Switch to English Language Passer en langue franšaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,689   Posts: 1,482,372   Online: 778
      
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 41
  1. #31
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Quote Originally Posted by rich815 View Post
    I've been surprised how nice many night shots have come out using 400 speed film and shot with my Contax G2 with my 45/2 Planar wide open at 1/15th.
    This is also my experience. Well-lit urban zones or monuments usually require EV4 @ 100 ISO. That corresponds to 1/15@f/2 @ 400 ISO. As Mark says, inevitably you will have both blocked shadows and some burned highlights, but the scene will be rendered as a night scene with a well described subject matter. If one wants to nail the exposure better the only* possibility is a spot light meter.

    The first picture, Saint Peter's clock, had such sharp lighting that even while using a spot light meter (which was not so spot as I was several hundreds of meters away so the 1░ angle covered a "large" area) I had to bracket some 0.5 EV to be sure not to burn the highlights. This is one of the few occasions, and the only one I remember, where I did bracket exposure. I remember I always was quite in the vicinity of EV4@100 ISO.

    http://fineartamerica.com/featured/1...o-ruggeri.html

    http://fineartamerica.com/featured/s...o-ruggeri.html

    * Besides bracketing, that is.

    The general experience I have now is that EV4@100 ISO is very likely to work well with slides. Walking around with a negative film I would use EV4@100 ISO without using any light meter.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  2. #32
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,283
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    As Mark says, inevitably you will have both blocked shadows and some burned highlights, but the scene will be rendered as a night scene with a well described subject matter. If one wants to nail the exposure better the only* possibility is a spot light meter.
    Actually my point is that pushing is a choice (one of last resort for me), not a given. Detail need not be lost without thought and mid-tones need not be gritty unless you want them that way.

    Street scenes at night, can be photographed quite nicely when film is used at it's ISO speed and developed normally.

    That choice just means that we may need to adjust how we shoot, that we may need to carry a little extra gear, and even break the stereotype. Adding a touch of fill flash is a helpful thing used by pros, as are: bean bags, posts, walls, monopods and other camera supports.

    Also spot metering isn't the only choice either. Yes for many shots, like your clock, it may be quite practical but where ever you can get into the scene, incident metering works just fine. The Jiffy Calc oneANT and Sirius talked about above works well too, the Ultimate Exposure Computer works nicely too.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Ana´s Nin

  3. #33
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Incident metering and night doesn't necessarily work very well and I personally would advice against it. In sun light the sun is so to speak always the same, one has a value for sunlit areas and a value for shadows.

    With artificial light, and floodlights in particular, the sources of light is ambiguous and/or not reachable - think the dome of a church lit by floodlights, one cannot go up the dome to measure what's the light there - its distance from the subject is important for exposure and any kind of "averaging" can be very misleading because of the great brightness range.

    Imagine a street lamp on a house, projecting light on the house (an awful lot, but diminishing very fast) and on the street. In this situation an incident light meter is basically useless. Besides, light sources at night are often in the frame and they must not be counted as far as exposure calculation is concerned, and with an incident light meter one ends up always calculating, in the exposure, also the brightness of the street lamps.

    "Table" exposure is as we agree quite reliable in this situation.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  4. #34
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,283
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    Incident metering and night doesn't necessarily work very well and I personally would advice against it. In sun light the sun is so to speak always the same, one has a value for sunlit areas and a value for shadows.

    With artificial light, and floodlights in particular, the sources of light is ambiguous and/or not reachable - think the dome of a church lit by floodlights, one cannot go up the dome to measure what's the light there - its distance from the subject is important for exposure and any kind of "averaging" can be very misleading because of the great brightness range.

    Imagine a street lamp on a house, projecting light on the house (an awful lot, but diminishing very fast) and on the street. In this situation an incident light meter is basically useless. Besides, light sources at night are often in the frame and they must not be counted as far as exposure calculation is concerned, and with an incident light meter one ends up always calculating, in the exposure, also the brightness of the street lamps.

    "Table" exposure is as we agree quite reliable in this situation.
    Why?

    Seriously, if you do as is normal for incident metering and stick the meter "against the subjects nose" or you are "in the same light" incident metering works perfectly.

    If my subject is under a street light and I'm under the next one down the street, I can even meter right where I'm at because the light is equivalent.

    If my subjects are going to be walking by a certain spot: on a sidewalk past a street light, store front, whatever; I can walk into the scene (like the one you describe) and meter "the spots I want" then walk back to my chosen vantage point.

    As to distance from subject, that actually doesn't matter. Correct exposure for a given subject within a scene, and I'm using the word "correct" very loosely, is the same regardles of distance; your clock or church tower should get the same exposure at 5-meters or 50, as far as the film is concerned it's luminance doesn't change.

    What does matter is the subjects size within the composition, that is a real factor in determining camera exposure. At 5-meters the clock may define the exposure fully, at 50-meters with the same lens in play there are more things in view to consider.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Ana´s Nin

  5. #35
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    It depends on the composition, but generally in a night shot you might have, in the frame, one or several street lamps, or some details such as walls near the street lamp which are very bright, and then all shades of grey down to absolute night black.

    The problem here is that although it is perfectly acceptable to have the light source itself out of the film's dynamic range, I personally consider that for the picture to be nice all the highlights which are not light sources (or specular reflections) should not be washed up.

