I'll check it out on IE7 when I get home for you. FWIW, I prefer Microsoft products over all else.Originally Posted by al olson
I'll check it out on IE7 when I get home for you. FWIW, I prefer Microsoft products over all else.
Thank you, Marko for your comments. I published the guide on my web site with the intention of encouraging people to do night photography and to provide ideas for creating the low light image. Many people think that low light photography is complicated. It is not, but there are a few things to be borne in mind when you are choosing exposure, as well as subjects to photograph.
The information I have on maximum length of exposure for digital I have received from colleagues who are dedicated digital shooters as well as information I have found in the literature, such as camera reviews. A couple of days ago I was checking on the www.TheNocturnes.com site and noted a recent response to an email on their forum, Night Talk, where the questioner was asking about the longest maximum exposure for digital. The response, again, was "15-20 seconds."
(If there are digital cameras available that will record an image for several hours, or even several minutes, with an open shutter, I would like to know about them because this is one of my requirements for buying a new, high end digital.)
I know that my discussion of digital night photography is rather abbreviated, for three reasons. One, this guide is based on the experience I am able to draw on from my 54 years of doing night photography with film. Second, it is my observation that most of the characteristics of digital run pretty much parallel to performing low light photography with transparency film, as I so noted, so anything I would add would be redundant. And third, because the maximum length of exposure is limited with digital, there is little more I can say about it, except to point out the lighting situations where digital is not constrained.
I should mention that the digital photograph of the Ouray lights was made by a colleague with a Panasonic. It didn't seem to matter how long she attempted the exposure (of necessity it was shorter and at a much wider f-stop than the 4 minute exposure I used), she made several exposures of different lengths and her images all appeared similar, underexposed with bright spots at the point light sources.
A similar experience when I filmed the Silverton lights (you can view it on my web page at www.photo-artiste.com/night.html) with another colleague who was using a Nikon D2X, and I was using a Kodak DX 6490. The cost of the camera did not make any difference...our results were the same. At the same time, I was leaving the shutter on my Linhof open for 10 minutes to produce the image shown. I have experimented with digital cameras, but I don't think that night photography has yet become their forte.
I should also offer that large format deals with point light bloom much better than small format. This, I believe, is because the size of the bloom image seems to be similar sized regardless of the size of the film. The bloomed images look far more crowded on a 35mm negative, and thus they look more dominant, while 4x5 sheet looks more natural because there is more real estate to separate them.
I normally prefer the results of film to digital and especially large format to small, but I am not anti-digital. I have worked with digital imagery since the mid-70s, writing software to read and statistically analyze the data in Landsat bands and, later on, creating interfaces to write my mapping images into the PCX and Tiff formats before there was non-proprietary software available to do this for me. I bought my first camera as soon as they were available with 1 MP chips. I am not a Luddite when it comes to imaging technology.
I would like to refer you to www.TheNocturnes.com site. They run several shows a year and there are some excellent images displayed by some very creative photographers, both film and digital. In fact, you might check the emails in their forum, Night Talk. There is a wealth of information available there on photographic techniques and much of it involves digital which should be helpful.
There are on their site, I seem to recall, even some short star trails images that were done with digital. I suspect that these may be a series of multiple frames that were then combined in Photoshop. Never asked. I don't use Photoshop for much except to scan in my film for images to put on my web site. I don't "Photoshop" my work and therefore, I am not equiped to write about these processes. Writing about post-processing RAW files is a subject outside the scope of making low light photographs. Such a guide should be authored by someone who is more knowledgable.
I should also have written more about light painting and added some examples. But I have done so little of it that it is better to refer people to sites like The Nocturnes where there are a lot of examples of imagery that is light painted and of excellent quality.
I agree that for the digital imagers it would be nice to have a guide that deals more specifically with digital cameras. I would be happy to contribute to one (or even collaborate), if there is someone who can provide the expertise on how to effectively use the digital camera in low light. Maybe we can start something.
And thanks also, Marko, for taking a look at the IR page on my site. I am familiar with the infrared capabilities of the digital cameras (another requirement I have when I buy a high end camera). I have friends who, early on when they upgraded, sent their older cameras to the manufacturer to have the IR suppression filter removed. Monochrome IR results are excellent, although they do not produce the gritty, grainy look of Kodak's HIE. (I know that it can be synthesized in Photoshop, but I prefer to be able to say that it was done "in camera.") Color IR, on the other hand is rather sickly compared to
Kodak's EIR. I have viewed many color IR images when searching with Google and the digital IR color images are quite obviously digital and do not generate the aura of EIR which has no green-sensitive emulsion.
Cheers and thanks for the critique,
al
Al,
Again, please don't take my comments as criticism as they are not. You did a really great job in explaining both night and infrared photography. All I am saying is that you are obviously much more experienced with film than digital and that there is nothing wrong in concentrating on that.
I am by no means an expert, but I feel more at home with digital, although I do both. Most new Canons and Nikons have 30 sec + Bulb. I am not much familiar with Nikons, but Canons also all have noise reduction capability built in. These two options coupled with 1600-3200 max ISO open up a lot of possibilies for night photography, depending on batteries. I have yet to try it (which I do intend to do at the first opportunity), but I would expect exposures in excess of half an hour to be quite possible.
As for processing - I understand your point of wanting to "do it in camera", but with digital, especially the RAW format, post-capture processing is a necessary part of the process, much like film requires chemical processing in order to be usable. These are simply two different technologies with equally different requirements, but this is a discussion for different time and different place.
All being said, I enjoyed your images and I hope I'll be able to visit the Four Corners some day.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks