It's Too Dark, Use The Flash

[Suhit Gupta]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.little.org/blog/PermaLink.aspx?guid=053b8e77-e8d8-4b61-9160-e46ac0f45d09' target='_blank'>http://www.little.org/blog/PermaLink.aspx?guid=053b8e77-e8d8-4b61-9160-e46ac0f45d09</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Remember how pretty downtown looked that night? Remember grabbing a great snapshot of your friends enjoying the night? Remember getting the picture back and having a great shot of your friends… on a completely black background? Crap! Don't fret, there's a solution (for next time, not for fixing your old pictures). All digital cameras… um… all digital cameras with a flash… um… let's just say most digital cameras come with a special mode that improves the way your pictures look at night. Traditionally called a "slow sync" or "curtain flash" this mode combines a flash to freeze the foreground (typically your aunt Greta) with the slow shutter speed needed to get the surrounding environment to show up at night."</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/usetheflash.jpg" /><br /><br />I do find the merit in this post because I know that a large number of people don't read the actual manuals for their camera so they could miss out on this feature. In general I like the conclusion of this little piece that says '...try taking the picture even when you don't think you can hold it steady enough, you might come up with something you like.' What what the latest cool feature you have discovered in your camera, maybe something that helped you with some trick photography?

[mcsouth]

Back when I lived on the western Canadian prairies, where I didn't have to worry about light pollution, I would often set up my camera on the tripod, and then using a handy calculator that I got at a training session, I would open the shutter and leave......for several hours. More than once I would be rewarded with a beautiful star field track above a favorite "scenic" view that had been gradually exposed by star light over the course of time.

I would often try the same trick during evening or nighttime lightning storms by locking the shutter open for several strikes - you could really get some interesting effects when you had an interesting scenic view with numerous lightning strikes in the sky.

Of course, I went through countless rolls of film in order to get those few "neat" photos, but that was part of the fun - the not knowing of exactly how things would turn out.

So far with my digital cameras, I have not attempted any of these feats - as far as I know, it is not feasible to lock the shutter open for extended periods, as you would end up with an extremely noisy image, so I'm not sure star tracks are still possible. I have been lucky enough to catch some lightning strikes with my digital camera, but that has been more luck than planned, and I haven't been able to capture several strikes in one image.

Maybe when the kids are grown up and gone, I'll try some of this photo experimentation again - for now, family photos rule the day!

[Philip Colmer]

You can do shots with digital cameras where the shutter is kept open:

http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/media/users/7/ist2_1161851_night_time_driving.jpg (http://istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=1161851)

This was taken on a bridge over a motorway in the UK. We tried different shutter times until we got a shot we were happy with.

My wife has got the timer control for the 20D and you can do some really fancy timing tricks with that. I'm hoping that if we get a clear night at some point, I can try to do a really long nighttime shot and see what happens. The one thing that you don't appear to be able to do with digital that you can with film is multiple exposures on the same negative. I guess the digital equivalent would be to merge the images into Photoshop.

--Philip

[sundown]

Slow-sync flash is cool and I have used it on some occassions. The problem, at least for me, is that my current digital camera (Olympus Camedia C-3040Z) requires about 15 steps to turn on slow-sync, not all of which are intuitive. This of course ruins those spur-of-the-moment shots like the example here. Imagine if you will...

"hey honey, let me get a picture of you...hold on...okay menu button, page down, page down, page down, mode setup, select...DANG IT, forgot I have to move the cursor to the right before hitting select. Menu, page down, page down, page down, mode select, RIGHT cursor, select...wait, wrong menu...back menu...which button is back menu again? Crap, start over. Menu, page UP, ah there, slow sync, select...DANG IT!!! Have to hit right arrow before select. Menu, page up, RIGHT ARROW, select..now do I pick slow 1 or slow 2...."

If it's not simple to do, I think most will avoid it, including me. If I was setting up a special shot, fine. Maybe I just need a new camera :D

[Jason Dunn]

Maybe I just need a new camera :D

From the list of steps...yes, it definitely sounds like it. ;-)

[mcsouth]

You can do shots with digital cameras where the shutter is kept open:...........
My wife has got the timer control for the 20D and you can do some really fancy timing tricks with that.

I guess this is the difference between the consumer level cameras that I have migrated to at this time (due to their pocketability - always handy when out with the kids!), and the higher end professional cameras. I honestly had never looked at the capabilities of some of these 35mm SLR replacements, mainly because they are out of my price range, and because I am not currently in a position to "lug" a lot of camera equipment around - my wife and kids give me enough other stuff to lug as it is! :D

Seriously, how well do these cameras work with really long exposures - anything from several minutes to several hours? That's the kind of thing that I used to do frequently with my Nikon FE - the camera that was my partner back when I really learned about photography. Unless that photo was of a really long bridge, that exposure doesn't look like it was more than about 20 or 30 seconds - maybe a minute at most. I thought that digital cameras - even good ones, really struggled with noise issues when attempting long exposure times. I know that you can do a lot with Photoshop, and for some, that is part of the experience, but that's a lot more time and money again just to capture those kinds of images.

How many folks have tried some of this with their D-SLR's? I would be interested in knowing - maybe I am working under some false assumptions about what digital can really accomplish today.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

A 40 minute on a D2H from Bjorn Rorslett's review on the D2H is a fine example of what modern DSLRs can do. I recall reading the D2X can do the same as well.

[Philip Colmer]

Unless that photo was of a really long bridge, that exposure doesn't look like it was more than about 20 or 30 seconds - maybe a minute at most.
That particular shot was 41 seconds, according to the EXIF data in the file.

I've got a 60 second shot of a church at night, but that is probably still too short to show up any sort of noise problems that might be exhibited.

I'll have to try it one night just for the sake of experimentation :-).

--Philip