    My normal way of operation would be to measure those important highlights (the wall near the street lamp) and try to capture it correctly, letting the shadow fall into black where the film dynamic range dictates.

    You can repeat the example above with a white marble fašade possibly lit by a spot flood lamp, a statue on top of a fountain lit by a spot flood lamp, that kind of stuff.

    Sometimes historical buildings are lighted in a way which highlights certain architectural features. For instance some flood lights are pointed upward to make a chiaroscuro play with the tympani over the windows, or the lower decoration of the cornice.

    In the pictures shown above, Saint Peter's clock and Saint Peter's square northern fountain, from the place where I was (Piazza Pio XII, that's actually in Italy, the place where I was was obviously less lighted than my subject) I couldn't walk to the fountain (Piazza San Pietro was off-limits) and couldn't walk inside the colonnade to try to measure the light with an incident light meter. I also could not fly to the clock which is lit by some spot lights and you have to be there to use an incident light meter. In that clock case using the light meter in the camera would give a useless average between black night and lighted architectural elements. A "table" exposure with some bracketing would have been the less-worse option.

    To sum it up in one line, the bigger problem while taking pictures at night might be not your subject but the strongly lit wall behind it. Incident metering will not help you avoid washing it or understanding what might happen there.

    I can propose an example which, being taken with a digital camera, it's even more telling of how disastrous can digital be in a high contrast situation:

    http://www.imagebroker.com/media/1/2.../1631368-3.jpg

    http://www.imagebroker.com/media/1/2.../1631369-3.jpg

    As you can see there is a "white hole" in the picture which I personally find quite unfortunate. And unfortunately enough, that square has street lamps strategically fixed on buildings so that it is impossible to take a picture without a street lamp in the frame

    Even if the picture is digital, it shows a situation where incident light metering would not help avoiding the problem. With a spot meter one could measure the wall near the lamp, place it on the "top" of the film curve, and examine where would the shadows of the fountain fall. Some recesses of the fountain would be sacrificed (falling into pure black) but the background would be much more gracefully rendered, with the tone of the building being preserved behind the fountain, and only the light source itself being blown up. Which means I have to go back there with film and a spot meter.

    For the architecturally curious, the subject is the Fontana delle Tartarughe in Piazza Mattei:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fontana_delle_Tartarughe
    Last edited by Diapositivo; 07-16-2012 at 02:07 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  6. #36
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,567
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    I think it important to remember a few things.

    1-that the real speed of the film doesn't move near as much with a change of development as the typical EI change that gets applied. Shadow detail is lost.

    2-that as the film curve gets steeper tone changes get more abrupt. Mid-tone transitions get grittier.

    3-that printable whites are closer to the toe too. Detail is lost in the highlights too.

    Pushing has become a technique of last resort for me because night street scenes are actually high contrast affairs.

    If you apply classic Adams/zone system logic it is likely a pull is going to be indicated rather than a push.

    rich815's shot above is a good example. The detail in the street lights didn't print and the detail in the coat is really limited. That's not a critisism, it's simply a choice based on the result wanted.
    I'd agree, yes. However the online JPEG version and the printed or full res scan version show quite a bit more detail, at least in the coat and some shadow areas. Lights are burned out to pure white but was not looking for much detail there. It's all choices. I was able to hand-hold that because I used Tri-X at 1600 in Diafine. With the luxury of a tripod I can use Acros at 100 (great reciprocity characteristics on that film BTW), expose differently and get MUCH better detail. Like so:


    Portero Hill, China Basin ContaxRX 35PCDistagon Acros @100 Diafine 5min 20C 08-2006 26 by rich8155 (Richard Sintchak), on Flickr

    That was take at 11pm at night.

    But for when a tripod is not possible or convenient or the subjects are moving then faster shutter speed and the trade-offs of accomodating such come into play. Pretty much Mark's point, just adding to it.... :-)
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  7. #37
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,283
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Diapositivo,

    I said above that spot metering has its uses. I fully agree that if you can't get into the scene/sme light it can work fine.

    Otherwise You seem to be making my case for me.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Ana´s Nin

  8. #38
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Yes we don't disagree in fact, I just wanted to point out that I find night pictures to present often the kind of situation where incident light metering is impractical.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    13
    This might be slightly off the topic because I see that it is mainly discussing B/W while I use slides. I have taken a few night shots of London street Christmas Lights lately with a hand-held camera using a Provia 400 film. Using a tripod in such crowded streets would have been rather difficult. There is evidence of camera shake, so I can't say the photos are exceptionally good. Here are three examples from my flickrs page, if anyone is interested

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/3203854...in/photostream

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/3203854...in/photostream

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/3203854...in/photostream

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    13
    As I mainly use slides, this might be a slight deviation from the main discussion. i have taken a few shots of the London street Christmas Lights using a hand-held camera with a Provia 400 film. Using any form of camera support in such crowded streets at night would have been rather difficult. Camera shake is evident so I can't claim that the result is exceptionally good. But I can say that it can be acceptable. Here are three examples from my flickr page for anyone interested

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/3203854...in/photostream

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/3203854...in/photostream

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/3203854...in/photostream

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  Ś   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin