Advice for nighttime photography
Anonymous 01/13/25(Mon)05:23:19 | 16 comments | 8 images
I've never done much night photography, now I'll be going on a trip and want to take some nighttime photos of the city, so we're talking reasonably bright cityscape.
I'm conflicted on what settings to use. I shoot film and will be using Portra 800. From what I've read it doesn't seem to make much sense to push process it, but feel free to opine on this.
I have a 50mm/1.4 which is my preferred option. I also have a 28mm/2.8 and a 100-300mm/5.6.
Can handheld pics come out good (tripod may not always be an option), and if so should I just use the 50mm wide open at 1/50 (or even try my luck at 1/30)?
If using a tripod, what would be my reference? Say I use the telephoto lens at f/8, what exposure time would I use, around a second?
I'd be really grateful for any examples as well, digital is fine even if you use higher ISO, I could still calculate it to 800 and see if I can open up wide enough.
I'm conflicted on what settings to use. I shoot film and will be using Portra 800. From what I've read it doesn't seem to make much sense to push process it, but feel free to opine on this.
I have a 50mm/1.4 which is my preferred option. I also have a 28mm/2.8 and a 100-300mm/5.6.
Can handheld pics come out good (tripod may not always be an option), and if so should I just use the 50mm wide open at 1/50 (or even try my luck at 1/30)?
If using a tripod, what would be my reference? Say I use the telephoto lens at f/8, what exposure time would I use, around a second?
I'd be really grateful for any examples as well, digital is fine even if you use higher ISO, I could still calculate it to 800 and see if I can open up wide enough.
Anonymous 01/13/25(Mon)06:58:19 No.4399108
>>4399095
The only reason I ever bought a digital camera was because night photography off film fucks and sucks. But if you insist, don't try and hand hold ridiculous exposure times, use a meter, use a tripod and good luck.
The only reason I ever bought a digital camera was because night photography off film fucks and sucks. But if you insist, don't try and hand hold ridiculous exposure times, use a meter, use a tripod and good luck.
Anonymous 01/13/25(Mon)07:13:54 No.4399110
>>4399095
Take a good light meter and adjust accordingly, no one can tell you a set of adjustments that will work universally in those conditions.
For the best results push it to 1600, but no more.
Take a good light meter and adjust accordingly, no one can tell you a set of adjustments that will work universally in those conditions.
For the best results push it to 1600, but no more.
Anonymous 01/13/25(Mon)11:39:14 No.4399155
>>4399095
Handheld at 1.4 you should be good with 1/60, I shoot night with portra and cinestill 800 often and I'm usually going handheld with either a 1.8 or 1.7 lens. A tripod is always a good idea however, especially for the less open lenses since it will let you shoot longer exposures freely (and you can get neat effects like car/train light trails zooming by). Just note for exposure if you're focusing in on a light source that's going to need good metering otherwise you'll end up with a washed out photo; you either need to accept that only the light sources and the immediate reflected light will be captured or you're going to want to recompose and meter with the light out of the frame.
Handheld at 1.4 you should be good with 1/60, I shoot night with portra and cinestill 800 often and I'm usually going handheld with either a 1.8 or 1.7 lens. A tripod is always a good idea however, especially for the less open lenses since it will let you shoot longer exposures freely (and you can get neat effects like car/train light trails zooming by). Just note for exposure if you're focusing in on a light source that's going to need good metering otherwise you'll end up with a washed out photo; you either need to accept that only the light sources and the immediate reflected light will be captured or you're going to want to recompose and meter with the light out of the frame.
Anonymous 01/13/25(Mon)17:17:48 No.4399204
>>4399155
Cool thanks.
Cool thanks.
