Travel Photography - Bad nightime pictures-what am I doing wrong??

Help!

Admitted newbie digital camera user here, so please be nice (or at least not too snarky!).

I just took this http://www.flickr.com/photos/38147407@N07/3516969529/ from my balcony here in HNL. (This is what it looks like during the day, btw, for comparison http://www.flickr.com/photos/38147407@N07/3511578111/in/set-72157617764647527/). I have the camera set on 'nightime landscape' mode, btw. Camera is a brand-new (less than a week old) Sanyo that was a gift; not expensive, I recognize that, but I have to think that, since the other pictures I've taken so far are coming out ok, it's more to do w/something I'm doing wrong vs. the camera.

Any words of wisdom or suggestions?

Thanks!

Nighttime landscape mode means it will disable flash and will have a long exposure. Unless the camera has very good image stabilization, you'll need to use a tripod or stabilize it somehow. Handholding it will not work.

Put it on a railing, or press it directly on the window, or something like that. Nothing wrong with the camera.

In addition, if you can, use the self timer on the camera. Even the action of pressing the shutter can cause just enough motion to blur the picture (at least for me). Using the self timer, great when you are using a tripod or putting on a railing, should help a lot.

Wirelessly posted (Palm TX: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; PalmSource/Palm-D050; Blazer/4.3) 16;320x448)

Can you adjust the ISO settings on the camera??

one word -- "tripod"

Can you adjust the ISO settings on the camera??

Don't know about the OP's specific camera, but on most compact cameras, when you use a "nighttime landscape" (or similar) mode, it should already bump up the ISO to 400 or 800. And in general, you can't switch ISO in one of these "picture modes".

Others have already recommended a tripod. Depending on the situation, a small bean bag might also come in handy from time to time (i.e. for keeping the camera stable on a wall). Also, either self timer or remote shutter release is pretty much vital.

A tip I got from a photographer: Tie a long string to your camera or screw it into the tripod mount. Stand on the free end of the string so that when you pull the camera up to the desired level, the string is taut. Take a deep breath and press the shutter as you calmly exhale (or else use the self-timer).

Not as good as a tripod or stable surface, of course, but if you have neither of those available, it works in a pinch to help get a steadier shot.

As others have mentioned above, the shutter speed here is 1.3 seconds. Nobody can hold a camera still for that long.

The ISO is set to 80 - you may be able to bump that up a few stops, but you're still looking at a shutter speed of 1/6 of a second or so. It might be better, but you need close to 1/30 of a second (following a rule of thumb) to get a clear image handheld.

You don't necessarily need a tripod, just anything holding the camera steady. Place it flat on a hard surface. Or plop it on a towel, press down firmly to seat it, and use the timer so pushing the shutter button doesn't affect the image.

Was in France taking night shots of the Eiffel Tower. No tripod. I just kept taking shots until I thought I got it right. Took like maybe a dozen shots and one came through. Of course resting the camera somewhere would be the best but if you can't just keep taking shots.

Wirelessly posted (Palm TX: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; PalmSource/Palm-D050; Blazer/4.3) 16;320x448)

one word -- "tripod"

Maybe not if you can adjust the ISO level far enough up.

As mentioned above - tripod - but also take lots and lots of pictures. Many good photographers takes lots of photos and then weed out the crap before printing.

So much can go wrong for a shot that just hoping to get it right in one take is asking for failure.

Lacking a tripod, in this situation, your best bet is to create a tripod by bracing your elbows against the balcony railing and the camera against your face. Use the 2 second timer to avoid shutter jiggle. Do not breath. Wait for an extra second after the exposure before you move the camera. Bump ISO up to 400.

Have never heard the string trick. Interesting.

Till

Maybe not if you can adjust the ISO level far enough up.
At which point you'll potentially have so much noise that it may not be a decent picture anyways.

I much prefer lower ISO and using the railing, a table, chair, tripod or something else to steady the camera over bumping the ISO up.

To me, the night shot looks very over exposed. You might try a much faster shutter speed, more in the range of 1/30 that CPRich suggested. Does your camera have a manual mode for setting f-stop and shutter speed?

At which point you'll potentially have so much noise that it may not be a decent picture anyways.

I much prefer lower ISO and using the railing, a table, chair, tripod or something else to steady the camera over bumping the ISO up.

Agreed, although sometimes forcing the ISO level just 1 or 2 stops still yields acceptable picture quality and allows one to not use a tripod or railing, etc. etc.

In addition, if you can, use the self timer on the camera. Even the action of pressing the shutter can cause just enough motion to blur the picture (at least for me). Using the self timer, great when you are using a tripod or putting on a railing, should help a lot.


^

As others have mentioned above, the shutter speed here is 1.3 seconds. Nobody can hold a camera still for that long.

The ISO is set to 80 - you may be able to bump that up a few stops, but you're still looking at a shutter speed of 1/6 of a second or so. It might be better, but you need close to 1/30 of a second (following a rule of thumb) to get a clear image handheld.

You don't necessarily need a tripod, just anything holding the camera steady. Place it flat on a hard surface. Or plop it on a towel, press down firmly to seat it, and use the timer so pushing the shutter button doesn't affect the image.

all kinds of other things come close, but the best solution is still a good tripod. That's why I own a 500 dollar tripod and a 400 dollar camera.

Check out a table top tripod or a monopod. Little less bulk and great for starters.

That's why I own a 500 dollar tripod and a 400 dollar camera.

Total overkill for the average person needing a tripod.

One thing I do to help with night time photos is to use the view finder and not the LCD screen. The position of holding the camera up to your eye has less shake than when you hold the camera out in front of you.

Here's one photo (http://www.flickr.com/photos/olton_hall/377896338/in/set-72157594403708609/) I took that way.

Total overkill for the average person needing a tripod.

Not at all -- a good tripod will do more for your photo quality than a good camera will. Most people with a 1000 dollar photo budget will make the mistake of buying a 900 dollar camera and a 100 dollar tripod, but it is better to allocate as I have.

Not at all -- a good tripod will do more for your photo quality than a good camera will. Most people with a 1000 dollar photo budget will make the mistake of buying a 900 dollar camera and a 100 dollar tripod, but it is better to allocate as I have.

I'll echo that. My support system costs a mere $450.

http://bythom.com/support.htm

Not at all -- a good tripod will do more for your photo quality than a good camera will. Most people with a 1000 dollar photo budget will make the mistake of buying a 900 dollar camera and a 100 dollar tripod, but it is better to allocate as I have.

But is the average photographer, one who wants to take a quick snapshop off his balcony going to drag around a $500 tripod?

But is the average photographer, one who wants to take a quick snapshop off his balcony going to drag around a $500 tripod?

Exactly. Given that the OP is using an inexpensive p&s camera, I would recommend either:

1) resting it on something, or
2) getting a small beanbag, or
3) getting a versatile lightweight tripod like a GorillaPod

After stabilizing the camera, it is a matter of finding out which settings produce shots he likes. Learning to use the self-timer is also very helpful.

Talking of 500 dollar tripods in this context is absolute nonsense.

Cheers,
T.

Not at all -- a good tripod will do more for your photo quality than a good camera will. Most people with a 1000 dollar photo budget will make the mistake of buying a 900 dollar camera and a 100 dollar tripod, but it is better to allocate as I have.

It really depends on what and how you are planning to shoot. In my experience, a 1000 budget is better spent 400 for camera, 500 for lenses, 100 for tripod.

Whatever Thom Hogan says, a 1000 (or even 500) dollar support system is complete overkill for a majority of casual photographers. I have a $ 1500 camera (Nikon D300), at least three times that in lenses and a $300 tripod (including head) and I am very happy with my gear for the uses I have for them.

Cheers,
T.

Not at all -- a good tripod will do more for your photo quality than a good camera will. Most people with a 1000 dollar photo budget will make the mistake of buying a 900 dollar camera and a 100 dollar tripod, but it is better to allocate as I have.

