so you don't have to worry too much about the actual numbers, just the concept for now. Let's say our sunny sky has a few cirrus clouds, though. We're still seeing shadows, but we've lost a little light. It's about one stop darker than full sun. If we want a proper exposure now, we're going to have to do one of 4 things:
For low light shooting like during dramatic weather or at night, the problem is magnified by a LOT. We lose a lot more light than the change from sunny to hazy sunny skies.To obtain a proper exposure, we have to really start pushing the camera. So let's cover our options one by one and discuss the five solutions that I offer and how to use them individually or together to make a workable shot.
Option 1 - Get a Faster Lens
Let's say that we're using the "kit" lens that came with our DSLR. If you're shooting a crop sensor camera (most likely), this is probably an 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 lens. Let's say we're shooting at the long end -- 55mm. At that focal length, the aperture only opens up to f5.6. That's pretty dark. One option is to buy a prime lens that is "faster." That is, it lets in more light. With aperture, the lower the number, the faster the lens. Conveniently, most camera makers offer fast lenses around 50mm for not a lot of money (they're optically pretty simple). If you're shooting Canon, this would be an EF 50mm f1.8. Nikon would be the AF Nikkor 50mm f1.8D. Both lenses are around $125 brand new. Other makers offer similar options. Check out your maker's website or some of the various camera review sites for information about what's available for your brand.
So, now we have an aperture of f1.8 available to us instead of f5.6. But what does that mean in practical terms? It means that at a given shutter speed, our sensor is going to see 12 times as much light! That's huge. Prime lenses (lenses that don't zoom) offer a lot of benefits, but one of the key benefits is this fact that they're usually faster than zooms.
Of course, there's no free lunch. There are going to be three main problems with using prime lenses. The first is that while the 50mm f1.8 lenses are usually pretty cheap, that's the exception and not the rule. As focal lengths get more exotic (either wide angle or telephoto) and as speeds get faster, you're going to take a hit in the pocket book. The second problem is that depth of field decreases. This can actually be an advantage, too, but that's a topic for another episode. For right now, just know that the wider your aperture, the less that will be in focus. Finally, we lose convenience with primes. Changing from a wide angle of 18mm to a telephoto of 55mm means swapping lenses instead of turning the zoom ring.
Here's an example shot taken with a Canon 85mm f1.2L Mk II. This is Beth who was on the Amtrak platform at Denver dropping her daughter off to go to school:
Flickr Link
Option 2 - Get a Lens or Camera with Image Stabilization
As our shutter speed drops, our ability to handhold our camera reliably drops, too. One way to fight this is to get a lens that features some sort of image stabilization. Canon calls these lenses IS (Image Stabilization). Nikon calls them VR (Vibration Reduction). Some manufacturers actually build this feature into the camera instead of the lens (Pentax and Olympus, for example), so any lens used is stabilized. The benefit of stabilization is that we can use longer shutter speeds without worrying about camera blur. The newest image stabilization systems are usually good for three stops of hand-holdability and sometimes more.
There are two big problems with relying on this solution, though. The first is that stabilization does nothing for subject motion. So if you have a moving train, stabilization isn't going to help. Additionally, and especially for lens bases stabilization solutions from brands like Canon and Nikon, these lenses cost more than their non-stabilized versions. Sometime significantly so.
Here's a shot taken on the shadow side of the Burlington O-5b at the Colorado Railroad Museum. I relied on the Image Stabilization feature of my Canon 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS to get this:
Option 3 - Get a Tripod
I consider a good tripod an essential piece of any photographer's kit. And let me stress that this is not a place to buy the cheapest option. For one thing, an ultra-cheap tripod is not going to help you take good pictures. You'll still see camera blur. But ignore that fact for a second and think about what's happening when you put your camera on a tripod. You are placing your main photography investment (camera and lens) on a structure. I don't know about all of you, but I have a lot of money tied up in cameras and lenses. Do you really want to save a few pennies and trust your big investment on a $30 Walmart special?
Good tripods don't have to be really expensive, though. If you want fancy features like carbon fiber (which is light but strong and great for hiking), it's going to cost you. But a good set of aluminum legs and a decent head can be found for $200 or less. And here's a secret: go out and looked for a used Leitz Tiltall. They're not fancy and they're not light, but they'll hold a 4x5 large format camera, so a DSLR is not going to be a problem. I haven't checked prices lately, but these used to go for $100 or less on the big auction site.
Once you've got a good stable platform, you can essentially open your shutter as long as you'd like. As with Image Stabilitzation, this of course doesn't help with moving subjects. Of course, sometimes you can look at this as a feature instead of a hindrance. Take my example shot for this section, for instance:
Option 4 - Increase the ISO
Probably the most critical feature that makes digital far superior to film for low light shooting is the ability to increase ISO. This can be done without changing film. Modern digitals absolutely blow away film at the highest ISO levels, too. Increasing ISO doesn't come without cost, of course.
The two big problems with upping your ISO is that you'll start introducing "noise" (essentially digital grain) and you'll lose dynamic range (the range of tones that your sensor can capture). You'll have to figure out for yourself what your camera body's limit is for ISO. Review sites online can help, but there's also a subjective factor. What looks good to your eye? Generally speaking, the newer your DSLR, the better it will be for high ISO shooting. With every generation of camera I've owned, I've found that I can go a little higher for what I call "acceptable." With my Canon D60, I tried to stay at ISO 400 or below. My Pentax K100D pushed that to ISO 800. ISO 1600 with my Pentax K20D. ISO 3200 with my Pentax K-x and Pentax K-5. Now I own a Nikon D600 and I find that if I'm careful, I can go to ISO 6400 (and occasionally a bit further). Again, this is something you'll have to establish for yourself.
Here's an ISO 2500 shot of a BNSF Z Train (The CHIDEN, I believe) arriving in Rennicks Yard in Denver:
Option 5 - Add Light
Welcome to the world of O. Winston Link. Link liked the night because he had near complete control of light. Of course, he would have to carry dozens of flash bulbs and thousands of feet of wire to make his shots work. Things are a little easier these days with portable flashes and radio triggers. The problems here are vision and, once again, money. Learning to make your lighting is a steep learning curve (and one I'm just starting in, so I can't help a whole lot with). Doing this creatively takes work. I see a lot of guys' shots on Flick where they just blast away with some big portable lights. OK, so you lit up a train at night. Where's the story? I think the part that appeals to me about photographers like Link and Mel Patrick is that they tell great stories with their night shots.
The other problem is that you need to match your lighting power to your subject. And trains are big, so you'll need some watt seconds to light them up. Plan to spend money to do this. Possibly a lot of money.
Like I said, this is a new world for me, so I don't have any railroad subjects to post just yet. This is a recent effort of a local library lit with three radio controlled speedlights:
Bonus Option - Mix and Match!
Don't forget that you can mix and match all of these options to figure out the best solution for a given situation. Photography is about problem solving. Knowing what options you have available and using them individually or in concert to realize your creative vision is what this hobby is all about. I'll leave you with this shot (another non-rail subject...sorry) and then give a brief description of what I did to get it:
So here's the deal with this one. It's about a 20 second exposure at f4.5 at ISO 8000. I needed to pull every trick in my bag to pull it off, and you can still see that it's still not perfect because of the noise in the foreground. The biggest problem I had was that the earth rotates. If I wanted to get the Milky Way and avoid star trails, that meant that I had to keep my shutter speed under 30 seconds. The wide angle lens helped a little in this respect (wider lenses take longer to show star trails). My wide angle lens (Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 II) isn't terribly fast as you can see, but I can't really afford to get a faster ultrawide zoom (I'd like the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8, but that's way out of my price range). Because of the shutter and aperture constraints, that meant that I had to push the ISO all the way to 8000. Further than I wanted to go, but sometimes you have to do what you have to do. I also needed a strong tripod here because the wind was probably around a sustained 35-40 kts. up on top of Loveland Pass. It's not a perfect photo, but it's one that I'm happy with and I think it's a good example of working with my equipment and the situation to come away with a photo that matched my vision.
As always, thoughts, comments, ideas and critiques are more than welcome! It's always great to hear from other photographers and get their thoughts about shooting!
-ChrisWest Chicago, ILChristopher May Fine Art Photography"In wisdom gathered over time I have found that every experience is a form of exploration." ~Ansel Adams
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.