# Night city photo



## mem0708 (Dec 2, 2012)

Hi all,
I'm on vacation in Athens and I have Nikon d5000, I'd like to take some night time city photos looking down onto the lights of the city. Can anyone advise me on the best way to do this?? Thanks


----------



## enzodm (Dec 2, 2012)

tripod, long exposure.


----------



## mem0708 (Dec 2, 2012)

What about the iso?


----------



## ph0enix (Dec 2, 2012)

Low ISO since you're doing long exposure.


----------



## SCraig (Dec 2, 2012)

Shoot about 3 to 4 stops underexposed from what you meter tells you to use.


----------



## bratkinson (Dec 3, 2012)

What's worked well for me is to shoot in "P" mode, and lower the ISO to 400 or so.  Let the camera pick the shutter speed and aperture.  Then look at the results, as well as what settings the camera used.  If you're happy with the results on the LCD, shoot away.  If I'm "close enough", I may switch to Av or Tv, still with fixed ISO, and adjust aperature or shutter speed to get what I want. 

Most often, however, it's go to manual and starting with what the camera picked in the first shot, increase/decrease shutter speed to brighten/dim the picture (or highlights), and increase/decrease the aperture (f-stop) to reduce/enlarge the depth of field (area in focus).  Of course, changing the aperture will require corresponding changes in the shutter speed and/or ISO to get the same exposure level.

Recognize that some shots, such as a clear night in Los Angeles (very rare) shot from high in the hills, require shots in the 30 seconds and longer to get it 'just right'.  Depending on your camera, there may be "long exposure noise handling" capabilities which, if enabled, may take a minute or so to 'process' the picture before you can take another shot.

At a minimum, you'll need a tripod.  Ideally, you'll be using a remote release and mirror lockup to completely eliminate all camera shake.


----------



## Dikkie (Dec 4, 2012)

Long exposure, tripod, low iso. 
That's actually all you need


----------



## batmura (Dec 4, 2012)

SCraig said:


> Shoot about 3 to 4 stops underexposed from what you meter tells you to use.



Can you explain the reason for this?


----------



## ph0enix (Dec 4, 2012)

batmura said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > Shoot about 3 to 4 stops underexposed from what you meter tells you to use.
> ...



I don't mean to speak for SCraig but the one reason that comes to mind is: EXPERIENCE


----------



## Rhoads238 (Dec 4, 2012)

You could try setting your light meter to spot metering and move it to the brightest part of the scene then move it to the darkest part of the scene that you wish to see detail in. Then try to imagine where the average between those two points are. It also helps to compare your imagined figure to your matrix meter or center weighted meter depending on the positioning of the object in the frame. Generally shoot at a low iso to avoid noise. I find that turning off long iso noise reduction helps with maintain sharpness. You can always reduce noise at home in post production. I also like to set a timer to have the camera delay the shot by two seconds so it doesn't shake when you depress the shutter button.


----------



## Luke345678 (Dec 4, 2012)

Tripod, long exposure, low ISO. Try other things as well though!


----------



## jchiu (Dec 4, 2012)

Would you suggest setting the focus to infinity?  How do other photographers get the razor sharp night shots?


----------



## enzodm (Dec 5, 2012)

jchiu said:


> Would you suggest setting the focus to infinity?  How do other photographers get the razor sharp night shots?


search for "hyperfocal distance"


----------



## qwertyjjj (Dec 5, 2012)

why do you need low iso?


----------



## STIC (Dec 5, 2012)

...


----------



## ph0enix (Dec 5, 2012)

qwertyjjj said:


> why do you need low iso?



You always want to use the lowest native ISO.  In a nutshell higher ISOs allow for faster shutter speed.  In the case of long exposure there is no need for fast shutter.  Just set the camera to the low/native ISO, select the aperture and adjust the shutter speed accordingly.


