# How to shoot in dark lighting condition ?



## PappyGatmus (Jun 17, 2009)

Be it in room, outdoor, any situation with dark lighting. Lighting so bad I dunno if I focused on my subject correctly.

I would want to avoid using flash, it just turned out so.. well ugly.

Is there any way to do it or is it just impossible?


----------



## rufus5150 (Jun 17, 2009)

A camera with excellent high-iso performance and a fast lens might get you there.

Off camera flash is almost always a viable solution and shouldn't be shunned the way that an on-camera flash should be.


----------



## Big Mike (Jun 17, 2009)

Photography literally means drawing with light....so if you don't have much light, then you don't have much to draw with, do you?

That doesn't mean you can't take shots in dark situations though. 

One of the three components of exposure is time (shutter speed)...so the less light you have, the longer you will need to get enough light for an exposure.  Of course, the flip side of this is that longer shutter speeds affect how motion is captured.  Motion of things in front of the camera and motion of the camera itself.  
The point I'm getting at, is that if  you want sharpness in your photos in low light, you will need to have the camera steady...as in, on a tripod and triggered with a remote (or self timer).  This will allow you to shoot in just about anything (except total darkness).

Another one of the three exposure components is the sensitivity (ISO).  You can turn up the ISO which will allow you to get an exposure with less light (faster shutter speed).  So you might be able to shoot moving subjects or shoot while holding the camera.  The flip side to this is digital noise (or film grain).  

Lastly, you could add your own light.  Flash is one way of doing this, but there are certainly other ways of adding light.  You might actually learn to love using flash...as long as you don't use on-camera flash.


----------



## KmH (Jun 17, 2009)

PappyGatmus said:


> Be it in room, outdoor, any situation with dark lighting. Lighting so bad I dunno if I focused on my subject correctly.
> 
> I would want to avoid using flash, it just turned out so.. well ugly.
> 
> Is there any way to do it or is it just impossible?


Yes, there is a way to do it.

You need a camera that has exellent High ISO capabilities and a lens that can be opened to a wide aperature. Nikon makes a very good high ISO camera, the D3, about $4700 (no lens).

In a lower price range the Nikon D90 does a pretty good job about $1000 (no lens).


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 17, 2009)

It depends on _what_ you're shooting too.

If it's moving, you'll need high ISO and fast lenses.  (Or more light - flash.)

If it's not moving, all you need is a tripod.


----------



## PappyGatmus (Jun 17, 2009)

Oh... so that's what ISO is for.

I had mine set at 250.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 17, 2009)

Yup, ISO is the light sensitivity.  The higher the number, the more sensitive it is.


----------



## PappyGatmus (Jun 17, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> Yup, ISO is the light sensitivity. The higher the number, the more sensitive it is.


 Wow! You guys have been very helpful, sorry I didn't mentioned it earlier.

Thanks for everyone's time.


----------



## UUilliam (Jun 17, 2009)

pappy, i would learn basics first

read up on the following:

What is Aperture                (make sure it isn't the software called aperture)
How to use aperture            (make sure it isn't the software called aperture)
What is shutter speed
How to use Shutter speed
What is ISO
When to use ISO 
How to use ISO
What is F-number

there is allot more that is some basics fro mthe top of my head, just search the words in google, you should get a few pages explaining
i might make a topic soon with references to helpful websites so keep an eye out (will be in about 2 - 3 days possibly)


----------



## JerryPH (Jun 17, 2009)

.. or just pick up a book called UNDSTANDING EXPOSURE by Bryon Peterson.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 17, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> .. or just pick up a book called UNDSTANDING EXPOSURE by Bryon Peterson.


 

He could even read the manual


----------



## B Kennedy (Jun 17, 2009)

KmH said:


> PappyGatmus said:
> 
> 
> > Be it in room, outdoor, any situation with dark lighting. Lighting so bad I dunno if I focused on my subject correctly.
> ...




Everyone knows that Canon handles noise waaay better than Nikon


----------



## Tasmaster (Jun 20, 2009)

KmH said:


> Nikon makes a very good high ISO camera, the D3, about $4700 (no lens).



Or how about the D700 for the exact same photos but half the price.


----------



## musicaleCA (Jun 20, 2009)

Or get a darn flash, and get it off camera, for half and half again? Really now, you needn't have fast lenses and a super-duper camera that can be punched up to 3200 or 6400 ISO without much noise. I found I can use off-camera flash to get shots very easily indoors with my 450D, and that can't be pushed past ISO 400 without bad noise. There are other ways of getting around the problem than fast glass and high ISO, that will cost far less too (though either certainly help, none of it will do any good if you don't first understand what shooting in such lighting conditions means, and how it affects how you set exposure).


----------



## JerryPH (Jun 20, 2009)

B Kennedy said:


> Everyone knows that Canon handles noise waaay better than Nikon



You go right on thinking that. In the meantime, you care to show me a shot at ISO 6400 that is cleaner than this one from a Canon?







Matching EXIF for proof HERE.

Or a shot cleaner than ISO 25,600?:




Matching EXIF for proof HERE.

To get back on topic and speak to the OP, if it is a dark room and you want to take a picture of a static object, place the camera on a tripod and work with long shutter speeds.  If it is a moving object, not even a camera with high ISO will help you.

Seriously, get over your fear or hesitation of using flashes, they are an invaluable tool and will do more for your photography than you can imagine... once you LEARN how to use them properly.  Visit the Strobist website and read Lighting 101 and Lighting 102.


