# First night photo....



## rat_1_ca (Jan 21, 2009)

Like the title says...1st night photo...lot of noise...iso was too high I think.


----------



## LaFoto (Jan 21, 2009)

You're right. ISO must have been at its highest. But if you meant to FREEZE this car's movement at night, you needed to go this path of widest open aperture and highest ISO, else it would not have been possible. With a small aperture and low ISO you would have needed a LOOOOOONG shutter speed, which would have given you a light TRAIL, but no frozen movement.


----------



## bigtwinky (Jan 21, 2009)

What settings where you camera on when you shot this?

It is very very dark and actually took me a few looks to see what the image was of.

Capturing fast moving vehicles at night is hard.
Pictures in a dark area are all about:
- Higher ISO (which makes the sensors in your camera more sensitive to light, but increases grain
- wide aperture (the wider the aperture, the more light will be let in, thus easier to take low light shots)
- long shutter speeds (the longer the shutter is open, the more light will be allowed onto the sensor)

You need to combine these to make a good exposure.    Doing so at night is often difficult as you will require a longer shutter speed that can be used hand held, which is where a tripod comes in.  But then, taking pictures of fast moving vehicles, with a tripod, is not the easiest thing.


----------



## feRRari4756 (Jan 21, 2009)

are you looking for comments? if so, this is not too good at all. it not sharp at all and the is A LOT of noise and very underexposed. 

even if it was shot perfectly, it still wouldnt be a "photogrpah," just a boring snapshot. 

Night action shots usually arent possible, as you have demonstrated.


----------



## SlimPaul (Jan 21, 2009)

Did they come to pick you up?


----------



## elemental (Jan 21, 2009)

feRRari4756 said:


> even if it was shot perfectly, it still wouldnt be a "photogrpah," just a boring snapshot.
> 
> Night action shots usually arent possible, as you have demonstrated.



I have a few issues with this. . . 

First, the image here _is _a photograph by definition (though I could not speak to its merit as a "'photogrpah'," which for all I know is something entirely different). "Snapshots" are photographs as well (by definition, lacking journalistic or artistic _intent, _not merit). Though I understand that one of the essential challenges of photography is differentiating artistically-intended work from casual shooting in a medium that has been used for both for decades, I can't say I've ever seen someone try to exclude another's work from "photography" because he or she thought it lacked artistic merit.

There are technical issues with this photograph that have been illuminated already. However, action shots at night are far from impossible:






They just require careful planning, and in many cases an artificial light source. I was just given a copy of the _Freeskier _2009 photo annual, which includes many excellent nighttime action shots which were carefully lit using remote strobes. I would not recommend attempting this to photographers still learning the finer points of exposure and lighting (aren't we all?), but it is far from infeasible.


----------



## feRRari4756 (Jan 21, 2009)

Elemental, I was going to go back and edit my post and say with a flash they are 100% possible. That is true. The flash lets you raise your shutter speed thus making night action shots perfect possible. Kinda like a fill flash. 

And im sorry if I worded that wrong, but you proabably knew what I meant-- the photo is not interesting or different at all (what I! call a snapshot). If that cop car was shot at a differnt angle or something interestign added to it then I would call it a photograph. BUT THEY ARE JUST MY TERMINOLOGY.


----------



## LaFoto (Jan 21, 2009)

Well, for a person who tried for the first time ever in their lives to take a photo at night, in the dark, this one is quite something. Though if the attempt was done with the camera in AUTO mode, then it is not surprising to see that ISO was raised to the highest possible amounts, aperture was widest open, just so "the camera" would be able to get SOMETHING. I guess this is what happened here ... and well, the result is far from being "A GOOD PHOTO", but maybe for the OP... 

But for the future, and that's why I said so earlier, a tripod is essential for nighttime photography, and setting the camera manually is also extremely important. Oh, well, I just remember that I said THAT to someone else in another thread ... oops .


----------



## BrandonS (Jan 21, 2009)

feRRari4756 said:


> Elemental, I was going to go back and edit my post and say with a flash they are 100% possible. That is true. The flash lets you raise your shutter speed thus making night action shots perfect possible. Kinda like a fill flash.



