Very Low Light Stuff

[thehouseflogger]

Ad

Here are a few from a recent wedding. Taken in a VERY dark room at Cliveden House the other day.

I like the end result using 2500 mostly but I would like other views, please.

How do we educate the punters out there that these are better than plasticky over worked files from Nikon and Canon?

Thank you.

Guy

[jaapv]

Only those that have known the grittyness of Tri-X I suppose. To be fair, I feel in this case that a slight touch of Noise-Ninja would not make them plasticky.

[thehouseflogger]

Thank you Jaap, is this your prefered NR system?

[ddp]

Originally Posted by thehouseflogger

How do we educate the punters out there that these are better than plasticky over worked files from Nikon and Canon?

Well...you may not be able to. Some of us punters get very good high ISO results using Nikon and Canon.

[thehouseflogger]

Sorry, by punters I meant the paying public, not us pros!

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by thehouseflogger

Thank you Jaap, is this your prefered NR system?

I'm not sure - I just started using it. Before I tended to blur the noisiest colour channel in certain areas of the image, but it was getting to be too much work.
Anyway, I think you conveyed the atmosphere admirably. What lens did you use?

[thehouseflogger]

Thank you.

Elmarit 24mm - what else?

Wide open.

I had a 35 lux but I could not get it to focus. I think I like the elmarit better - it is such a stunning lens, even wide open - just look at the edges and corners.

I can shoot as low as 1/30th without auto iso on but these were all using 1/60th/2500 parameters. LR adjustments limited to exposure, slight curve and blacks. PS adjustments slight levels, contrast/brightness, NO sharpening and b and w pro 3 from those guys at the imaging factory.

I wonder if the new 24 or 21 lux will focus for me ! We also need to see the resulting shutter/ iso mix at 1.4.

Guy

[epand56]

I like very much the first picture and i find in general they all have quite a "spiritualist séance" look. They are way too dark in my opinion but they sure have a mood.
Probably the 35 Lux would have helped with it and with the noise. I understand though that focusing in such a dim light can be a problem.

[63strat]

Originally Posted by thehouseflogger

Thank you.

Elmarit 24mm - what else?

Wide open.

I had a 35 lux but I could not get it to focus. I think I like the elmarit better - it is such a stunning lens, even wide open - just look at the edges and corners.

I can shoot as low as 1/30th without auto iso on but these were all using 1/60th/2500 parameters. LR adjustments limited to exposure, slight curve and blacks. PS adjustments slight levels, contrast/brightness, NO sharpening and b and w pro 3 from those guys at the imaging factory.

I wonder if the new 24 or 21 lux will focus for me ! We also need to see the resulting shutter/ iso mix at 1.4.

Guy

Wait...how did you get such great depth of field wide open? Is it because it's a 24mm? So much is in focus compared to what I'd get with my 50 'lux. Is that the benefit of wide angle lenses, getting much greater depth of field wide open?
Thanks.

[thehouseflogger]

It is the focal length of the lens that has a lot to do with the depth of field, and thw widest aperture achievable, that and the distance of the focus subject from the camera and correct focusing in the first place.

I suspect therefore that the new 24 lux will have a very shallow d.o.f. at 1.4, but very similar at the 2.8 of my elmarit

[luigi bertolotti]

Ad

Originally Posted by thehouseflogger

It is the focal length of the lens that has a lot to do with the depth of field, and thw widest aperture achievable, that and the distance of the focus subject from the camera and correct focusing in the first place.

I suspect therefore that the new 24 lux will have a very shallow d.o.f. at 1.4, but very similar at the 2.8 of my elmarit

In my opinion, in such kind of pictures, the 24 used at 1,4 wouldn't have been of any help...

[fotografr]

Here are a couple of them with some NeatImage and a bit of shadow opening. I found the original versions distractingly dark and contrasty.

[wattsy]

Originally Posted by thehouseflogger

How do we educate the punters out there that these are better than plasticky over worked files from Nikon and Canon?

