Kessil

best settings for Camera, night shooting

so last night with zero succuss I tried to play around with settings a little bit.

I shot pics with the white balance at both Auto and Cloudy (figuring this would be best for nightime) and I did this with combos of both Exposure setting of 0 and 3 as well as Sensitivity settings of Auto, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800 .

I also tried these combos with both normal and macro modes

End results was a buch of horrilby blurry/gainy pics with completely don't showcase the brillant colors I can see with the naked eye.

maybe it's just not possible with my camera, but I thought someone might have some pointers.

Also these are the features my camera has

Image mode - 6M* High, 6M Normal, 3M Normal, PC, TV
White balance - Auto, Custom WB, Daylight, Incandescent, Fluorescent, Cloudy or Speedlight
Exp +/- - Exposure compensation
Continuous - Shooting mode: Single, Continuous, Multi-Shot 16 or Interval Timer
BSS - Best Shot Selector: On or Off (Shoots up to 10 frames and then automatically saves the best [sharpest/clearest] one)
Sensitivity - Auto, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800
Color options - Standard color, Vivid color, B&W, Sepia, Cyanotype
AF Area - Center or Manual
 
See I would just use post-processing software (Photoshop) to do white balance, you can usually do better because you can crop only to the stuff you need, however the software is pricy.

So that being said, you mentioned blurry pics, you have to realize blue LED moonlights are not going to give off a tremendous amount of light, as a result your shutter speed will be quite slow. Because of that you absolutely NEED a tripod AND your corals can't be moving.

That being said taking night shots is quite tricky, you might want to add in some additional lighting to pull it off.
 
a crude rule of thumb on cameras is, you want the 1/shutter speed to be = focal lenght. If your at 100mm on your camera, without extra light, and hand held, you need typically need atleast 1/100s shutter speed. To get this in low light, there are a few things you can do (each with a trade off)

1, use a larger aperature (lower F-stop #). THis gets you more light to the sensor, but costs you a lower depth of field
2, use a higher "iso" (sensitivity). each time you double the iso, you need 1/2 the light. So going from 50 to 800, requires 2^4=16x less light. The price you pay is more noise in the image (which can somewhat be corrected with software like noise ninja)
3, lower the exposure compensation. Your images will be darker and you'll need to use software to re-correct. the price you pay is less dynamic range in color.
 
[quote author=sfsuphysics link=topic=4206.msg50555#msg50555 date=1217530623]
See I would just use post-processing software (Photoshop) to do white balance, you can usually do better because you can crop only to the stuff you need, however the software is pricy.

So that being said, you mentioned blurry pics, you have to realize blue LED moonlights are not going to give off a tremendous amount of light, as a result your shutter speed will be quite slow. Because of that you absolutely NEED a tripod AND your corals can't be moving.

That being said taking night shots is quite tricky, you might want to add in some additional lighting to pull it off.
[/quote]

Adobe announced an free online version of Photoshop for those that don't want to buy it :)

https://www.photoshop.com/express/landing.html

Read about it here:

http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2008/03/adobe-photoshop.html
 
I have PS, me and my mom get free upgrages for life becuase she wrote the 1st and 2nd versions tech manuals

That being said I am a total noob at PS and these shots were so bad that they were unfixable

[quote author=Gomer link=topic=4206.msg50556#msg50556 date=1217531976]
a crude rule of thumb on cameras is, you want the 1/shutter speed to be = focal lenght. If your at 100mm on your camera, without extra light, and hand held, you need typically need atleast 1/100s shutter speed. To get this in low light, there are a few things you can do (each with a trade off)

1, use a larger aperature (lower F-stop #). THis gets you more light to the sensor, but costs you a lower depth of field
2, use a higher "iso" (sensitivity). each time you double the iso, you need 1/2 the light. So going from 50 to 800, requires 2^4=16x less light. The price you pay is more noise in the image (which can somewhat be corrected with software like noise ninja)
3, lower the exposure compensation. Your images will be darker and you'll need to use software to re-correct. the price you pay is less dynamic range in color.
[/quote]

What is f stop on a point n shot. Is there another term?
 
I have Photoshop CS2, one of my favorite adjustments is Image --> adjustments --> auto levels. Best white balancing out there IMO... well ok for noobs :D

F/stop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number
I know the telescope version of it, however I don't think the camera version is much different at all. Basically lower the f-ratio (F stop?) is the more light you can collect (see fainter objects) the trade off is you have a wider field of view (less magnification). Higher F-ratios just the opposite, more magnification at the expense of light collection.
 
BTW you might want to post one of your "crappy pics" maybe one of us can see if it can in fact be salvaged any, since describing a bad picture isn't always an easy thing to do.
 
OMG they look like hell only in blue color with a huracane whipping through the pic.

I'm gonna try again tonight using something to stedy the cam and trying a couple of adjustments to the ISO.

I have never seen anything on my cam that was listed f-stop or f-ratio so maybe I don't have that option
 
[quote author=sfsuphysics link=topic=4206.msg50579#msg50579 date=1217541737]
BTW you might want to post one of your "crappy pics" maybe one of us can see if it can in fact be salvaged any, since describing a bad picture isn't always an easy thing to do.

[/quote]

Here are 2 of the 35 I shot last night

Fish7-31-08006.jpg


Fish7-31-08013.jpg
 
Here are some pics along with exif info from shots taken in the past of Rich's tank.

This is looks too neutral for what you're trying to achieve from the looks of things.
ISO 400, shutter speed = 1/60, aperture = f/5.6, spot metering, handheld.

D2X_1049.jpg


I think you're trying to shoot something like these? Same settings other than white balance (IIRC).
D2X_1053.jpg


D2X_1058.jpg


D2X_1059.jpg


D2X_1060.jpg


D2X_1061.jpg


D2X_1063.jpg
 
Here's another shot that I took awhile back w/different settings. This was from my own tank of the aurora micromussa under blue moonlights.

ISO 200, shutter speed = 1/5 second, aperture = f/16, spot metering, tripod used.
FR%20Rainbow%20Micro02.jpg
 
So Eric, in the pics of rich's tank, you just changed the white balace to make it look like the pics were under moonlights?

Did you change the white balance on your Cam or did you do it in PS?
 
Don't feel bad, Eric is a ninja with that camera!

Here's one of your pictures with an auto adjust on it, unsure if those colors really pop that way, but the computer seems to think they do :D Doesn't take away the blur, but you either have too long of a shutter speed or to shaky a hand
 
Just take some pics ... I don't have much stuff to take pic.. The bottom of the tank covered with macroalgae ;D
What do you guys think? The lights are 4 blue LEDs (not bright compare to T5 or VHO actinic)

bubbleunderLED.jpg


hammerunderLED.jpg
 
Hey Roc I think you should try shooting with a tripod then use your cameras timer to let it release the shutter.. THat way you have the least amount of movement in the camera.. I use a remote when try ing to shoot my fish in less than ideal light with a tripod.. I wish I could hold a camera steady like Eric :) I need all the shutter speed I can get.. :)
 
I set WB in camera. You can do it in software afterwards also, but it's an additional step in editing that I usually skip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top