I'll echo that. My support system costs a mere $450.

http://bythom.com/support.htmAbsolutely. I've got a $450 tripod and it makes all the difference in the world for my videos and stills.

But is the average photographer, one who wants to take a quick snapshop off his balcony going to drag around a $500 tripod?Yes, if the average photographer wants the kind of pictures that can only be made with a reasonable camera with good glass on a stable support. That's the whole point.

If you bump up ISO, you increase grain.

If you don't use a tripod, you get blur.

If you have a cheapie P&S, you'll have a slow lens and you'll get chromatic aberration and lower light sensitivity, which means longer exposure times,

If you don't mind all this, that's fine. Just don't expect to make photographs of the same quality as a good camera with good glass on a good tripod.

Incidentally, the reason my tripod cost $450 is because it is made of light-weight graphite, and has quick-snap leg locks. It weighs less than $100 tripod, it folds up smaller, and it is much stiffer, providing a far more stable platform for photography and videography.

Exactly. Given that the OP is using an inexpensive p&s camera, I would recommend either:

1) resting it on something, or
2) getting a small beanbag, or
3) getting a versatile lightweight tripod like a GorillaPod

After stabilizing the camera, it is a matter of finding out which settings produce shots he likes. Learning to use the self-timer is also very helpful.

Talking of 500 dollar tripods in this context is absolute nonsense.

Cheers,
T.

Thank you. This is exactly my point. For the type of photographer the OP appears to be, we shouldn't be talking about $500 tripods. I wasn't saying that a tripod wasn't necessary to get a night shot. I have a full size tripod and I've done the geeky thing and dragged it around on planes with me. But for the situation described in the OP, I think a $30 table top model would work just fine.

If you have a cheapie P&S, you'll have a slow lens and you'll get chromatic aberration and lower light sensitivity, which means longer exposure times,

If you don't mind all this, that's fine. Just don't expect to make photographs of the same quality as a good camera with good glass on a good tripod.

The average photographer knows nothing about chromatic aberration, lower light sensitivity, and good glass. These days, the average photographer is using their cell phone to snap a picture.

The average photographer knows nothing about chromatic aberration, lower light sensitivity, and good glass. These days, the average photographer is using their cell phone to snap a picture.Right. And the photographs look it. My point is that it is unrealistic to expect the same quality from a hand-held P&S as you get from a good DSLR on a tripod.

OMG! I've spent thousands of dollars on equipment but I forgot to get a tripod. In fact, none of these 10,000+ pictures posted are taken with one!

http://rkkwan.zenfolio.com/

I must be doing something really wrong!!!

http://rkkwan.zenfolio.com/img/v6/p937698830-4.jpg
http://rkkwan.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p475574620-4.jpg

OMG! I've spent thousands of dollars on equipment but I forgot to get a tripod. In fact, none of these 10,000+ pictures posted are taken with one!


Showoff! :p:D

Right. And the photographs look it. My point is that it is unrealistic to expect the same quality from a hand-held P&S as you get from a good DSLR on a tripod.

That point is valid, no question. However, that was not the OP's query, nor has anyone suggested that is the case.

He asked how he could improve his night time shots. That can certainly be done without a DSLR or an expensive tripod.

Cheers,
T.

Right. And the photographs look it. My point is that it is unrealistic to expect the same quality from a hand-held P&S as you get from a good DSLR on a tripod.It is similarly unrealistic to insist that a DSLR and tripod will always take better pictures. The human element plays a rather significant role.

I'd argue time and again that someone who is better educated and understands the equipment - along with having an eye for photography - will take better pictures than someone who doesn't. Even using the exact same kit. There is a large part of the quality that comes from a little bit of education, not from a huge budget. After all, there are plenty of horrible photos taken with a very expensive kit, too.

Is a carbon fiber tripod "better" than the aluminum one that costs half as much? Other than the weight savings I'd be hard pressed to argue that one. Sure, the weight savings is nice, but it doesn't inherently create better photos.