----------



## keethjon (Dec 7, 2012)

As mentioned in one of the earlier posts, try using the Program mode. It will probably set a pretty long exposure so you will definitely need a tripod. You might be surprised that the exposure settings the camera sets are a pretty good starting point. Take a test shot and check the image. If it needs tweaking, try using the Program Shift in the program mode to adjust the shutter or aperture. As far as focusing, just point your camera at the general area (if not are not close to the subject) and the autofocus should work just fine. lastly, use a low ISO like ISO 100 to avoid "noise". Taking night pictures just requires a little hit or miss, and practice. 

Keith
Easy Basic Photography


----------



## manaheim (Dec 7, 2012)

Search for a post by me called "Manaheim's Ultimate Night Photography Guide" or some such.  Just search on my name and Ultimate and Night and you should find it.  There's also a faq which overread stickied somewhere because evidently that one was better than mine.


<----------------- bitter.


----------



## shefjr (Dec 7, 2012)

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...naheims-ultimate-guide-night-photography.html

I subscribed to this thread it is a great reference.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Dec 7, 2012)

manaheim said:


> <----------------- bitter.



<&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211; the real Bitter.


----------



## panblue (Dec 7, 2012)

long exposure, low ISO, tall tripod.
low exposure, long ISO, tall tripod.
tall exposure, long ISO, low tripod.
tall ISO, low exposure, long tripod.


----------



## snowbear (Dec 7, 2012)

panblue said:


> long exposure, low ISO, tall tripod.
> low exposure, long ISO, tall tripod.
> tall exposure, long ISO, low tripod.
> tall ISO, low exposure, long tripod.



You forgot a couple:
long exposure, tall ISO. low tripod.
tall exposure, low ISO, long tripod.
:mrgreen:


----------



## EIngerson (Dec 7, 2012)

batmura said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > Shoot about 3 to 4 stops underexposed from what you meter tells you to use.
> ...



If you expose to center the meter, all the lights in the photo will just be big white blobs. Underexpose and you'll get nice crisp casts of light and the glow will illuminate the structures nicely.


----------



## manaheim (Dec 8, 2012)

EIngerson said:


> batmura said:
> 
> 
> > SCraig said:
> ...



I wouldn't do this at all.  Shoot RAW and use your histogram on your camera to monitor your exposure.  OVEREXPOSE your image and then back it down in post processing.

Again.... read the link that shefr was kind enough to post.  It'll tell you everything.


----------



## rutherford (Dec 8, 2012)

I see some night photos (struggling to find an example on the web right now) where the star-filled sky (even milky way) is extremely visible and in the foreground the photog has done some fancy lightwork to get a nice natural feel and colours to the ground. When I try long night exposures the light parts end up extremely overexposed while the dark parts are only kind of showing through. 

What am I doing wrong exactly?


----------



## enzodm (Dec 8, 2012)

rutherford said:


> I see some night photos (struggling to find an example on the web right now) where the star-filled sky (even milky way) is extremely visible and in the foreground the photog has done some fancy lightwork to get a nice natural feel and colours to the ground. When I try long night exposures the light parts end up extremely overexposed while the dark parts are only kind of showing through.
> 
> What am I doing wrong exactly?



maybe two different exposures, one for sky, one for ground, then mix it.


----------



## rutherford (Dec 11, 2012)

Thanks for the reply, sorry about the delay, been busy. Would I need photoshop to mix them or can you accomplish something like that in Lightroom?


----------



## ph0enix (Dec 11, 2012)

rutherford said:


> Thanks for the reply, sorry about the delay, been busy. Would I need photoshop to mix them or can you accomplish something like that in Lightroom?



You could use this plug-in for Lightroom:
LR/Enfuse - Blend Multiple Exposures Together in Adobe Lightroom


----------



## rambler (Dec 11, 2012)

In Manual Mode when you scroll down the shutter speed to about 30" (seconds), the next slowest option will probably be "bulb".  Use that and use Manual focus.  With automatic focus your camera will probably be confused about where to focus.  If you have a flash light, brighten something nearby and set your focus on that manually, then switch off the light. 