Anonymous 01/13/25(Mon)17:40:06 No.4399207
>>4399204
np, happy shooting. just looking through some of my saved pics and to add re your question in the OP, it does very much matter where the light is coming from and how much of the frame its filling when shooting longer fl. if you point at something illuminated and it looks fairly bright in your viewfinder, you can expect it to need a shorter exposure time to capture details. for instance, this was either 1/60 or 1/125 at an f/16 equivalent (f/8 mirror lens with a 2x teleconverter) and it was on 100iso film. obviously the moon is a bit of a special case since it is very bright, but the principle applies to any long lens like your 100-300
np, happy shooting. just looking through some of my saved pics and to add re your question in the OP, it does very much matter where the light is coming from and how much of the frame its filling when shooting longer fl. if you point at something illuminated and it looks fairly bright in your viewfinder, you can expect it to need a shorter exposure time to capture details. for instance, this was either 1/60 or 1/125 at an f/16 equivalent (f/8 mirror lens with a 2x teleconverter) and it was on 100iso film. obviously the moon is a bit of a special case since it is very bright, but the principle applies to any long lens like your 100-300
Anonymous 01/13/25(Mon)17:41:56 No.4399209
>>4399207
just gonna post some more night shots, this is (I think) 1.8 1/60 cine800
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
just gonna post some more night shots, this is (I think) 1.8 1/60 cine800
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
| Camera-Specific Properties: | |
| Equipment Make | Applied Graphics Technologies |
| Camera Model | Digital Link |
| Camera Software | Digital Link TIFF Conversion, Version 1.2 |
| Image-Specific Properties: | |
| Image Width | 2232 |
| Image Height | 1464 |
| Number of Bits Per Component | 8, 8, 8 |
| Compression Scheme | Uncompressed |
| Pixel Composition | RGB |
| Horizontal Resolution | 300 dpi |
| Vertical Resolution | 300 dpi |
| Image Data Arrangement | Chunky Format |
Anonymous 01/13/25(Mon)17:43:13 No.4399211
>>4399209
fuji 400 for sure, either 1.8 or 2 at 1/60
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
fuji 400 for sure, either 1.8 or 2 at 1/60
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
| Camera-Specific Properties: | |
| Equipment Make | Applied Graphics Technologies |
| Camera Model | Digital Link |
| Camera Software | Digital Link TIFF Conversion, Version 1.2 |
| Image-Specific Properties: | |
| Image Width | 1464 |
| Image Height | 2232 |
| Number of Bits Per Component | 8, 8, 8 |
| Compression Scheme | Unknown |
| Pixel Composition | RGB |
| Image Orientation | Top, Left-Hand |
| Horizontal Resolution | 300 dpi |
| Vertical Resolution | 300 dpi |
| Image Data Arrangement | Chunky Format |
Anonymous 01/13/25(Mon)17:46:21 No.4399213
>>4399211
f/2 1/60 I wanna say? perhaps even 2.8
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
f/2 1/60 I wanna say? perhaps even 2.8
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
| Camera-Specific Properties: | |
| Equipment Make | Applied Graphics Technologies |
| Camera Model | Digital Link |
| Camera Software | Digital Link TIFF Conversion, Version 1.2 |
| Image-Specific Properties: | |
| Image Width | 1464 |
| Image Height | 2232 |
| Number of Bits Per Component | 8, 8, 8 |
| Compression Scheme | Unknown |
| Pixel Composition | RGB |
| Image Orientation | Top, Left-Hand |
| Horizontal Resolution | 300 dpi |
| Vertical Resolution | 300 dpi |
| Image Data Arrangement | Chunky Format |
Anonymous 01/13/25(Mon)20:03:32 No.4399234
>>4399213
Nice. Very rockwellian. Maybe notch the saturation up just a few notches tho.
Nice. Very rockwellian. Maybe notch the saturation up just a few notches tho.
Anonymous 01/13/25(Mon)22:14:44 No.4399259
>>4399095
Portra 800 will do just fine, don't have to push it if you have tripod. For handheld its peak is at 1600. Try some Vision3 as well or cinestill 800t if you don't want to mess with remjet (or have lab do it). They work pretty good in night with tungsten temperature lights.
