# anyone have any shooting at night tips for a 7100 because right now



## bribrius (Mar 17, 2014)

im thinking this thing is a p.o.s. it isn't doing much better than a p and s . first night I had it out, last night. I felt like throwing the damn thing into the lake (course its frozen so it would have just bounced)

View attachment 68711


I dunno if its me, or the camera. But this sad thing is the BEST image I came out with last night. 
Taken at 18mm 6400iso 3.5 1/60 s (slowest I dared to go with no tripod).
in post, I try to bring up the light in this thing using shadow recovery, dlighting, general brightness, exposure and all I get is blotches and NOISE. im looking for ANYTHING to bring the light up. I had noise reduction on when I took it. I cant bring the light up I get NOISE. which is why I avoided the hi settings I didn't want noise figured 6400 was already high.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 17, 2014)

View attachment 68712


see all the dots around the moon? and I didn't even bring up the light much in this one. noise, noise, noise.
I cant tell if its me, or this thing just flat out sucks in the dark.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 17, 2014)

bring up the light hahahahahahaha.
it looks like this...

View attachment 68713

like seriously, am I missing something here or is this thing going to need like a ten minute exposure to take a photo of some ****n ice?


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Mar 17, 2014)

What kind of image were you hoping for? It's very common to need a tripod for shooting at night.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Mar 17, 2014)

Buy a 1.8 prime lens, and it'll serve you better.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 17, 2014)

one with less noise. hoping to get a little dark purple out of the sky. I could see its potential looking at it. apparently the camera couldn't. I didn't expect it or want it to look like daylight but geez. come on.


----------



## memento (Mar 17, 2014)

here's a tip... buy a tripod.

and here's another... read up on long exposures.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 17, 2014)

memento said:


> here's a tip... buy a tripod.
> 
> and here's another... read up on long exposures.


I have a tripod. But is this really that hard of a shot I should need a long exposure on a tripod? REALLY? surrounded by streetlamps, lights on the other side of the lake. full moon. stars out. I could see everything clear as day with my eyes. Not like it was pitch black.  I didn't think I was expecting too much here.


----------



## Mach0 (Mar 17, 2014)

bribrius said:


> I have a tripod. But is this really that hard of a shot I should need a long exposure on a tripod? REALLY? surrounded by streetlamps, lights on the other side of the lake. full moon. stars out. I could see everything clear as day with my eyes. Not like it was pitch black.  I didn't think I was expecting too much here.




Yes.


----------



## runnah (Mar 17, 2014)

You're wasting your time not using a tripod. Not even the highest end cameras can do a good job in the middle of the night. 

Night shot tips:
Use a long shutter speed. Upwards of 30 seconds.
Shoot as high an aperture as possible.
Use low ISO
If possible don't shoot right at night time, dusk makes for a better photo.


----------



## D-B-J (Mar 17, 2014)

TRIPOD. Wider aperture prime. TRIPOD.

But really, there's only so much you can do without a tripod.  

Best,
Jake


----------



## Judobreaker (Mar 17, 2014)

bribrius said:


> memento said:
> 
> 
> > here's a tip... buy a tripod.
> ...



Don't trust your eyes.
They adjust to the amount of light in your surroundings... I can see just as well on a clouded day as on a sunny day, still there's way more light on a sunny day.

It's dark so you need more light. Either you get your sensor sensitivity (ISO) high up like you did in these shots or you use a long shutter speed.
The high ISO will introduce problems such as extreme noise where-as a long shutter speed can introduce motion blurs.
Seeing as there's not really anything moving in this scene the only possible motion blur would be camera shake. Solution? Tripod.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 17, 2014)

runnah said:


> You're wasting your time not using a tripod. Not even the highest end cameras can do a good job in the middle of the night.
> 
> Night shot tips:
> Use a long shutter speed. Upwards of 30 seconds.
> ...


im hearing ya. not liking it. I really thought this would be a easy shot. I feel like im getting screwed. rifle scope can see at night. why cant a damn camera? Especially when it isn't really that dark? I can see, why cant the camera? I was hoping if I stopped carrying around the other bridge camera and got this my night situation (I shoot a lot at night its when I have time) would improve. not so much apparently. technology my azz it is only works for 16 hours out of a 24 hour period.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 17, 2014)

It's only as good as you let it be.


remember your thread: i will never be a great photographer?  your refusal to even TRY to understand and get better is exactly why this situation is pissing you off.  Photography is a technical skill and there's a solution to solve you problem and it's easy if you take the 5min to learn.