Showoff! :p:D

Seriously, my point is that even if I spend $1,000 on the nicest tripod, it won't make a difference as I won't be carrying it around the world. No matter how light and compact it is. Photographers have to make decisions (and sacrifices) what to buy, what to carry.

Will I get some nicer pictures with a tripod? Absolutely. But there are also plenty of situation where one cannot be setup.

That point is valid, no question. However, that was not the OP's query, nor has anyone suggested that is the case.

He asked how he could improve his night time shots. That can certainly be done without a DSLR or an expensive tripod.

Cheers,
T.I was responding to the post that suggested a tripod was unnecessary to take good low-light photographs. For what it's worth:

http://travelersvideo.com/Las%20Vegas%20at%20night%20panorama.jpg

http://travelersvideo.com/Las%20Vegas%20panorama.jpg

I was responding to the post that suggested a tripod was unnecessary to take good low-light photographs.

And others here are disputing that. rkkwan posed a few that were great and taken without tripod. Here are a few I've done without a tripod.

http://gallery.millerworks.net/photos/247967562_tmM9C-M.jpg (http://gallery.millerworks.net/gallery/3554450_DXBHW/1/#247967562_tmM9C-A-LB)

http://gallery.millerworks.net/photos/201370156_iUEdw-M-1.jpg (http://gallery.millerworks.net/gallery/3554450_DXBHW/1/#201370156_iUEdw-A-LB)

http://gallery.millerworks.net/photos/369131488_FNcPk-M.jpg (http://gallery.millerworks.net/gallery/5953826_WLH3h/1/#369131488_FNcPk-A-LB)

http://gallery.millerworks.net/photos/369131428_M24BD-M.jpg (http://gallery.millerworks.net/gallery/5953826_WLH3h/1/#369131428_M24BD-A-LB)

Some of them were even taken with a P&S. Can you tell which ones without looking at the EXIF?

The OP's problem has many, many solutions. And one of them might be a $500 tripod, but that certainly isn't the most prudent one given the circumstances they've presented to us.

Seriously, my point is that even if I spend $1,000 on the nicest tripod, it won't make a difference as I won't be carrying it around the world. No matter how light and compact it is. Photographers have to make decisions what to buy, what to carry.

Will I get some nicer pictures with a tripod? Absolutely. But there are also plenty of situation where one cannot be setup.

yes Sir, you are absolutely correct. I plan on going to New Zealand later this year that includes a 5 day hike. No way I plan on lugging a tripod or even a monopod with me, no matter how light it may be. One just will need to make do with what one has. Patience is the key.

And others here are disputing that. rkkwan posed a few that were great and taken without tripod. Here are a few I've done without a tripod.

http://gallery.millerworks.net/photos/247967562_tmM9C-M.jpg (http://gallery.millerworks.net/gallery/3554450_DXBHW/1/#247967562_tmM9C-A-LB)

http://gallery.millerworks.net/photos/201370156_iUEdw-M-1.jpg (http://gallery.millerworks.net/gallery/3554450_DXBHW/1/#201370156_iUEdw-A-LB)

http://gallery.millerworks.net/photos/369131488_FNcPk-M.jpg (http://gallery.millerworks.net/gallery/5953826_WLH3h/1/#369131488_FNcPk-A-LB)

http://gallery.millerworks.net/photos/369131428_M24BD-M.jpg (http://gallery.millerworks.net/gallery/5953826_WLH3h/1/#369131428_M24BD-A-LB)

Some of them were even taken with a P&S. Can you tell which ones without looking at the EXIF?

The OP's problem has many, many solutions. And one of them might be a $500 tripod, but that certainly isn't the most prudent one given the circumstances they've presented to us.Okay, I'll guess:

3 and 4?

Okay, I'll guess:

3 and 4?
One of those two is correct. ;)

There is a lot more to it than just having a tripod.

