 |
|
|
UER Store
|
|
sweet UER decals:
|
|
|
|
Activity
|
|
655 online
Server Time:
2024-05-12 19:29:29
|
|
|
 Ian
     
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: The County of Kings
Gender: Male
"Great architecture has only two natural enemies: water, and stupid men."
 |  | Shots in the Dark
< on 6/14/2006 4:53 PM >
|  | | | I visited a very dark asylum; so dark, in fact, that these exposures were all four minutes or longer. I have some trouble in these situations composing my shots, as the light subtracted by looking through the viewfinder on my camera is sufficient to make it hard to compose a shot. But here are a few I think came out pretty nice - however, they could probably be nicer, and I would like some feedback, so that I can improve my "not enough light photography" skills.
Please, if you know anything about the location, do not post it. The last "graffiti" in this place is dated 1960. I'd like to keep it that way.
Minolta XD-11, Agfa Optima 400, Minolta Rokkor-X 28mm f/2.8
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
|
|
snsabnorm
Location: Nova Scotia
Gender: Male
| | Re: Shots in the Dark
<Reply # 1 on 6/14/2006 5:00 PM >
| | | | Amazing pictures and location.
--snsabnorm-- |
|
mortimer
Location: teronno
| |  | Re: Shots in the Dark
<Reply # 2 on 6/14/2006 5:36 PM >
| | | | Nice shots for the lighting conditions (or because of?), although personally #2 and #5 do more for me than the rest.
Anyway, for night shooting, I'd recommend getting to know your lens coverage - as in, through experience, learn what will be included in your lens' field of view when you point your camera somewhere. Using only one or two lenses very regularly will help with this. If you can get away with a small light, use it while looking through the viewfinder to find your edges; otherwise, get to know a lens like it was your own eyes, so you know what's going to be included in the frame. Use a lens with a depth of field scale on it, and don't bother using the viewfinder to focus. And practice all of this somewhere where it doesn't matter if you get it right, the DOF scale on one of the 2 lenses I use is a little more optimistic about what will be in focus than is actually the case, and one of the lenses includes everything in the viewfinder, while the other crops in a touch from what I see in the viewfinder (this isn't an slr I'm talking about btw). I use my cell phone to light up the distance scale on the lens when I can't get away with using a flashlight - it's bright enough to see everything on the camera, but not bright enough to give you away in a sensitive place. Oh yeah, one more thing, a hotshoe level is pretty helpful as well for guesstimating. That's all I have for now.
yep. |
|
Gazoo
Location: Barrie, ON
| | | Re: Shots in the Dark
<Reply # 3 on 6/14/2006 5:41 PM >
| | | | Nice, I agree with the last post. I use a flashlight to compose the shot and set my focus, then I shut of the flashlight, set my exposure (either with a handheld meter or the camera) and fire with a corded trigger (to avoid camera shake).
I want to die while asleep like my grandfather,
not screaming in terror like the passengers in his car. |
|
Mr. Motts
Noble Donor
Location: Long Island and Brooklyn NY
Gender: Male
| | | Re: Shots in the Dark
<Reply # 4 on 6/14/2006 6:25 PM >
| | | | #1 might've been more interesting if tilted up a bit more, the floor looks pretty boring but the light on the ceiling looks interesting.
2, 4, & 5 are killer
Save the planet... kill yourself.
http://www.opacity.us/ - Abandoned Photography |
|
JustINSANE
Location: NJ/Boston
Gender: Male
| |  | Re: Shots in the Dark
<Reply # 5 on 6/14/2006 6:45 PM >
| | | | im in love with 2
"brocore" |
|
greenmnkey
Location: Cleveland
Gender: Male
| | | Re: Shots in the Dark
<Reply # 6 on 6/14/2006 7:54 PM >
| | | | very nice shots for not knowing what exactly you were shooting
______________________________
"The real act of discovery consists not in finding new land, but in seeing it with new eyes"
- Marcel Proust |
|
NAN
 
Location: rochester NY
bathroom expert
| | | Re: Shots in the Dark
<Reply # 7 on 6/15/2006 2:10 AM >
| | | | I think they look pretty good considering the lighting. keep up the good work!
