# Taking night pictures with high ISO? no flash?



## a1157814a (Nov 26, 2008)

This might be a dumb question but can you get a good visible picture at a dark place by using no flash but setting ISO to like 1600


----------



## frXnz kafka (Nov 26, 2008)

a1157814a said:


> This might be a dumb question but can you get a good visible picture at a dark place by using no flash but setting ISO to like 1600


Depends on your camera. 1600 on a 5D or a Nikon full frame (D3 or D700) is perfectly usable. 1600 on something like an XT...that's pushing it.

1600 on film would be fine too. I've been working on a project shooting at 3200 on TMax at night.


----------



## a1157814a (Nov 26, 2008)

frXnz kafka said:


> Depends on your camera. 1600 on a 5D or a Nikon full frame (D3 or D700) is perfectly usable. 1600 on something like an XT...that's pushing it.
> 
> 1600 on film would be fine too. I've been working on a project shooting at 3200 on TMax at night.



so is it possible to take visible pictures at dark places without flash? i don't actually have a good enough camera to actually test that out but that sounds pretty cool


----------



## davebmck (Nov 26, 2008)

Yes, you can get the exposure if there is enough light, but the problem will be noise in the darker areas, unless your camera has high ISO capabilities.


----------



## a1157814a (Nov 26, 2008)

davebmck said:


> Yes, you can get the exposure if there is enough light, but the problem will be noise in the darker areas, unless your camera has high ISO capabilities.



noise as in grainy pics? I'm new to this


----------



## davebmck (Nov 26, 2008)

Yes, it can be graininess (sic?) or chroma noise.  There are programs available to deal with this, but only to a certain degree.


----------



## usayit (Nov 26, 2008)

longer exposure on a tripod???


----------



## Do'Urden's Eyes (Nov 26, 2008)

It really depends on your definition of 'dark places'. That can range from inside a theatre to night time outdoors. if youre looking to freeze anything thats in motion a flash is definately needed, unless there is a source of strong-ish light ie. a theatre's stage, in which case youll be using a very high ISO. BUT if youre trying to freeze action outside w/o a flash at night, even with the cameras highest ISO in use you wont be able to, there will be a lot of motion blur. Now of course im talking about the worst outdoor night conditions, not in the city on the sidewalk with tonnes of street lamps and signage. 

As usayit... said, use a tripod with a long exposure and knock down the ISO to reduce all possible graininess. obviously long shutter speeds wont be freezing any motion though...


----------



## skieur (Nov 26, 2008)

The human eye can only see down to around ISO 800. So, a camera can take photos of things that you cannot even see due to very low light. The problem may be focus however, since focusing automatic or otherwise on something you cannot even see, is quite a challenge to say the least. The focus light on your DSLR may or may not be reliable.

I have shot in the dark, and yes noise can be a problem but there are approaches and software filters to deal with it and produce a useable image.

skieur


----------



## puyjapin (Nov 27, 2008)

if i were in a busy resturant for example, with the cooking taking place in sight and i wanted to freeze action, assuming there is some internal lighting would shutter priority be the best option with a little exp comp added in?


----------



## Steph (Nov 27, 2008)

skieur said:


> The human eye can only see down to around ISO 800.



Would you care to elaborate about that? Given the definition of ISO film speed ratings, I struggle to grasp the concept of ISO rating for the human eye (this a genuine question. I am not trying to say you're wrong but I don't get it).


----------



## Josh66 (Nov 27, 2008)

frXnz kafka said:


> 1600 on something like an XT...that's pushing it.


I shoot 1600 on a XT (350D) frequently. They look fine to me, after some noise reduction. You loose a little sharpness, but that's acceptable for me. To me loosing a little sharpness is worth being able to shoot hand-held in very little light.

Obviously, they don't look as good as 100 ISO pictures - but considering the situation, they're not too bad.

edit
I would say 1600 on the 350D (after noise reduction) looks about the same as 800 ISO film. Maybe _slightly_ noisier...
I haven't actually used 1600 ISO film before, so I don't know how it compares to that.


----------



## RyanLilly (Nov 27, 2008)

O|||||||O said:


> I shoot 1600 on a XT (350D) frequently. They look fine to me, after some noise reduction. You loose a little sharpness, but that's acceptable for me. To me loosing a little sharpness is worth being able to shoot hand-held in very little light.
> 
> Obviously, they don't look as good as 100 ISO pictures - but considering the situation, they're not too bad.
> 
> ...


I very much agree with your findings. I shoot at 1600 and even 3200 on my 20d quite often and 8x12prints still look very good without noise reduction. Looking at them from a few inches you can see some grain, but the color noise Is still very light; from arms length they just look good.

Take some test shots and have a few prints made at mpix or where ever and judge for yourself.


----------



## reg (Nov 27, 2008)

Steph said:


> Would you care to elaborate about that? Given the definition of ISO film speed ratings, I struggle to grasp the concept of ISO rating for the human eye (this a genuine question. I am not trying to say you're wrong but I don't get it).