Measure the exposure, phone apps do good job as phone sensors and software to process their input is under constant improvement so normies can take photos in shitty lighting. To calculate reciprocity failure use (measured time)^1.31 as base and bracket it to 1.26
Most of the times cameras that measure light of the film surface and can adjust time accordingly do a better job than all those measuring and calculations. Try Olympus OM-2, Minolta x-700, Nikon F3
Portra 800 will do just fine, don't have to push it if you have tripod. For handheld its peak is at 1600. Try some Vision3 as well or cinestill 800t if you don't want to mess with remjet (or have lab do it). They work pretty good in night with tungsten temperature lights.
Measure the exposure, phone apps do good job as phone sensors and software to process their input is under constant improvement so normies can take photos in shitty lighting. To calculate reciprocity failure use (measured time)^1.31 as base and bracket it to 1.26
Most of the times cameras that measure light of the film surface and can adjust time accordingly do a better job than all those measuring and calculations. Try Olympus OM-2, Minolta x-700, Nikon F3
Anonymous 01/14/25(Tue)02:10:14 No.4399301
>>4399209
>>4399211
Seems to me 800 at handheld speed works albeit barely, but it's good to know that I can pull it off whenever a tripod isn't viable. Although the highly contrasted aesthetic is kinda nice in its own way, gives a very gloomy atmosphere. My 50mm/1.4 will come in handy for those. Thanks for the reassurance on this.
>>4399211
Seems to me 800 at handheld speed works albeit barely, but it's good to know that I can pull it off whenever a tripod isn't viable. Although the highly contrasted aesthetic is kinda nice in its own way, gives a very gloomy atmosphere. My 50mm/1.4 will come in handy for those. Thanks for the reassurance on this.
Anonymous 01/17/25(Fri)01:07:46 No.4399955
>>4399095
You'll be fine with handheld 1/60s at f1.4 I'd say.
However if you're going handheld I'd recommend embracing a bit of underexposure as it can lead to nicely moody images in my opinion. This was from 50mm f1.9 lens at something like 1/60s.
In your case you'd have almost a full stop more light than I did here.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
You'll be fine with handheld 1/60s at f1.4 I'd say.
However if you're going handheld I'd recommend embracing a bit of underexposure as it can lead to nicely moody images in my opinion. This was from 50mm f1.9 lens at something like 1/60s.
In your case you'd have almost a full stop more light than I did here.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
| Camera-Specific Properties: | |
| Equipment Make | Plustek |
| Camera Model | OpticFilm 8200i |
| Camera Software | Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.4 (Macintosh) |
| Image-Specific Properties: | |
| Horizontal Resolution | 240 dpi |
| Vertical Resolution | 240 dpi |
| Image Created | 2024:11:16 23:27:55 |
| Color Space Information | sRGB |
Anonymous 01/18/25(Sat)06:38:15 No.4400161
>>4399095
My two cents:
B&W: I use HP5 and push it to 1600, use a good 50mm f/1.4 lens and close it down to f/2, and shoot everything at 1/60s or 1/30s if you're confident. That way you will have decently sharp nighttime photos, I think it's better than getting 1 stop more on f/1.4 and having a very soft photo, since you have to shoot in strong artificial light anyway.
Color: Use Kodak Vision3, if you can get it cheaply. This film has great exposure latiutude, you can shoot 500T at 1000 without pushing as I've wrote before on f/2, 1/60s and it will be fine.
Picrel was 250D shot at 400, and basically underexposed according to my camear lightmeter, ye it looks fine, it was after sunset getting very dark actually
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
My two cents:
B&W: I use HP5 and push it to 1600, use a good 50mm f/1.4 lens and close it down to f/2, and shoot everything at 1/60s or 1/30s if you're confident. That way you will have decently sharp nighttime photos, I think it's better than getting 1 stop more on f/1.4 and having a very soft photo, since you have to shoot in strong artificial light anyway.
