Street photo by night

[riclan]

<p>I wonder, in night photography, is it better to have a large aperture and a faster speed or a small aperture and a slower shutter speed? (all other thing being equal).</p>

[geoff_r1]

<p>That's up to you to decide as the photographer. What's more important for your images in the trade off between depth of filed and motion blur? I personally prefer not to use flash, so I end up with both a wide aperture and the slowest shutter speed I can hold. </p>

[jgredline]

<p>Both really. It is good to mix it up a bit. I prefer the slow shutter when done right, meaning only the subject is moving and the back ground is sharp. I hate when the whole thing is blurry, but that is just me. </p>

[jgredline]

<p><a title="Photo & Video Sharing by SmugMug" href="http://jgredline.smugmug.com/People/Motion-Blur/10080143_6P6tj#691650522_YHpWK-A-LB"><img title="Photo & Video Sharing by SmugMug" src="http://jgredline.smugmug.com/People/Motion-Blur/motion-blur-2/691650522_YHpWK-L.jpg" alt="Photo & Video Sharing by SmugMug" /></a></p>

[jgredline]

<p><a title="Photo & Video Sharing by SmugMug" href="http://jgredline.smugmug.com/People/Motion-Blur/10080143_6P6tj#691651026_7nLPW-A-LB"><img title="Photo & Video Sharing by SmugMug" src="http://jgredline.smugmug.com/People/Motion-Blur/motion-blur-29/691651026_7nLPW-L.jpg" alt="Photo & Video Sharing by SmugMug" /></a></p>

[riclan]

<p>This is an example of a picture taken at f3.5 with my 17-55mm. The next time out, I will try it myself but I just wonder what you guys think: f2.8 or f22?</p><div></div>

[geoff_r1]

<p>What are you hoping to achieve? Why not try both apertures and compare results? Image quality is degraded at both largest and smallest apertures, so if you're after highest quality, somewhere in the middle is best. F22 will require a tripod, so whether this works depends on your style of photography. Larger apertures need to be focused more accurately, though if you're using a 17mm lens there's plenty of DOF to cover you, not so easy at the 55mm end. The picture above would have been at a high iso with those exposure values, and there is noise in the snow. </p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>Different stuff for different stuff...<br /> <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3018/2727709544_0768c5d65e_o.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3201/2871361703_c2b1e3123b_z.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>it all depends. on how much you like motion blur, lol. personally, i wouldn't use f/22 for anything not on a tripod with a slow shutter at night, and even then you'll have diffraction past f/11 or f/13. for people, if you want them in focus, 1/60 is usually fine. you can get 1/15 or 1/20 with a stabilized lens, but you'll probably still catch some subject movement. as far as aperture goes, i prefer to use a wider aperture and a smaller ISO. that's not always possible, but to me it makes little sense to shoot people at iso 3200 and an aperture like f/8 at night for available light. night photography is different from street photography, however. javier's two shots are good SP examples, the others are more night shots. Damon's first shot might be streetier were it converted to B&W, with contrast applied, lol. in general, though, unless you have a reason to shoot at f/22, i would shoot a 2.8 lens at 2.8 at night, with no flash. that's why you have a 2.8 lens in the first place. for wide night portrait shots, you don't really need a larger DoF anyway.</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>another example.</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>...and here's one for fans of motion blur</p><div></div>

[frank_skomial]

<p>If you want to document street events at night, and not seeking special artistic blurs, then all of the things you mentioned are important.<br>

I would start with high ISO camera like Nikon D700, or D3S, and matched that with a good 1.4 or 2.0 max aperture Nikkor lens. VR will not help for night action shots. Possibly a good 2.8 lens will work at higher ISO needed, e.g. Nikkor 180/2.8, 70-200/2.8.</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<blockquote>

<p>Damon's first shot might be streetier were it converted to B&W, with contrast applied, lol.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I shoots'em as I sees'em. But, just for fun...</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>aah, much more streetier.</p>

[efim_podovich]

<p>Casino</p><div></div>

[riclan]

<p>Thanks for your respond. Impact on diffraction is what I was told if I close to much. The picture I posted was taken with a D300s at ISO 200, f3.2 1/3sec on a tripod.</p>

<p> </p>

[ukhov]

<p>some motion,would'n permit towards human on image,unless wide viewer understanding </p><div></div>

[ukhov]

<p>is no use to study night photography at high ISO and lens what didn't give fillings of unity on the first place, they can be wide and fast, but this is second stage.Nothing better to develop skill with the kit ,even with every new purchase of equipment .</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p><em>Impact on diffraction is what I was told if I close to much</em></p>

<p>with a d300s, diffraction generally doesn't set in until after f/11-13, depending on what lens you're using. with your shot, Richard, you did very well at 1/3 and f/3.2. there's very little motion blur, and the background has plenty of detail. had you not used a tripod, you would have had to use a faster shutter which would have necessitated raising the ISO and/or shooting wide open. i wouldn't hesitate to do either with a 17-55+D300s. i also don't think that stopping down your aperture in that case would have resulted in anything but a darker picture. the d300s has very little noise up to 800 and 1600 is more than usable, so you could have shot that same shot without a tripod at like 2.8, 1/30, iso 1600. for a critical landscape pic at night, i recommend a tripod, a slow shutter, base ISO and at least f/8. but for a candid, shoot wide open at medium-high ISOs with the fastest shutter you can get away with.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p><em>I would start with high ISO camera like Nikon D700, or D3S, and matched that with a good 1.4 or 2.0 max aperture Nikkor lens. VR will not help for night action shots. Possibly a good 2.8 lens will work at higher ISO needed, e.g. Nikkor 180/2.8, 70-200/2.8.</em><br>

<em><br /></em><br>

a 1.4 lens is a good idea, but i don't think you necessarily need a nikkor to do it. also, with a long tele like the 180, which has no VR, you need a faster shutter speed to offset lens vibration for action shots. i use the 70-200 for events at night, but for street, i would go with something with a shorter focal length, e.g. 30/1.4, 50/1.4, 24-70.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[jgredline]

<p>Of late what I have done is set up a tri pod with remote trigger and wait for an interesting shot to come along. I have found that for me F/4 works pretty well. I get decent DOF so there is room for distance errors. I also have it set up fully manual to hyperfocal. So the camera does what I tell it to do. This also lets me choose the back ground and shutter speed. I choose ISO based on those two items. </p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Richard, good question. Short answer is it depends.<br>

<br /> I think it says that maybe you don't understand the effects or, more to the point how to use the effects available by manipulating shutter speed and aperture in low light. Best way to really understand it is to play around with it so you can have a better idea of what happens, and then you can start to think about how you can use the different settings to your advantage. So go out and take shots using the full ranges available, see what happens.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>so does this count as a night 'action shot'?</p><div></div>

[riclan]

<p>Thanks Eric, It's getting clear now. My next step is to experiment.<br>

Thanks again to all.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Should also add that you can use improvised tripods or a mono or tripod if you want to as well which can give you choices as well. <img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1283/1112443177_b834bbf42a_o.jpg" alt="" /> Improvised railing tripod, slow shutter in the Evans Throughway, San Francisco</p>