Maybe the public don't wish to be "educated"? Wouldn't that presuppose that there is something intrinsically superior about pictures where virtually every face is in silhouette and some are blurred like a lunatic in a Goya painting?

Having said all this, I rather like your 'dark' pics (and I agree that M8 files at 1250 and 2500 do have a certain character) but I'm not sure I'd want one on my mantlepiece.

[Baxter]

I also think that the originals are a long, long way underexposed giving the impression of something far more sinister than a wedding...

This is where it would be really good for DxO optics to decide to support the M8. They remove noise before the RAW conversion is performed. It would enable you to produce something more workable.

Otherwise is it possible to do a double RAW conversion, Neat Image/Noise Ninja the shadow shot and then blend the exposures?

[wattsy]

Originally Posted by thehouseflogger

I had a 35 lux but I could not get it to focus.

Was this the ASPH version? I had a similar problem and sold one about 18 months ago. Recently I decided to get another and it was a bit of a palaver (to say the least) to get one that focussed with either of my M8s (or any of the M8s that I tried in the dealer's shop). I tried at least three brand new examples but all showed noticeable backfocus at F1.4 (note that I'm not referring to the 35/1.4 ASPH's inherent focus shift). My dealer and Leica UK eventually persuaded Solms to deliberately tweak one in the factory so that it focusses properly on an M8 and it works perfectly.

[vieri]

Originally Posted by wattsy

Maybe the public don't wish to be "educated"? Wouldn't that presuppose that there is something intrinsically superior about pictures where virtually every face is in silhouette and some are blurred like a lunatic in a Goya painting?

Having said all this, I rather like your 'dark' pics (and I agree that M8 files at 1250 and 2500 do have a certain character) but I'm not sure I'd want one on my mantlepiece.

Agreed Ian, I also doubt that everyone would (or should) be interested in being patronized by someone wishing to educate the rest of the world when their supposed ignorance only mean that they prefer something else; that said, more than the noise (which is way above the worse Tri-X nightmare, by the way) what disturbs me in these files - and what you never see even in the noisiest 3200 BW films - is the horrid horizontal banding that plague, in different measures, all the pics shown here. That, I could really do without

Disclaimer: I only shoot film Ms and love Tri-X & Neopan 1600 and their grain

[rwfreund]

You never know... a dark and sinister wedding might be the portent of things to come.
Might be a good thing to have a few of these knocking around so that later one of the spouses can pull them out and say "I should have known"
-bob

[ken_tanaka]

Originally Posted by thehouseflogger

Here are a few from a recent wedding. Taken in a VERY dark room at Cliveden House the other day.

I like the end result using 2500 mostly but I would like other views, please.

How do we educate the punters out there that these are better than plasticky over worked files from Nikon and Canon?

Thank you.

Guy

With all respect to you, Guy, I don't think that these are good, or even evocative, images whatsoever. They're terribly under-exposed, metered off of the lamps? Brent's noise massage helped...but not much. I would certainly have used just a touch of fill light.

And, yes, I would have "punted" with a more versatile, capable camera for these images, especially if someone was paying to produce them.

You asked for opinions, that's mine Guy.

[hdrmd]

Being critical , but meaning no offense, I find nothing to like about the photos. They are under-exposed, very grainy, and several of the highlights( like the lamp ) are completely blown. Perhaps this is intentional, and perhaps the grain adds mood, but not for me. Regards. DR

[GMB]

Originally Posted by ken_tanaka

With all respect to you, Guy, I don't think that these are good, or even evocative, images whatsoever. They're terribly under-exposed, metered off of the lamps? Brent's noise massage helped...but not much. I would certainly have used just a touch of fill light.

And, yes, I would have "punted" with a more versatile, capable camera for these images, especially if someone was paying to produce them.

You asked for opinions, that's mine Guy.

I am afraid I agree with this comment. Would be interesting to know how they look when printed.