----------



## TheLost (Mar 17, 2014)

bribrius said:


> memento said:
> 
> 
> > here's a tip... buy a tripod.
> ...



I know... Right!!!

I have the same problems shooting high school football games under stadium lights.  I can see fine!! I don't understand why my camera cant see what i see.  Everybody says i need to learn better technique but i know there is something wrong with my camera!


----------



## runnah (Mar 17, 2014)

Your eye has more dynamic range than a camera sensor that is why you can see down a scope.


----------



## memento (Mar 17, 2014)

bribrius said:


> I can see, why cant the camera?





TheLost said:


> I don't understand why my camera cant see what i see.



you are now aware of how far superior the human eye is to electronics.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 17, 2014)

bribrius said:


> memento said:
> 
> 
> > here's a tip... buy a tripod.
> ...



You need to read up on exposure. *You would have had more luck walking on water*. Hand-held at night at 1/60 second???

LMFAO. Sorry dude, but seriously, I am LMFAO!


----------



## bribrius (Mar 17, 2014)

D-B-J said:


> TRIPOD. Wider aperture prime. TRIPOD.
> 
> But really, there's only so much you can do without a tripod.
> 
> ...





Derrel said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > memento said:
> ...


My expectations were obviously too high here.
NOt really that funny. i was grasping at straws. wasn't expecting it to be such a issue. I didn't stay at 1/60 or start at 1/60. over 1/100 was REALLY dark. i worked my way down. So went down to 1/80- 1/60 and fired off ten, deleted the blurs and ended up with about the best I could come up with. usually at this point I put the camera on the vehicle if nothing else but my then I was so annoyed I think I put down rubber leaving.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 17, 2014)

TheLost said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > memento said:
> ...



Well when you buy your very first 52 MP plus camera with a dynamic range in excess of 24 fstops equipped with what is by far the worlds fastest (hands down, no comparison) autofocus system and is also equipped with a lens that has front glass element that actually changes shape to accomodate for either wide angle or telephoto plus an automated aperture system that automatically adjusts the aperture based on focal length and light level, all tied into to a processing system that stomps the worlds best Cray super computer into the dirt, then you might have a shot.

Until then.. eh, buy a tripod.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 17, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> TheLost said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...


yeah, but we are getting screwed tech wise. night vision rifle scope isn't much more than this camera and lense and that baby sees at night.  I should super glue one to the end of the camera lens maybe then the stupid thing would get the hint.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 17, 2014)

bribrius said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > TheLost said:
> ...



Night vision electronics generally rely on amplifying available light and then projecting a visible image.  The less light you have to work with, the more that light is amplified the worse the image gets.  While for things like scopes you don't really need a clear crisp image with good color representation, for cameras people are kind of fussy about that sort of thing.

Your camera can do this as well, to a more limited extent - by increasing your ISO.  However once you start getting past a certain point in amplification the image gets grainy, starts losing dynamic range, etc.  So why is it so much more noticeable in the camera?  The size of the image.  When your dealing with a scope the image being presented is tiny by comparison, it's hard to see all the distortion and noise.  When your looking at images from the camera though, the image size is huge by comparison.  So yes, noise and other problems are going to be far more noticeable.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 17, 2014)

bribrius said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> > TRIPOD. Wider aperture prime. TRIPOD.
> ...




You mean speeds faster than 1/100 second at night came out DARK?????? No kidding? You don't say! 

And you ended up getting so frustrated and mad that you burned rubber leaving the scene???? 

Yes, your expectations as to the behavior of LIGHT at nighttime were overly optimistic, for sure. Shooting HAND-HELD pictures at NIGHT at daytime exposure settings is...an impossibility. I will give you some advice about shooting at nightime, based on experience that goes back a long time. Pick an aperture that works well at night for man-made scenes and the natural world. Let';s standardize on ONE, single f/stop that will give nice starburst effects to point sources, and which has good depth of field, and which actually works well. That f/stop would be f/8. It works on buildings, city-scapes, and fireworks. It's not too large, it's not too small.