----------



## paulk_68 (Jun 20, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Or a shot cleaner than ISO 25,600?:



The exif data for that shot was:

*Camera:* *Nikon D700* *Exposure:* *0.8 sec (4/5)* *Aperture:* *f/16* *Focal Length:* *24 mm* *ISO Speed:*                         25600

A Canon user would have know that the same sharpness/DOF/exposure could have been achieved with an aperture of f/8, and would not have needed an ISO speed of 25,600


----------



## musicaleCA (Jun 20, 2009)

Please, not another Canon vs. Nikon debacle. Personally, I think there is some validity to the argument that Nikon has sensors that have better signal-to-noise ratios at high ISOs, just as I think there's some validity to the argument that Canon has more reliable gear. The differences are pretty darn slight.



JerryPH said:


> Visit the Strobist website and read Lighting 101 and Lighting 102.



Man, those were/are (I read them a while ago  ) a great read. Probably helped me the most with my flash photography. And I probably wouldn't have managed to shoot at ISOs as low as 400, with 1/20 and f/2.5 without the advice on there (and yep, the people were moving too, but having a solid knowledge of how to stabilize the camera on the fly and how to bounce flash and use the camera on manual has done more for my low-light photos than anything else).


----------



## tsaraleksi (Jun 21, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> B Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone knows that Canon handles noise waaay better than Nikon
> ...



Ask and yea shall receive. 





1/100, f/2.8, ISO6400

I think the point here is that at this point it's not really a contest with meaningful differences. Both companies have cameras capable of work at extremely high ISO sensitivities.


----------



## JerryPH (Jun 21, 2009)

paulk_68 said:


> JerryPH said:
> 
> 
> > Or a shot cleaner than ISO 25,600?:
> ...



That is not the point... the point was an exercise of highest ISO settings results, not "optimal settings".  This has nothing about Canon users... just that Canon has other advantages (natural skin tone is one), and Nikon has this.   Again, let's see any Canon product shoot at this ISO at this level of clarity.  

This is not a Canon vs Nikon thread, let's not turn this into that.  I responded to someone who said that Canon had better low light shooting capabilities... uhhmm... no.  Canon has other things, but this is currently Nikon's domain.  This will likely change in the future, but it is not the way it is now or since 2007 when the D3 came out.


----------



## JerryPH (Jun 21, 2009)

tsaraleksi said:


> I think the point here is that at this point it's not really a contest with meaningful differences. Both companies have cameras capable of work at extremely high ISO sensitivities.



That is a fact.


----------



## rufus5150 (Jun 21, 2009)

The canon shot at 6400 ISO is way cuter though. So, uh, points there. :thumbup:


----------



## JerryPH (Jun 21, 2009)

rufus5150 said:


> The canon shot at 6400 ISO is way cuter though. So, uh, points there. :thumbup:



Wait, wait, wait... I can graft breasts on that soccer player for you... will that help???


----------



## rufus5150 (Jun 21, 2009)

uh, no.


----------



## Tasmaster (Jun 21, 2009)

Low light photography is perhaps the most gear-depended type of photography barring scientific applications.


----------



## tsaraleksi (Jun 21, 2009)

Tasmaster said:


> Low light photography is perhaps the most gear-depended type of photography barring scientific applications.



It's a lot cheaper to shoot in low-light than it is to say, shoot sports or birds, gear wise.


----------



## JerryPH (Jun 21, 2009)

I would think that birding/nature shots are the most equipment intensive, not so much becuase of a lot of equipment, but that one single 600mm F/4 for $12,000.00 is not cheap... lol


----------



## Tasmaster (Jun 21, 2009)

Technically, high-speed photography is _little light_ photography which is the same as low light :mrgreen: ok maybe that is stretching it a tiny little!

I guess i was thinking digital and 35mm camera bodies. And how about large format sports photography from really far away in a candle-lit venue, now that's going to be expensive!


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jun 21, 2009)

A flash is a possibility but it depends on the shot you're trying to get. There's been quite a few times in the first years of my professional life when, if I'd used a flash or an SLR (rangefinder anyone?), I would have been the one getting shot.

Same with a tripod. Great if you have one handy and the room to set it up but it's not always the case. I never carried a tripod in the field but I always had this little bag 3/4 full of sand. Plop it down on something and put your camera on top. It will take whatever shape so that your horizon is actually horizontal.

If we managed to get shots in low light situation without the help of ISO 6400 or 25,600 (????), so can you. Then again, we all carried some super fast lenses for those situations. They may not be cheap but it's hard to do your work with the wrong tools. If you're going to drill a hole in a wall, are you going to use a hammer?

I will stop so that I don't totally disgust you with my old man way of looking at things but keep in mind that, no matter what ISO you can set your camera at, sometimes there just isn't enough light


----------



## CxThree (Jun 21, 2009)

If you can use a flash in your location, you can get creative with it and get good results. Even on camera flash bounced or in a omnibounce can produce good results. Just don't go shooting the flash directly at your subject. If you play around iwth bouncing flash or shooting with your flash in manual mode to dial it back, you will find that flash does not have to make your pictures look like there was a flash. 
As mentioned, the strobist site is a good source of info. If you have access ro a flash, put it on your camera, put a diffuser on it, and shoot it straight at the ceiling as a starting point. See how you like the results and adjust from there.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jun 21, 2009)

Funny, while I was trying to answer this question and the phone at the same time, this thread turned into a not so helpful one for the person asking the question 

The battle of the brands has always been my favorite private joke. Just about everyone around me used either Nikon or Canon and I used Minolta. Actually, I still do. Anyone can think of one reason why I would have chosen Minolta? That was early 70s if it helps.

Thank god the person who turned me on to photography was more interested in the images than in what gear/ISO/lens/aperture/... I was using. As a photographer I try to create images that will grab your heart and not let go and if I do it with a pinhole camera, what's the problem?


----------