[last edit 6/15/2006 4:55 PM by NAN - edited 1 times]
Through the darkness of future's past
The magician longs to see
Once chants out between two worlds Fire, walk with me |
|
Greg M
| | Re: Shots in the Dark
<Reply # 8 on 6/15/2006 12:36 PM >
| | | | Yeah definitely some great shots here. I'm always faced with little to no light, and you handled it well.. absolutely no noise! Nice pics.
|
|
mortimer
Location: teronno
| | | Re: Shots in the Dark
<Reply # 9 on 6/15/2006 1:53 PM >
| | | |
That's because it's film, not a ccd/cmos.
yep. |
|
Greg M
| | Re: Shots in the Dark
<Reply # 10 on 6/15/2006 1:58 PM >
| | | | Posted by mortimer
That's because it's film, not a ccd/cmos.
|
Ah yes, my bad.
|
|
desmet
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
| | | | Re: Shots in the Dark
<Reply # 11 on 6/15/2006 2:05 PM >
| | | | Nice shots, though some could have actually used more time. It sucks when you get up to four minutes or so...you start thinking about just how long one more stop of light is going to take to add. Two more stops??? Madness...hope you brought a book.
These look slightly soft. Did you shoot them at f2.8 to try and get the time down? It might be worth shooting them at a higher aperture. I was going to suggest using mirror lockup but I'm guessing your camera was made before the days of mirror lockup  .
Good stuff though.
|
|
mortimer
Location: teronno
| | | Re: Shots in the Dark
<Reply # 12 on 6/15/2006 2:41 PM >
| | | | | It sucks when you get up to four minutes or so...you start thinking about just how long one more stop of light is going to take to add. Two more stops??? Madness...hope you brought a book. |
This is where digital actually has a bit of an advantage, what with the lack of reciprocity failure. When you get to four minutes, and you realize that one more stop is actually going to be at least another 12 minutes, that kinda sucks...
| I was going to suggest using mirror lockup but I'm guessing your camera was made before the days of mirror lockup |
Mirror lockup probably wouldn't have made any difference with a 4 minute shot, but yeah, they look a touch fuzzy. In the dark, f8~11 is your ideal range to get pretty much everything sharp, and still keep a (somewhat) reasonable exposure time.
If it was that dark in there, and you were there in daylight, could you not have supplemented the light with your own, without fear of being seen from the outside? When buildings are that well sealed, chances of someone seeing a portable spotlight from the outside are pretty slim, at least if it's a sunny day.
yep. |
|
Ian
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: The County of Kings
Gender: Male
"Great architecture has only two natural enemies: water, and stupid men."
| | Re: Shots in the Dark
<Reply # 13 on 6/15/2006 2:54 PM >
| | | | Posted by desmet
Nice shots, though some could have actually used more time. It sucks when you get up to four minutes or so...you start thinking about just how long one more stop of light is going to take to add. Two more stops??? Madness...hope you brought a book.
These look slightly soft. Did you shoot them at f2.8 to try and get the time down? It might be worth shooting them at a higher aperture. I was going to suggest using mirror lockup but I'm guessing your camera was made before the days of mirror lockup
|
yeah, almost all of these exposures were "guesstimated" based on previous experience. the reason being that there was not enough light to even get meter readings, neither on incident mode nor on spot.
most of 'em are f/8; a few are f/11 or f/5.6 (I think all the ones I posted are f/8 tho)
yeah, this camera is well older than mirror lockup, unfortunately. but that's not where the real problem lies - when I first got there, I did some half-hour exposures while the sun was just poking out (and 1/2 hour wasn't enough; all underexposed). after a couple hours, it got as bright as it would get, and I was getting ready to start shooting, and after a couple of exposures... my cable release breaks; the fabric just popped open and it was ruined. so most of these are between 4 and 15 minutes of me, standing or sitting with my finger on the shutter, trying my best not to sneeze. inevitably, as steady as you try to be for minutes on end with your finger on the trigger, you're going to tremor ever so slightly (holding down the XD11 shutter is a pain) so these were basically "my best effort under the circumstance". and yeah, I had another release in the car that I was too retarded to put in my gear bag, JUST IN CASE the small one died. i was pretty pissed at myself for that. it was less than 1/2 mile away, but it would have been to risky to try to run out, grab it, and get back in.
Post by mortimer
This is where digital actually has a bit of an advantage, what with the lack of reciprocity failure. |
yeah, that's kinda neat, but I think it's more than made up for by the lack of digital noise, and the lack of need to wait around while the chip processes your 1/2 hour exposure
If it was that dark in there, and you were there in daylight, could you not have supplemented the light with your own, without fear of being seen from the outside? When buildings are that well sealed, chances of someone seeing a portable spotlight from the outside are pretty slim, at least if it's a sunny day. |
I blow at light painting (my best effort is the coffins in http://www.uer.ca/...d=1&threadid=30432), and my portable spot is out of juice anyhow, and in any case this place is too difficult to try to cart in a 5 pound flashlight, and cart it around with you.