I would imagine the aperture of the iris of your eye would have something to do with what you can see in the dark, but ISO?


----------



## anubis404 (Nov 27, 2008)

reg said:


> I would imagine the aperture of the iris of your eye would have something to do with what you can see in the dark, but ISO?



He means relative to the eye. That if there was such thing as ISO on the eye it would be around 800.

Example: A camera set at ISO 800 and your eye will see about the same amount of light. I think that's what he meant.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 27, 2008)

To OP: What are you trying to take pictures of?

The short answer, as many people have stated, is: yes, higher ISO will enable  you to take pictures in "darker" places...

But ... how dark?  And what are you trying to take pictures of?

Generally night photography is all about low ISO, a tripod and a long exposure.  But there are cases where that may not be practical.  Can you elaborate on what your scenario is?


----------



## skieur (Nov 27, 2008)

Steph said:


> Would you care to elaborate about that? Given the definition of ISO film speed ratings, I struggle to grasp the concept of ISO rating for the human eye (this a genuine question. I am not trying to say you're wrong but I don't get it).


 
Popular Photography August 2008 did an article on the Photographer's Guide to the Eye relating scientific research to photography. That was one of the interesting findings in the article. I can confirm it in practice in that I have taken photos in the dark and only found what was in the shot after I displayed it on my computer.

skieur


----------



## Josh66 (Nov 27, 2008)

I don't use high ISOs much for night photography, ISO 100 & tripod for that.
I use high ISO mostly for family snapshots in the house.  My lights aren't very bright, I usually have to go up to 800 or 1600 to get hand holdable shutter speds at f/2 - f/3.2.  If I need more DOF than that I have to use flash (assuming a moving subject).


----------



## skieur (Nov 27, 2008)

puyjapin said:


> if i were in a busy resturant for example, with the cooking taking place in sight and i wanted to freeze action, assuming there is some internal lighting would shutter priority be the best option with a little exp comp added in?


 
1/125 of a second at f. 2.8 and ISO 400 to 800 would certainly handle it.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Nov 28, 2008)

O|||||||O said:


> I don't use high ISOs much for night photography, ISO 100 & tripod for that.
> I use high ISO mostly for family snapshots in the house. My lights aren't very bright, I usually have to go up to 800 or 1600 to get hand holdable shutter speds at f/2 - f/3.2. If I need more DOF than that I have to use flash (assuming a moving subject).


 
Have you tried keeping your polarizing on when using flash?  I have found that it tones down the harsh effect of flash.

skieur


----------



## Josh66 (Nov 28, 2008)

skieur said:


> Have you tried keeping your polarizing on when using flash?  I have found that it tones down the harsh effect of flash.
> 
> skieur


No, I don't think I've ever tried that.  I'll have to experiment around with it.


----------



## Steph (Nov 28, 2008)

anubis404 said:


> He means relative to the eye. That if there was such thing as ISO on the eye it would be around 800.
> 
> Example: A camera set at ISO 800 and your eye will see about the same amount of light. I think that's what he meant.





skieur said:


> Popular Photography August 2008 did an article on the Photographer's Guide to the Eye relating scientific research to photography. That was one of the interesting findings in the article. I can confirm it in practice in that I have taken photos in the dark and only found what was in the shot after I displayed it on my computer.
> 
> skieur



Sorry guys but it still does not make sense to me given the ISO definition of film speed rating.


----------



## skieur (Nov 28, 2008)

Steph said:


> Sorry guys but it still does not make sense to me given the ISO definition of film speed rating.


 
To put it another way, ASA (ISO) film speed is the sensitivity of the film to light.  So a certain level of light/darkness in a scene would require an ISO of 800 at f. 3.5 at a focal length of 22mm in order to expose and record an image with appropriate brightness shot by a camera.  (Our eyes by the way are capable of f. 3.5 wide open with a focal length of about 22mm with a field of view of almost 180 degrees.  There is a field called Pupilmetrics which creates scientific tests in this area.  Computer modelling of the human eye is also part of the process.

It is then easy to test a person to see what he/she sees of a scene lit to these levels of light/darkness.

skieur


----------



## Josh66 (Nov 28, 2008)

There was an article in Popular Photography a few months ago that talked about how the human eye works.  Pretty interesting stuff.  Seems to me that a Lens Baby most closely replicates the human eye.  When you focus on something (with your eyes, not the camera), only the central 2-3 degrees are in sharp focus.


----------



## skieur (Nov 28, 2008)

O|||||||O said:


> There was an article in Popular Photography a few months ago that talked about how the human eye works. Pretty interesting stuff. Seems to me that a Lens Baby most closely replicates the human eye. When you focus on something (with your eyes, not the camera), only the central 2-3 degrees are in sharp focus.


 
That is correct.  We are talking about the same article. :thumbup:

skieur


----------