Set the lens to f/8. *Put the camera on a tripod.* Set the self-timer. Start with exposure times of 20 seconds in bright, city environments. In small towns, start at 30 seconds. In the suburbs, start at 45 seconds. On the outskirts of towns,  start at 90 seconds. In remote wilderness, start at 2 minutes 30 seconds.

See what happens. If you have no tripod, a firm support (picnic table, bench, concrete wall, etc.) can be used. Just make sure the camera is stable. You very well might need to prop the lens up with a solid object when using a "found" camera support.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 17, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...


thanks. I guess that explains why night vision seems on the surface to me so much better than a camera. which is part of my frustration. Between my eye seeing it,  night vision sees it. Im getting a little ticked off at the camera thing thinking it should be better and it's b.s. that it isn't.. 
But your explanation kind of helped.


----------



## runnah (Mar 17, 2014)

Learning what your camera can't do is as important as learning what it can do.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 17, 2014)

Derrel said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > D-B-J said:
> ...


this is actually really helpful as I usually go through lots of trial and error. I have a tripod I just don't carry it. Actually never used it away from home, I don't carry it around. 
Last time I did this, long exposures, I ended up with light streams in the city. Kind of neat in a way but also unavoidable im guessing? no way around it doing long exposures I suppose ill have to stay away from the busy places to avoid the light streams. Again, actually really helpful I usually burn off at least five shots just getting the camera settings right this might mean I only waste two.

also different. Going to f8? now I feel I have no choices. I automatically go to the highest aperture I can. which means minimum focal length I can for what im shooting. Thinking aperture is lesser of evils. bump up the iso to what I think I can get away with. And last lower the shutter knowing that causes the blur.. If I cant get a keeper I bump the iso again. when I start getting noise I sadly start lowering shutter speed again, bump exposure and hope and pray. I basically feel I have no options. like a camera owns me and it puts me up against a wall with no choice. I end up with everything near maxed out far as I can go..
feeling like the camera is limiting and controlling me and im nolonger picking the shot.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 17, 2014)

bribrius said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



Good deal, happy to help.  Camera systems really don't deal that well with low light situations but there are ways to work around it as others have mentioned.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 17, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...


I see a lot of people on here taking great night shots. runnah posted one a couple weeks ago off a road that was fabulous. I want to be able to do good night shots. plus, generally I have more opportunity to shoot at night.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 17, 2014)

Years ago, one of the photo magazines had a portfolio of a very excellent night shooter. It was his method to shoot almost every regular night photo at f/8. He said by settling on f/8, he got the benefits I mentioned: a good "starburst" on point light sources, and exposure times that were easy to estimate. This was back in the film days, so ISO values were typically either 64 or 100 for color slide film, and normally, about 125 ASA for fine-grained B&W negative film, or 400 for "fast" B&W film. The encapsulated advice he gave was, "Shoot your night shots at f/8, and soon, you'll be able to estimate the proper exposure pretty well."

If you do not want to carry a tripod, maybe you could look into something a bit easier to carry, like a large C-clamp with a 1/4 x 20 bolt welded to it, and using a small but sturdy ball head on that, or a pair of Vise-Grip pliers with a 1/4 x 20 thread.

For years I have owned one of these mini-clamps with 1/4x20 thread, and I have used it with a small Cullman brand ball-head:  Mini Camera Clamp Mount | eBay

You could also buy a Manfrotto Super Clamp, and mount a small ballhead on the spigot.
Manfrotto 035RL Super Clamp with Standard Stud 035RL B&H Photo

You want some way to keep the camera steady for 20 to 10,000 seconds.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 17, 2014)

bribrius said:


> I see a lot of people on here taking great night shots. runnah posted one a couple weeks ago off a road that was fabulous. I want to be able to do good night shots. plus, generally I have more opportunity to shoot at night.



Ask them how they did it and what the camera settings were and what the ambient lighting conditions were at the time...



> You could also buy a Manfrotto Super Clamp, and mount a small ballhead on the spigot.
> Manfrotto 035RL Super Clamp with Standard Stud 035RL B&H Photo



I did this.  I have a super clamp and ballhead and use it for both my camera and flashes.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 17, 2014)

Braineack said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > I see a lot of people on here taking great night shots. runnah posted one a couple weeks ago off a road that was fabulous. I want to be able to do good night shots. plus, generally I have more opportunity to shoot at night.
> ...


what are you clamping it too tree branches?