|
|
mortimer
Location: teronno
| | | Re: Shots in the Dark
<Reply # 14 on 6/15/2006 3:58 PM >
| | | | | yeah, that's kinda neat, but I think it's more than made up for by the lack of digital noise, and the lack of need to wait around while the chip processes your 1/2 hour exposure |
First, noise is easily taken care of, and it takes my chip less than a second to process a half hour exposure, or at least well less than a second before I can start the next shot. Second, I'm not trying to convince you to switch teams, I shoot 120 slides and digital, usually at the same time or one after the other, but I play for both teams. Just thought I'd mention it, since, aside from the convenience factor, it's pretty much the only other advantage to digital. (And desmet, I often do bring a book).
| and after a couple of exposures... my cable release breaks |
So one of those Murphy's Law kind of days, huh? I hate those. These are pretty sharp then for actually holding the shutter release with your finger.
| I blow at light painting (my best effort is the coffins in http://www.uer.ca/...d=1&threadid=30432), and my portable spot is out of juice anyhow, and in any case this place is too difficult to try to cart in a 5 pound flashlight, and cart it around with you. |
Those aren't that bad. Could've used a tungsten filter or film, but they're usable with a little colour balancing. Anyway, I understand about not wanting to carry the spot, they're a pain in the ass (the plastic cover over the lens constantly falls off of mine), just thought since you were looking for low-light tips that I'd mention it. Like, if your cable release wasn't broken, you could do maybe a 1 or 2 minute exposure, and bounce the spot off a wall or ceiling outside of the frame, giving some nice, even light to supplement what natural light there was.
yep. |
|
atomx
Location: Brighton, ON
Gender: Male
| | | Re: Shots in the Dark
<Reply # 15 on 6/15/2006 4:11 PM >
| | | | Posted by Leviathan
1.
|
Looks like a strak of something in there. Off the wall and onto the ground.
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning." - Richard Cook |
|
argonian
Location: Toronto, ON
Gender: Female
"Now with added cats!"
| | Re: Shots in the Dark
<Reply # 16 on 6/15/2006 4:27 PM >
| | | | Posted by atomx
Looks like a strak of something in there. Off the wall and onto the ground.
|
unfortunately, the same streak can be found here...
taken from here http://www.uer.ca/...d=1&threadid=32875
Que pasa, baby? |
|
desmet
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
| | | | Re: Shots in the Dark
<Reply # 17 on 6/15/2006 5:55 PM >
| | | | Posted by Leviathan
my cable release breaks; the fabric just popped open and it was ruined. so most of these are between 4 and 15 minutes of me, standing or sitting with my finger on the shutter, trying my best not to sneeze. inevitably, as steady as you try to be for minutes on end with your finger on the trigger, you're going to tremor ever so slightly (holding down the XD11 shutter is a pain) so these were basically "my best effort under the circumstance". |
Oooookay! Well, in that case, let me change my comment to "Wow, these are TACK sharp man!". That's some serious dedication right there.
Posted by Leviathan
and yeah, I had another release in the car that I was too retarded to put in my gear bag, JUST IN CASE the small one died. i was pretty pissed at myself for that. it was less than 1/2 mile away, but it would have been to risky to try to run out, grab it, and get back in. |
Oh man, that's brutal! I've had those pop on me before too. Definitely a good thing to keep a spare of in your bag. Damn...
Posted by Leviathan
yeah, that's kinda neat, but I think it's more than made up for by the lack of digital noise, and the lack of need to wait around while the chip processes your 1/2 hour exposure |
No one with any brains uses that dark frame subtraction stuff....writes are more or less instantaneous regardless of exposure length. I hear ya on the lack of noise though...I miss film.
[last edit 6/15/2006 5:55 PM by desmet - edited 1 times]
|
|
desmet
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
| | | | Re: Shots in the Dark
<Reply # 18 on 6/15/2006 5:59 PM >
| | | | Posted by mortimer
This is where digital actually has a bit of an advantage, what with the lack of reciprocity failure. When you get to four minutes, and you realize that one more stop is actually going to be at least another 12 minutes, that kinda sucks... |
Yea good point...you can also gain a stop by bumping the ISO if you're already low enough too.
Posted by mortimer
Mirror lockup probably wouldn't have made any difference with a 4 minute shot, but yeah, they look a touch fuzzy. |
I've found that it helps in that range, but YMMV.
|
|
KTownUE
Location: Kenosha, WI
Gender: Male
Small town UE all up in the midwest.
| | | Re: Shots in the Dark
<Reply # 19 on 6/15/2006 6:09 PM >
| | | | Very cool. I love the first one and admire the use of the long exposure. Congrats
5D Mk 2 with Grip
50mm f/1.2L || Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS
|| 16-35mm f/2.8 L Mk. 2 || Canon 580EX 2 Flash |
|
|
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 171 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 741489723 pages have been generated.
|
|