When using your flash your shutter speed controls the exposure of the background and not the illuminated subject (until you go past your sync speed).  To change your subject exposure (illuminated area) you are going to adjust your aperture and flash strength.  When you adjust the aperture, just like a normal photo, you need to adjust your shutter speed as well or you'll lose whatever exposure you are trying to get out of your background.


----------



## rat_1_ca (Jan 21, 2009)

SlimPaul said:


> Did they come to pick you up?


 

Yep...for taking 'snapshots' not 'photographs'


----------



## feRRari4756 (Jan 21, 2009)

rat_1_ca said:


> Yep...for taking 'snapshots' not 'photographs'



Thats right. You indirectly asked for comments (im guessing), and I gave it to you.


----------



## rat_1_ca (Jan 21, 2009)

feRRari4756 said:


> Thats right. You indirectly asked for comments (im guessing), and I gave it to you.


 

You are correct, I did ask for comments, and I do realize that the picture I took was not great, but unlike your comments, the other ones people gave offered up some suggestions on how to correct things. Your's did not offer anything other than a reason not to ask for any more from this forum.


----------



## jane.aidan (Jan 21, 2009)

well, I guessed nothing is wrong about posting such picture here..


----------



## elemental (Jan 22, 2009)

feRRari4756 said:


> And im sorry if I worded that wrong, but you proabably knew what I meant-- the photo is not interesting or different at all (what I! call a snapshot). If that cop car was shot at a differnt angle or something interestign added to it then I would call it a photograph. BUT THEY ARE JUST MY TERMINOLOGY.



If I decided that Fords don't fit my definition of "car" because of their vast mechanical inferiority to Subarus and was only willing to acknowledge a Ford as a vehicle, would that make any sense? If I walked around laughing at every Mustang I saw saying "that isn't a _car, _it's just a _vehicle_" would you take me seriously?

Like "car," "photograph" is an explicitly-defined noun. Language is culturally negotiated, and in the English-speaking world, the term "photograph" has a culturally-decided specific meaning. For you to parade around declaring that you have redefined "photograph" to suit your own supremacist purposes is ridiculous.

If you want to debate more abstract terms like "art" or "creativity," feel free. But know that this image is a photograph just as clearly as the Crown Victoria it features is a car.


----------



## elemental (Jan 22, 2009)

rat_1_ca said:


> You are correct, I did ask for comments, and I do realize that the picture I took was not great, but unlike your comments, the other ones people gave offered up some suggestions on how to correct things. Your's did not offer anything other than a reason not to ask for any more from this forum.



In addition to adding artificial lighting, you could try panning when you can't get your shutter speed fast enough to freeze motion. The results won't be "frozen" action shots, but if you do it correctly (which is not easy), the blurred background will create a sense of motion against your still subject. I've only tried it once with mediocre results:






The subject isn't quite frozen, but you get the idea. I hope the "phtogrpahy" fairy doesn't come after me in his squad car for this one.


----------



## feRRari4756 (Jan 22, 2009)

rat_1_ca said:


> You are correct, I did ask for comments, and I do realize that the picture I took was not great, but unlike your comments, the other ones people gave offered up some suggestions on how to correct things. Your's did not offer anything other than a reason not to ask for any more from this forum.



Actually, my comments are like my suggestions...that will help you to improve your photos. 

When i said "theyre not that sharp," you say ""okay, i need to make sure its in focus next time"

When i said "theres a lot of noise," you think "okay, i better lower my iso next time (as you already knew)."

When I said "its undererxposed," you would think "okay, i have to slow down my shutter speed."

Maybe you shouldnt come back to this forum.


----------



## bdavis (Jan 22, 2009)

It did sound like you were coming down on him pretty hard. Sure you did say things like it was underexposed, noisy, and the photo lacked interest, but you didn't say it in a constructive way. Maybe you meant it constructively, but the way it was typed was kind of harsh and obviously came off that way since you can't express tone through typing.


----------