----------



## Braineack (Mar 17, 2014)

poles, roll balls, chairs, stands, joists, etc.


----------



## jaomul (Mar 17, 2014)

ISO at higher figures is for when there is low light, not almost no light. Night shots work as stated above because of long exposures. This is a night shot using a d7100 at iso 800. It is a 30 second exposure. I had a tripod but no remote and didn't want to keep my finger on the shutter for 4 minutes, which would have been required if I used iso 100




Gorch Fock Cobh 14 marc 2014 (7) by jaomul, on Flickr

Here its long exposures not high iso that helps get the shot

Below is a better example of when high iso is need and you can't use a tripod or a long exposure, ISO 4500 converted to black and white as the lighting was dreadful



Brawl off the ball charity event (5) by jaomul, on Flickr

The d7100 is not to bad at high ISO, your approach to night shots needs a different approach, where night shots don't need high iso


----------



## bribrius (Mar 17, 2014)

TheLost said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > memento said:
> ...


you know why. cameras, they are all junk. doesn't matter if you spend five hundred or five k. All junk. The differences in low light and image is probably a stones throw between the lowest end and the highest end.  They could make one that probably did better, but why would they? you are going to buy one anyway and the more it sucks the more you will buy gear and upgrade. Plus they need just a increment higher for next years releases.  so you up grade, and get a minimal better performance. But then realize that is junk too. They are all junk. I could have probably went full frame, and it would make such a miniscule amount of difference I would want to throw that across the lake even more. Because that would be junk too. They all are. Kind of reminds me of automobiles. They make them eighty years and still cant make one worth a damn without a pile of recalls and stupidity. Except they actually COULD. But hey, why? you will buy one anyway. Might as well go buy a fifty dollar point and shoot and call it a fukn day..
sorry. im not sounding negative am I?


----------



## D-B-J (Mar 17, 2014)

runnah said:


> Learning what your camera can't do is as important as learning what it can do.



Whoah... that's deep.

And I agree completely.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 17, 2014)

bribrius said:


> im not sounding negative am I?



ignorant and stubborn if anything.  #nofiltersneeded.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 17, 2014)

bribrius said:


> TheLost said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



I completely agree. 
just send me your junk D7100 and I will send you my Samsung WB150 P&S. its got built in bluetooth and wifi. takes great night pictures, and is small enough to stick in your pocket. no need to carry around that large junk camera when you can just use my nice Samsung. I will even be generous enough to consider it an even trade.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 17, 2014)

Braineack said:


> poles, roll balls, chairs, stands, joists, etc.



Bystanders.. lol


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 17, 2014)

bribrius said:


> TheLost said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



Like anything camera, you have to make certain trade offs.  

It's pretty easy to apply a huge amount light amplfication to an image that's only a couple of hundred pixels by a hundred or so pixels tall and still come out with something usable.  It's pretty much impossible to do that with an image that's 6000x4000 at that same level of amplification and not have it turn out to be unusable garbage.  Your camera is going to have certain limitations, it's just an engineering fact.  Not much point in blaming the people who make them for that or taking it personally. There are simply certain engineering limitations that they have to deal with that cannot be ignored.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 17, 2014)

Braineack said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > im not sounding negative am I?
> ...


well, yeah. there is that. call it a temper tantrum if you will.



pixmedic said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > TheLost said:
> ...


you are funny. 

on a serious note these I read a while back and I would say they are just resonating with me.
one I cant find the link now but it was also rockewell and went something like "for image and purposes all cameras from a generation are generally the same"
which I didn't quite "get" at the time but I am now. which might explain my somewhat derogatory post above. Pretty large concept if you think about it. For image quality, every camera within a generation is pretty much the same. And I think he means human generation. That is a lot of cameras that are somewhat the equivalent of eachother to varying degrees. I didn't quite "get" it. now I do.

and..
"Just about any camera, regardless of how good or bad it is, can be used to create outstanding photographs for magazine covers, winning photo contests and hanging in art galleries. The quality of a lens or camera has almost nothing do with the quality of images it can be used to produce.You probably already have all the equipment you need, if you'd just learn to make the best of it. Better gear will not make you any better photos, since the gear can't make you a better photographer. Photographers make photos, not cameras.It's sad how few people realize any of this, and spend all their time blaming poor results on their equipment, instead of spending that time learning how to see and learning how to manipulate and interpret light. "

Your Camera Doesn't Matter


now that's a pill to swallow.






​


----------



## bribrius (Mar 17, 2014)

course I also read a anti telephoto lens article there a while back, which I didn't get either. now I am. I was overusing telephoto when using a simple fixed lens and my feet will produce better results. That is part of the reason I bought the 50mm. I needed to learn to walk.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 17, 2014)

bribrius said:


> on a serious note these I read a while back and I would say they are just resonating with me.
> one I cant find the link now but it was also rockewell and went something like "for image and purposes all cameras from a generation are generally the same"
> which I didn't quite "get" at the time but I am now. which might explain my somewhat derogatory post above.
> 
> ...



Well on this one I'm afraid we'll have to agree to compeltely disagree. A great camera won't make up for a lack of photographic skill, no matter how great it is or how many features it might have, but no matter how skilled of a photographer I might be it is absolutely impossible to deny the inherint limitations of the camera system I'm using and anyone who says otherwise, well I'm sorry but they are just dead wrong. 

I cannot take a $50 point and shoot and using it under the exact same conditions as my D5200 produce an image that is going to be comparable in image quality. I cannot take my D5200 and using an F/4.5 to 5.6 lens and using the exact same technique and short exposure times get the same kind of image I can from one of my F/1.8 primes. If I take an image using a $50 point and shoot and I increase the image size to the same as the 6000x4000 default size of the 5200, it will look like crap. Any camera can take halfway decent images if you want to only view them on a tiny screen, sure. Put them on a full sized computer monitor and you start to notice some of the differences. Print them out in anything larger than 4x6 and you really seriously start to notice these differences. 

It doesn't matter if I took the shot or Ansel Adams did, it's a limitation of the equipment used. 

A great photographer can understand how best to use what he/she has and produce a much "better" image using the same equipment than someone with more limited knowledge or experience, sure. He/she will have a better understanding of how to use his equipment, how to work with what he has to get the best shot, etc - But your confusing artistic expression and technical skill with image quality, IQ. You can use the first two to make up for some deficiencies in the second, but you cannot in any way shape or form ignore the technical limitations of the equipment your working with just because you want to believe it is so.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 17, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > on a serious note these I read a while back and I would say they are just resonating with me.
> ...



translation "the site you have been reading and studying is dogma"


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 17, 2014)

bribrius said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



Well I wouldn't say "dogma" per see.  I would say that Mr. Rockwell tells a lot of folks what they want to hear in a lot of situations because his income depends on people coming to the site and reading his stuff, so as a result I'd really take a lot of what is written there with a huge dose of salt.   Well that and maybe some advil.  But my point here is pretty simple actually, you give somebody with the skills and abilities of an Ansel Adams a crappy cell phone camera and the images they capture are bound to be "better" than anything I could do in my wildest dreams using even a top of the line full frame camera in the arena of artistic expression, composition, etc.  But if you want a wall sized print out of that, forget it.  And if you blow it up enough it will become pretty obvious pretty quick that it might be a great photograph, but it was taken with a crappy camera.  No level of skill can overcome that, it's a technical limitation.

So yes, I can do what rockwell did and produce some photographs on a cell phone or low end point and shoot that will look just fine if I put them up in sizes that used for embedding them into a web page.  View them full screen and you'll start to notice the differences between a high resolution image taken with good quality professional glass and something taken with a cell phone or point and shoot really quick.  Just think about it, if this premise were even remotely true that the camera really didn't matter at all, then why on earth would guys who shoot professionally and who know their trade bother wasting a ton of money on equipment that "didn't matter?"

Why wouldn't they all just be carrying a dirt cheap point and shoot in their pocket and call it good?


----------



## Braineack (Mar 17, 2014)

bribrius said:


> course I also read a anti telephoto lens article there a while back, which I didn't get either. now I am. I was overusing telephoto when using a simple fixed lens and my feet will produce better results. That is part of the reason I bought the 50mm. I needed to learn to walk.