Color: Use Kodak Vision3, if you can get it cheaply. This film has great exposure latiutude, you can shoot 500T at 1000 without pushing as I've wrote before on f/2, 1/60s and it will be fine.
Picrel was 250D shot at 400, and basically underexposed according to my camear lightmeter, ye it looks fine, it was after sunset getting very dark actually
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
| Camera-Specific Properties: | |
| Equipment Make | NIKON CORPORATION |
| Camera Model | NIKON D610 |
| Camera Software | Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.0 (Windows) |
| Maximum Lens Aperture | f/4.8 |
| Sensing Method | One-Chip Color Area |
| Color Filter Array Pattern | 844 |
| Focal Length (35mm Equiv) | 60 mm |
| Image-Specific Properties: | |
| Horizontal Resolution | 72 dpi |
| Vertical Resolution | 72 dpi |
| Image Created | 2024:11:10 23:45:33 |
| Exposure Time | 1/160 sec |
| F-Number | f/9.0 |
| Exposure Program | Aperture Priority |
| ISO Speed Rating | 100 |
| Lens Aperture | f/9.0 |
| Exposure Bias | 0.7 EV |
| Metering Mode | Pattern |
| Light Source | Unknown |
| Flash | No Flash, Compulsory |
| Focal Length | 60.00 mm |
| Color Space Information | Uncalibrated |
| Rendering | Normal |
| Exposure Mode | Auto |
| White Balance | Manual |
| Scene Capture Type | Standard |
| Gain Control | None |
| Contrast | Normal |
| Saturation | Normal |
| Sharpness | Hard |
| Subject Distance Range | Unknown |
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)09:36:08 No.4400796
>>4399955
That looks really nice, such an example is precisely what I needed to get an idea of what to expect. Considering I'll be shooting a brightly lit up city I'll try both f1.4 and f2.
Although I've heard Portra 800 is less sensitive than Cinestill, would you (or anyone else) know about this?
>>4400161
Couldn't get Vision3, not on short notice anyway and I'm leaving soon. Wouldn't even know if my photo lab could handle it tbqhwymf. I hear movie film works a bit different than still film as far as lab is concerned. BW is not my thing, can't handle it and don't like it for what I do, either.
That looks really nice, such an example is precisely what I needed to get an idea of what to expect. Considering I'll be shooting a brightly lit up city I'll try both f1.4 and f2.
Although I've heard Portra 800 is less sensitive than Cinestill, would you (or anyone else) know about this?
>>4400161
Couldn't get Vision3, not on short notice anyway and I'm leaving soon. Wouldn't even know if my photo lab could handle it tbqhwymf. I hear movie film works a bit different than still film as far as lab is concerned. BW is not my thing, can't handle it and don't like it for what I do, either.
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)11:17:35 No.4400818
>>4400796
Glad you like the shot.
I don't think Portra 800 is any less sensitive, the only difference would be the look you're going for I'd say. Portra is daylight balanced so be aware that your photos at night may have more orange and green tones. Cinestill tends to lend itself really well to the the dystopian lonely kind of feeling.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Glad you like the shot.
I don't think Portra 800 is any less sensitive, the only difference would be the look you're going for I'd say. Portra is daylight balanced so be aware that your photos at night may have more orange and green tones. Cinestill tends to lend itself really well to the the dystopian lonely kind of feeling.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
| Camera-Specific Properties: | |
| Equipment Make | Plustek |
| Camera Model | OpticFilm 8200i |
| Camera Software | Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.4 (Macintosh) |
| Image-Specific Properties: | |
| Horizontal Resolution | 240 dpi |
| Vertical Resolution | 240 dpi |
| Image Created | 2024:11:16 23:27:53 |
| Color Space Information | sRGB |