To give street lights a star-burst look, use a high numbered f/stop like f/16.


----------



## TCampbell (Dec 11, 2012)

Your camera's light meter will notice that the majority of the frame is dark, with a few bright areas.  It will naturally attempt to increase the exposure to "improve" the exposure in the dark areas.  This will end up over-exposing the brighter areas and, frankly, since it's a night shot, the dark areas SHOULD be dark (or black.) 

The point is, the camera will suggest a brighter exposure than you should use.  Whatever the light meter tells you use, adjust the exposure a few stops below the camera's suggested exposure.  If shooting manual this is easy to do.  But if shooting in any of the semi-automatic (e.g. aperture priority or shutter priority modes, or using the "program" mode) then set the camera's exposure compensation to a value of a negative value (e.g. -2, etc.)

As you'll be using a tripod the mode you probably should use is aperture priority and then set an f-stop for a broad depth of field.  I might shoot it at f/11 or maybe even f/8.  Since it wont be possible to take a hand-held shot, you'll use a tripod.  And since you'll be using a tripod, the rule is that if the camera isn't moving (and it wont be if you have a solid tripod) and since the scene isn't moving (buildings should hopefully not be moving while you're doing this and, if they are, run for cover... you're having an earthquake) that means you can leave the shutter open as long as you like.  Set the camera to a low ISO (to eliminate noise), set the camera to an f-stop that provides a broad depth of field, set the exposure compensation to tell the camera to deliberately under-expose the shot (e.g. -2 is probably a good "starting" point, but you may need to go even darker) and then let the shutter speed be whatever the camera wants to use.

Incidentally, some people like city shots when the sky is not black yet... e.g. shoot maybe 20 minutes after sunset so you have a dim dusky blue sky and yet all the city lights will be on.  If you do this, point the camera at the sky to take the light meter reading and set the exposure for the value needed to give the sky a rich blue color.


----------



## manaheim (Dec 12, 2012)

Most of the time you are taking night shots, your aperture will not affect your DOF much because you will be far enough away from your subject that your DOF will be quite deep regardless of your aperture selection.

In night photography in most circumstances (again, unless your subject is close) your aperture is going to be used mainly to control starburst formations around lights and how long you have to run your exposure to get your shot.

*I will AGAIN stress that you DO NOT WANT TO UNDEREXPOSE A NIGHT SHOT. * You must shoot raw and DELIBERATELY over-expose it... basically expose for the shadows.  The BEST WAY to expose a night shot is to take the shot at whatever you think appropriate and check your histogram and then adjust.  You want your exposure mostly in the righthand portion of your histogram, but with very little of it clipped/lost.  You can then back it down in post-processing.  This will reduce noise in the darker areas, increase detail in the darker areas, and give eye-popping detail in the brighter areas.

Bulb is almost NEVER necessary with night photography.  More often than not, I'll shoot around F8 at 30 seconds or less with perfect results.

Example...


----------



## rutherford (Dec 14, 2012)

Ok. varying opinions! I guess I'll try both - over and under exposing and see which I can work best with back on my computer.

That cityscape above does look very nice.



ph0enix said:


> rutherford said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the reply, sorry about the delay, been busy. Would I need photoshop to mix them or can you accomplish something like that in Lightroom?
> ...


That looks useful thanks.


----------



## manaheim (Dec 15, 2012)

It's really not varying opinions.  It's right vs. wrong.  Yeah, I know that sounds pompous but I really couldn't possibly care less.


----------



## John27 (Dec 15, 2012)

On your question with the stars, most of the time when you see sharp, bright stars, the milky way, planets, etc., a couple things are happening;

1)  The photographer is in a very rural area with less light polution

2)  They are using what's called a 'tracker' which moves the camera.  The earth is constantly moving, quite fast actually, which is why the stars 'move' at night.  They do these bright night shots with several exposures, stacked together.  But the exposures are over such a long period of time, they can actually get motion blur, from stars!  So a tracker is used.  Google 'barn door trackers' for some info on a cheaper way to build one.  It's a lot of fun to take star shots!  But it's also fairly complicated.


----------



## bratkinson (Dec 15, 2012)

manaheim said:


> Most of the time you are taking night shots, your aperture will not affect your DOF much because you will be far enough away from your subject that your DOF will be quite deep regardless of your aperture selection.
> 
> In night photography in most circumstances (again, unless your subject is close) your aperture is going to be used mainly to control starburst formations around lights and how long you have to run your exposure to get your shot.
> 
> ...



Absolutely beautiful shot. 

Boston?


----------



## manaheim (Dec 15, 2012)

Yessir, and thank you.


----------



## rutherford (Dec 16, 2012)

Why would you say the other school of thought developed then that says night images should be underexposed?


----------



## manaheim (Dec 16, 2012)

rutherford said:


> Why would you say the other school of thought developed then that says night images should be underexposed?



Because the world is full of wrong-minded misinformed people who band together en masse to give their completely incorrect conclusions some sort of thin vestige of credibility?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Dec 16, 2012)

rutherford said:


> Ok. varying opinions! I guess I'll try both - over and under exposing and see which I can work best with back on my computer.
> 
> That cityscape above does look very nice.
> 
> ...




If you underexpose, and then bring that exposure back up in post, you will bring out the noise. That's the problem.


----------



## Bmalt (Dec 18, 2012)

I echo what's already been said.  You should use a tripod because it will allow you to set a long exposure, which in turn lets you avoid using a high ISO.  You would avoid using a high ISO because they're grainy.  Long exposures get even more grainy because the sensor heats up and adds additional noise.  Just stick with ISO 100. Use the widest aperture that will still still give a good composition so that you can keep your exposure time down, which as stated, limits noise.  Note, I didn't say to use a wide aperture, just the widest you can get away with.   

I wouldn't worry about showing up knowing what shutter speed to use because even for pros, it's an experiment, with a few test shots needed before the keeper is made.  Make the first shot using the exposure that your camera meter tells you to use.  It's going to be wrong, but then look at your histogram and preview image to decide the correct shutter speed.


----------



## manaheim (Dec 18, 2012)

Beautiful shot.

Btw, I understand that sensor heat problem is only on certain sensor types though I've never confirmed that.


----------



## photoloverpp (Dec 18, 2012)

I just wonder that whether a tripod is available for you sinceyou're on vacation, will you take your tripod with you all the trip? maybe you have to think another way to replace the use of tripod, like to find a car to help hold your camera...


----------



## manaheim (Dec 18, 2012)

You can get a nice compact, but you can also use a backpack or other bag.  Cars work ok but be mindful of slipping.  Same with railings and such.  Just be mindful of the security of the camera.


----------



## helim404 (Dec 18, 2012)

Hi Guys, my pleasure to be here. This is what is big issue that I am looking for the solution. Hope get good idea from here. I like this forum.


----------



## JustinL (Dec 19, 2012)

If you're shooting stars a good tip is the rule of 600 where you divided your focal length by 600 (400 with crop sensor) to get the longest exposure without star movement. For example if you're shoot at 17mm you would do 600 divided by 17 to get a total exposure of 35 secs before star movement. 

And definitely dont underexpose it, it's a little trial and error to get it perfect. I usually crank my iso up pretty high to get my shot just how I want it at first, you don't want to wait 5 mins for a shot at 100 iso to find out its crooked or not framed right.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Dec 19, 2012)

batmura said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > Shoot about 3 to 4 stops underexposed from what you meter tells you to use.
> ...



Probably to not blow the highlights. but a lot of this depends on what time you are shooting. Is the sky blue, dark blue or black. Optimal times are when it is blue to dark blue for best exposure to preserve the highlights. But HDR can help this alot to salvage lots of detail.


----------



## thuchton (Dec 23, 2012)

I shoot alot of night work as well. Trial and error, a good tripod, low ISO and a willingness to play and learn will take you far.


----------