Telephoto does not equal zoom.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 17, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...


conditions and quicker access to changing settings and more settings or options.
which probably comes back to, light? seems it all comes back to light. i could have taken a much better photo with a ten dollar disposable camera five hours earlier than the above. Maybe the more you spend on gear, the more of that 24 hour period you are buying and the more "conditions" you are buying that you might be able to get a decent photo out of. They must charge you like a buck a minute you are buying.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 17, 2014)

bribrius said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



As grandpappy was so fond of saying, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.  It's right in front of you if at some point you get thirsty.  Other than that nothing more I can do.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 17, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...


not at all. i like your point of view. it helps me keep blaming and saying the cameras are junk. technical limitations. They are all technically limited.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 17, 2014)

bribrius said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



Then I shall leave you with one other of my grandfathers favorite expressions, a quote from Theodore Roosevelt:

"If you could kick the person in the pants responsible for most of your trouble, you wouldn't sit for a month.&#8221;


----------



## bribrius (Mar 17, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...


oh geez. stop picking both sides. And come up with your own expressions your grandfather probably earned these. LOL.


----------



## runnah (Mar 17, 2014)

What are you all arguing about again?


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 17, 2014)

bribrius said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



Sorry, the only hypocrisy here is your own.  My point was clearly made and clearly stated and it stands for itself.  Other than that, were done here.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 17, 2014)

Here's an expression I coined : stop posting and learn how to camera.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 17, 2014)

Braineack said:


> Here's an expression I coined : stop posting and learn how to camera.


not now. no time. i have obligations going on. im hanging out on here off and on i cant do any excursions right now. doing more study than camera time i think i need it. But im also wondering if im not giving myself enough credit and i already know how to "camera" (to a extent anyway). Maybe i have the bar too high.  but i think i know how to test that theory.


----------



## memento (Mar 17, 2014)

bribrius said:


> i already know how to "camera" (to a extent anyway).



i'd say you already know how to "troll".

"camera", not so much.


----------



## shefjr (Mar 17, 2014)

While I know that you have a request for specific tips for the D7100, I feel that these threads will help you. Both are excellent resources. Best of luck!

By Sw1tchFX
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/articles-interest/276016-shooting-night-pictures-stars-stuff.html

By Manaheim
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/268879-manaheim-s-ultimate-guide-night-photography.html


----------



## bribrius (Mar 17, 2014)

memento said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > i already know how to "camera" (to a extent anyway).
> ...


i am getting pretty good at trolling. But camera, still contemplating that. seems i have a lot of failures. But looking at what im trying to do. How many people could do that? Nobody? as mentioned earlier in this thread. But i think i know how to find out if im better than i think and am trying the impossible. Im going to talk my sister into going out on a photo trip with me. she was a pro. if i cant take the shot, and she can. i guess i know. if she looks at it and says flat out, not happening. well then i know.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 17, 2014)

shefjr said:


> While I know that you have a request for specific tips for the D7100, I feel that these threads will help you. Both are excellent resources. Best of luck!
> 
> By Sw1tchFX
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/articles-interest/276016-shooting-night-pictures-stars-stuff.html
> ...


ty


----------



## SCraig (Mar 17, 2014)

I've been around cameras for pushing 50 years and I have yet to see one that came with a can of "Instant Ability" included in the box.  If you're not going to take the time to learn to use it properly then I'd strongly advise you to sell it.  If you don't then at some point you will break it and then all you'll have left is a hole in your bank account.

Blaming a camera for your inabilities is a lot like blaming surgical instruments for killing a patient because you never bothered to go to medical school.  Yes, they are perfectly capable of taking fabulous night shots, but not until you take the time to learn how to use them, and more importantly, their limitations and how to work within them.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 17, 2014)

i tried the star photos a few weeks back . They came out pretty dismal. the link provided makes me think ill give it a shot again. maybe tonight. seems a little boring (i see how this stresses patience lol) but i think i can keep it together for a thirty minute exposure.  Last time i kept messing with the camera. Thinking, is it even going? crap i hope im not standing here for no reason. what if it isn't even coming out right? Then im standing here for no reason. id play with it, look it over. start it again. few minutes goes by. smoke a cigarette. start getting antsy. pops in the head again, i really hope im not standing here for no reason.
lol


----------



## bribrius (Mar 17, 2014)

SCraig said:


> I've been around cameras for pushing 50 years and I have yet to see one that came with a can of "Instant Ability" included in the box. If you're not going to take the time to learn to use it properly then I'd strongly advise you to sell it. If you don't then at some point you will break it and then all you'll have left is a hole in your bank account.
> 
> Blaming a camera for your inabilities is a lot like blaming surgical instruments for killing a patient because you never bothered to go to medical school. Yes, they are perfectly capable of taking fabulous night shots, but not until you take the time to learn how to use them, and more importantly, their limitations and how to work within them.