Sometimes w/o an really expensive tripod you get horrible photos such as

This (http://www.flickr.com/photos/olton_hall/1607656301/in/set-72157602509443162/)
or This (http://www.flickr.com/photos/olton_hall/3004904524/in/set-72157594403708609/)
or This (http://www.flickr.com/photos/olton_hall/459474003/in/set-72157594403708609/)
or this one (http://www.flickr.com/photos/olton_hall/316844386/in/set-72157594403708609/)with a new camera I had started using an hour before.

I know you can get much better photos with a tri-pod with a good ISO setting and such.

Sometimes w/o an really expensive tripod you get horrible photos such as

This (http://www.flickr.com/photos/olton_hall/1607656301/in/set-72157602509443162/)
or This (http://www.flickr.com/photos/olton_hall/3004904524/in/set-72157594403708609/)
or This (http://www.flickr.com/photos/olton_hall/459474003/in/set-72157594403708609/)
or this one (http://www.flickr.com/photos/olton_hall/316844386/in/set-72157594403708609/)with a new camera I had started using an hour before.

I know you can get much better photos with a tri-pod with a good ISO setting and such.First of all, I didn't say you must have tripod for night photos. However, no one can hand-hold a 1.2 second shot (unless they're either catatonic or dead with rigor mortis). Most people, particularly amateurs, will have trouble with 1/30th of a second. During my best photography days, when I was shooting a lot daily, I could usually manage 1/15th.

That was the problem with the OP's shot. He can also put the camera on a table, or on a bean bag, or on a Gorilla pod, or in a tree -- that will work just as well, assuming the table or tree is in just the right place, or there is an available support for the bean bag or Gorilla pod.

If you can't handhold the exposure and there's no available support, you have three choices with a digital camera:

1. Up the ISO, which means increasing the grain.
2. Open the lens up, which kills your depth of field.
3. Get the shot in the OP's post.

Good photographers (and good videographers) working with good gear and a bit of practice can be quite steady. An amateur with a cellphone or a light P&S (weight helps keep a camera steady) will not be able to do so.

This video was shot entirely handheld:

http://vimeo.com/453481

For handheld, it's not bad (and I've spent years practicing a good hand-held technique), but it's still not as steady as this video, which was shot on a tripod:

http://travelersvideo.com/venice%20at%20night.wmv

Note, too, that the second video was shot with a prosumer camcorder, which gave me a faster lens than the camcorder used for the first video.

One of those two is correct. ;)Then it was 2 and 4.

There is a lot more to it than just having a tripod.Of course there is. That's my point -- simply giving a tripod to an inexperienced amateur isn't going to suddenly have him shooting for National Geographic. However, if you want sharp photographs, particularly in low-light, long exposure conditions, a tripod (or some other steadying device) is an essential tool.

This was shot hand-held at 1/15th of a second. It would have been a better shot with a tripod, but I didn't have one with me. As I recall, it was shot on ISO 400 film (remember film?;))

http://travelersvideo.com/Hong%20Kong.jpg

Most P&S set at "night-landscape" will do a good job if on tripod. Better yet, trigger the shutter with a remote control to avoid shaking from touching shutter by finger. Unfortunately, most P$S have no remote control capability. Therefore, be steady when pulling the trigger.

Then it was 2 and 4.
Correct.
Of course there is. That's my point -- simply giving a tripod to an inexperienced amateur isn't going to suddenly have him shooting for National Geographic. However, if you want sharp photographs, particularly in low-light, long exposure conditions, a tripod (or some other steadying device) is an essential tool.I believe you, but what you posted before was not what you are saying here. A tripod - or some other means to steady the camera - is essential. It does not have to be a $500 model. I've done just fine with the $20 table-top options for my SD870IS or with a SLIK U2000 (I think; it was ~$50) and my film SLR (yes, I remember film and still shoot it on occasion ;)). It wasn't great in heavy winds but it was generally OK in most scenarios. I've upgraded to get a lighter tripod that can handle a heavier load, but I still spent way less than $500 on my kit.

PTravel: These are wow! Outstanding!

And some other photos taken without tripod were also good. I enjoyed them all!

