Low-light shoot out?

[mattalofs]

"some shots are of subjects, and others are of light"

 

A lot of low light photography is finding light, and waiting for a subject to move into it. The shot below is an example of a case where stalking light almost worked.<br><br><center>

<img src="http://www.1point4photography.com/documentary/sotd/images/45001.jpg"></center><br><br>

This was on the set of a low budget movie one night. I kept seeing people go into the kitchen, open up the fridge, and just get bathed in light for a minute. I finally caught one of them in the act; a producer opened the door to check the script. Click. It's underexposed by at least a stop though. It took a lot contrast adjustment and spotting in photoshop to get it to this point.

<br>

<br>

Places with truly flat, non directional low light levels can be a bear to shoot in, which is why you see so much high contrast stuff; it isn't because high contrast light is more prevalent, it's just much easier to shoot effectively. This is why it's easier to shoot in bars with "cinematic" lights than in most peoples homes. The shot below was taken in the kitchen of an old house with high ceilings. Exposure was 1/20th @ f2 on Neopan 1600 in diafine. The light was extremely flat, and it shows in the resultant image. Shadow detail is pretty much gone in the black coat. The only option for fixing this would have been a non compensating dev, which would have overblown some of the other shots on the roll, or over exposing by a stop, which would have gotten the shutter speed down into shaky range. The latter probably would have been a better choice, but hey, it was New Years and I was drunk.<br>

<br><center>

<img src="http://www.1point4photography.com/documentary/roll66/images/00660026.jpg"></center><br><br>

Did I have a point? Oh yeah, low light is challenging.

[mattalofs]

</center>stupid center tags off?

[frederick_muller]

I apologize ... he SAYS those were done wide open at 1.4, and I do like them. The gradation is great, they look smooth, and there isn't a lot of flare. The Delta 3200 shots also have that smooth gradation. Some of the other shots ... for effect or otherwise, are really contrasty, from the harsh light, and they are virtually two-tone. Like a Man Ray solarization almost. Yes, they can work, but the effect is very, very different. It's a matter of mood, taste, subject and light. That's all I'm saying. And yeah, that lens is not bad wide open. Truth to tell, I've looked at them now on two monitors, and their appearance is different. So fact is, it's hard to judge a shot on a PC monitor, but I stand by my original assessment.

[frederick_muller]

I apologize ... he SAYS those were done wide open at 1.4, and I do like them. The gradation is great, they look smooth, and there isn't a lot of flare. The Delta 3200 shots also have that smooth gradation. Some of the other shots ... for effect or otherwise, are really contrasty, from the harsh light, and they are virtually two-tone. Like a Man Ray solarization almost. Yes, they can work, but the effect is very, very different. It's a matter of mood, taste, subject and light. That's all I'm saying. And yeah, that lens is not bad wide open. Truth to tell, I've looked at them now on two monitors, and their appearance is different. So fact is, it's hard to judge a shot on a PC monitor, but I stand by my original assessment.

[dean_g]

Maybe available light would be a more accurate term?<div></div>

[Spearhead]

<i>Huw's first three shots look pretty hideous on my monitor, while the fourth looks fine.</i><p>

 

I dunno, the fourth one looks pretty soft to me. That's probably due to the light levels, but that still isn't a good endorsement for a lens.

[frederick_muller]

Actually, some of these contrastier shots would be a gas if solarized.

[frederick_muller]

Whoa ... the fourth one was with the f2.5 pancake II, not the Nokton.

[kevin m.]

The fourth is at 1/8th sec, so camera shake is probably to blame. Still, it looks noticeably better than the first three, which are ghastly.

[west_cork]

EOS20D, 1600 ASA, 50mm, 1/50 at 1.4<div></div>

[huw_finney]

Thank you Frederick, they are just silly shots scanned direct from the neg and only 'leveled' digitaly. The first three demonstrate 'available light' as opposed to a little bright light, the fourth a mixture. I leave the lens wide until I can get to below 1/60th on the shutter, so they are all wide open (why buy a big hole without using it).

 

Kevin, all the shots are 'throw aways' for me (I might make an exception of the party girl!), just demostrating the low light capabilities of RF stuff, not me. I am shure that with more than 30 seconds of digital 'mucking about' (all I used) they could become almost fair to good. I use my scanner/digital mucker abouter instead of contacts these days but real photos have to be printed, wet, on paper. None of these have or probably will be.

[huw_finney]

You would shake with that dog that near!

[huw_finney]

West, like the cat!

[kevin m.]

It's nearly impossible to post a photo that illustrates the advantages of high ISO digital capture in low light, because you would simply look at the image and assume the shot was lit more than it actually was. You have to shoot the scene yourself to really see the difference.

 

I post this example of how digital deals with difficult color temperature, though. The kitchen is lit with garish, overhead fluorescents. AWB in camera, no light-robbing color correction filters on the lens.<div></div>

[huw_finney]

Oh, and shot two, the shadows are from the candles.

[huw_finney]

Kevin, technical point (I am good at that, crap at photos), white balance in a digital camera changes the relative gain (ASA/ISO) of the red, green, and blue sensors. So you are correct in saying no 'light robbing filters' but unlike film you now have more noise on one or more of the colours (probably red) under flory lights (blue for tungsten). Much the same as correcting neg film in the enlarger. Unlike slide film (where we would hope a correct balance is required 'out of the box') where the filter will reduce the effective speed of one or two of the layers to match that of the other(s), being that you can't push just one layer. Dosen't matter with BW though.

[huw_finney]

Time for bed, but I can see a competition on the lowest light (bet it's film) shot. Note to self, set alarm for 3:00AM, go to the country, bump into cow, take photo (of cow) remember scale focussing, tripod and braile tape measure.

[dean_g]

~~~<div></div>

[abufletcher]

Kevin, I know exactly what you mean. When I first started using my Coolpix

for low-light shots I was just astounded at how they looked. It was as if the

clock had been turned back a couple of hours and I was getting photos that

didn't have that contrasty "low-light" look at all. This must have something to

do with the response curve of digital vs. film.

 

For my money digital is the clear winner for low-light situation color

photography. But that's not what I use my Leica for anyway.

Hasselblad 80 2.8 wide open on t-max 100. This was handheld at 1/60th or 1/30th I believe. This was taken over 4 years ago. I always fear handholding a blad less than 1/125 but when cradling in two hands I have had pretty sharp results even with that oversized mirror slap.<div></div>

This was shot last year at the circus with my fm2n. 400cn film, 35 f2. Don't remember shutter speed or aperture.<div></div>

Here's a recent one with M6/50 cron/ wide open/ tri-x at 400/ 1/15th handheld.<div></div>

oops...previous resized<div></div>

[abufletcher]

OK. I promised one of my own from last night's shoot in the tatami repair

shop. This was shot on my D70 at ISO 1600 at f2.8 at around 1/60. The light

was a single florescent tube -- and situation that would have been a

nightmare with color film.

 

In PS, levels, overlay, Velvia Vision, IS Pro noise reduction, then some

sharpening. And don't do complaining about all this processing. Anyone who

doesn't post-process digital files is a fool. Automated all this only takes about

3 mintues per photo.<div></div>

Here's 2 from the first roll of hp5+ I've tried pushing to iso 1600. M6 with cron wide open. both were either at 1/30th or 1/60th handheld. I was alternating between these times only that night.<div></div>