 I was tempted to reply with a smart azz comment about how you must not have read the thread. But . im kind of enjoying your websites. ya know. you're alright. Thanks for the input scott.
Welcome To Scott Craig's Web Site


----------



## charlie76 (Mar 17, 2014)

6400 ISO is pretty high...I'd definitely expect noise....I'd bring it down with a tripod...seems the obvious solution


----------



## limr (Mar 17, 2014)

bribrius said:


> conditions and quicker access to changing settings and more settings or options.
> *which probably comes back to, light? seems it all comes back to light.* i could have taken a much better photo with a ten dollar disposable camera five hours earlier than the above. Maybe the more you spend on gear, the more of that 24 hour period you are buying and the more "conditions" you are buying that you might be able to get a decent photo out of. They must charge you like a buck a minute you are buying.



NOW are you getting it? *"Seems it all comes back to light."* Of course it does!

But there are ways of getting more light other than making sure the sun is still up.




Day 291 - Fountain by limrodrigues, on Flickr

Not the greatest thing I've ever done, but it was taken with a point and shoot digital that is FAR less capable than a DSLR. And you can be damn sure it wasn't shot handheld at 1/60 because even a point and shoot is capable of a long enough exposure to get enough light to the sensor for a night shot. 

Yes, cameras are limited, BUT *you can get a sh*t ton more out of your camera if you learn to work with its limitations.*

Get it yet?


----------



## bribrius (Mar 17, 2014)

limr said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > conditions and quicker access to changing settings and more settings or options.
> ...


yes. I don't like it. im sure not going to get the photo the way I want, when want and how I want.  But I guess there isn't much I can do about it. But to accept it.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 17, 2014)

bribrius said:


> shefjr said:
> 
> 
> > While I know that you have a request for specific tips for the D7100, I feel that these threads will help you. Both are excellent resources. Best of luck!
> ...


I have it outside right now sitting on the hood of the truck looking at stars. 30 minute timer 400 iso. Did the white balance adjustment too. Reading the link, seemed a good place to start? 
since it is pretty cold here still. I of course am inside where it is warmer letting it do the work. First attempt at this, well as I said dismal. Maybe this one will go better.

edit"The way Long Exposure Noise Reduction works is that it takes two exposures. your normal exposure, than another exposure for the same length of time so it can subtract the noise pattern from the exposed image. So, if you have a 20 minute exposure, you've got 20 minutes of LENR, meaning you need to wait 40 minutes to see if you got the picture right (or wrong)."
umm. yeah. I turned that on too. didn't realize I would be waiting twice as long....


----------



## BrickHouse (Mar 17, 2014)

Look forward to seeing the outcome!


----------



## bribrius (Mar 17, 2014)

BrickHouse said:


> Look forward to seeing the outcome!


I kind of look forward to just getting it done. im a little worried someones going to come along and walk off with the camera. I don't live in the inner city but I don't exactly live in the middle of nowhere either. I don't want to stand out there waiting for it, I know that much.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 17, 2014)

I blew it. didn't wait long enough apparently. "folder contains no images". 
what a pita.
you would think it would beep or light up or something when it was finished..


----------



## wackii (Mar 18, 2014)

Wow.  I'm amazed at how many people have the patience to try to get the point across while you don't even have the time to wait for the exposure to be done?  I guess I have nothing else to add here.  All I am seeing is "why/how come this and that..." but you've never really try to understand it.  I wish life is easy where everything just comes together for me...

Good luck,


----------



## RxForB3 (Mar 18, 2014)

Yes, I think you're right. Every camera in a human generation is essentially the same. You're not happy with the cameras from this generation. Why don't you wait for the next generation and try again?


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Mar 19, 2014)

Sadly, you can't expect good results with a crop sensor camera shooting at ISO 6400, especially if you under expose and try to bring out details in post.  You will need very slow shutter speeds and a tripod is a must.  But that's a given for any camera if you're trying to shoot in pitch night conditions.


----------