So carry on the debate everyone and post more night shots! :D

[QUOTE=PTravel;11736084]I was responding to the post that suggested a tripod was unnecessary to take good low-light photographs. For what it's worth:

I believe you, but what you posted before was not what you are saying here. A tripod - or some other means to steady the camera - is essential. It does not have to be a $500 model. I've done just fine with the $20 table-top options for my SD870IS or with a SLIK U2000 (I think; it was ~$50) and my film SLR (yes, I remember film and still shoot it on occasion ;)).A $20 table top device is not interchangeable with a tripod -- it still requires a stable surface to be set upon. Because it's legs are so short (like a Gorilla pod), it doesn't need to be particularly stiff -- the table it is set on takes care of that.

However, when you're using a tripod, i.e. something that provides support from the camera all the way to the ground, stiffness is critical. That's when you start getting into cost/effectiveness compromises. My tripod cost $450 because it's made of carbon fiber. It's very, very stiff but, because it's made from composites, it's also very light and easy to carry. Cheap tripods tend to be light but not stiff. A shaky tripod is as bad as no tripod at all.

It wasn't great in heavy winds but it was generally OK in most scenarios. I've upgraded to get a lighter tripod that can handle a heavier load, but I still spent way less than $500 on my kit.You don't have to spend $500 dollars to get a good tripod, but the cheapie specials at Ritz aren't going to be much help, either. I add that, particularly for video, a good tripod AND a good video head are essential. Stability issues aside, I've never seen a cheap consumer tripod that could pan and tilt smoothly enough to make remotely acceptable video.

A $20 table top device is not interchangeable with a tripod -- it still requires a stable surface to be set upon. Because it's legs are so short (like a Gorilla pod), it doesn't need to be particularly stiff -- the table it is set on takes care of that.I've used my mini tripod in just about every situation that I've used my full size one in. On (uneven) rocks. In sand. On a table. Against a wall. Many other approaches, too. I actually didn't like the Gorilla Pod because I couldn't get it stable enough.

The only reason, IMO, my tabletop isn't interchangeable with my full size is because it cannot support the weight of my DSLR.

I add that, particularly for video, a good tripod AND a good video head are essential. Stability issues aside, I've never seen a cheap consumer tripod that could pan and tilt smoothly enough to make remotely acceptable video.
I know nothing about video; I don't do moving images.

Sometimes w/o an really expensive tripod you get horrible photos such as

This (http://www.flickr.com/photos/olton_hall/1607656301/in/set-72157602509443162/)
or This (http://www.flickr.com/photos/olton_hall/3004904524/in/set-72157594403708609/)
or This (http://www.flickr.com/photos/olton_hall/459474003/in/set-72157594403708609/)
or this one (http://www.flickr.com/photos/olton_hall/316844386/in/set-72157594403708609/)with a new camera I had started using an hour before.

I know you can get much better photos with a tri-pod with a good ISO setting and such.

Nice shots.

Helps that in your case you were shooting with an APS-C sized sensor to let you get a decent shutter speed at ISO 1600. OP was shooting with a compact. Looking at the grain in the sky at ISO 80, I'd hate to see what 1600 would look like.

I can certainly hand-hold 1/30 no problem, and 1/15 on a good day, but even then, you're not going to maintain fine detail as well in images. Forget about it if you're zooming in.

Nice shots.

Helps that in your case you were shooting with an APS-C sized sensor to let you get a decent shutter speed at ISO 1600. OP was shooting with a compact. Looking at the grain in the sky at ISO 80, I'd hate to see what 1600 would look like.

I can certainly hand-hold 1/30 no problem, and 1/15 on a good day, but even then, you're not going to maintain fine detail as well in images. Forget about it if you're zooming in.Actaully that third photo was taken with my Canon A610. A must admit that my Pentax does have shake reduction which helps a lot but I can still take photos with a point and shoot that doesn't have it.

I took this shot with a P&S CanonA560 camera. Changed it to manual and took it at ISO400 1 second exposure.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26484679@N07/3543353798/

I find you can go up to ISO800 without using a tripod but you have to be very still..