Low Light Shooting

[Yoricko]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey folks,

 

Just a question for those who love to shoot in low light.

 

Do you count hyperfocal focusing (DoF scale) as a reliable technique when shooting in low light situations (like 1/30th F1.4 ISO 800)? Usually, you'll be shooting wide open and the depth of field is really thin. The wider angles such as the 28 will definitely have much more acceptable sharpness compared to the hair thin of the Summicron F2 at close range...

 

So, anyone does this on a regular basis?

 

Is precise distance guesstimating something you can train over a couple of years?

 

This is out for those film and digital M users.

[lars_bergquist]

Hyperfocal focusing is just one special case of zone focusing (it's when the far limit of the 'sufficiently sharp' zone is at infinity). Zone focusing depends on stopping down enough to create a fairly wide zone of 'sufficient sharpness', a depth of field, within which subject activity occurs, or can be expected. Only a superwide lens has enough depth of field wide open to make zone focusing viable -- and 'wide open' with a superwide means usually somewhere around f:4. This is clearly not for low-light work.

 

Take a look at the depth-of-field scale of your 50mm Summicron or Summilux.You will find that even if we take that scale at face value, the depth of field at f:2 or 1.4 is too shallow to be guesstimated. And we cannot take that scale for granted. It is based on 1920's beliefs about probable rates of enlargement and acceptable fuzz. Today they are useless. Count on a zone half of that indicated. This is of course no good as a basis for zone focusing.

 

The only way to use most any lens wide open is to point focus by the rangefinder. And I would not use zone focusing with ANY lens longer than about 24mm at ANY aperture.

 

The old man from the Age of Tape Measure Focusing

[lars_bergquist]

Oh -- you asked about estimating distance. If you have a lens wide enough and light good enough to create a c. 2m focus zone, then you can also learn to estimate distance well enough for that purpose. I learned to estimate distances out to c. 800m well enough for rifle shooting, but did never trust myself enough to forgo the rangefinder for photographic distances. Remember, everything inside the 'zone' is not equally sharp, suddenly going fuzzy at the limit. Sharpness (resolution/contrast/edge acuity) fall off gradually on both sides of a plane of best focus. How much sharpness you need depends on your habits and needs.

 

The great Henri Cartier-Bresson used to keep his 50mm Summicron at 5.6 and pre-focused, i.e. zone-focused, at six or seven meters. Some of his greatest pics are not terribly sharp, in fact. Those who have seen his contact sheets say that few of his shots were sharp, and few were well-exposed, and even fewer were both! Sharpness is nice to have, but content and composition reach out and touch us.

 

The same old man

[giordano]

Do you count hyperfocal focusing (DoF scale) as a reliable technique when shooting in low light situations (like 1/30th F1.4 ISO 800)?

 

Hyperfocal distance with a 35mm lens at f/1.4 and the intention of not making a print much bigger than postcard size print is about 29m (with the traditional 0.03mm circle of confusion). Focused at that distance, the near focus limit is 14.5m - everything further than that from the camera will be "sharp enough".

 

If you don't want to accept severe limitations on print size, with modern Leica lenses and films or sensors you need to work to a much smaller CoC. It's reasonable to halve the CoC - to 0.015mm - and with the 35mm lens at f/1.4 your hyperfocal distance is now 58m and the near focus limit 29m.

 

WIth a 90mm f/2 lens the respective hyperfocal distances are 135m and 270m;

with a 21mm f/1.4 lens they are 10.4 and 21m.

 

In other words, hyperfocal shooting at wide apertures is useless for street and indoor shooting but OK for some landscapes.

 

Is precise distance guesstimating something you can train over a couple of years?

 

Most people can learn to estimate distances pretty well. Carry the camera - or a separate rangefinder - with you everywhere. Look at an object, think how far away it is, then check with the rangefinder. If you have a M8, you can also guess the distance, set the lens without using the rangefinder, take a shot and chimp to see how well you did. Before long you should be able to estimate most distances well enough for decent results with middling apertures and print sizes.

 

At wide apertures, however, the depth of field is so shallow that you have to strike lucky to get the sharpness exactly where it's needed, as in this 1931 shot by Dr Erich Salomon:

 

Erich Salomon - the King of the Indiscreet 1928-1938

[Guest maddoc2003jp]

It is absolutely not reliable but can give sometimes nice results. This one was at 1/60s + f/1.0 and focus pre-set to 3m:

 

 

Not in focus at all but I like it. I have tried night-shooting with scale-focusing a couple of times (to many times ....) but the rate of keeper is below 1%.

 

Cheers,

 

Gabor

[Yoricko]

I think I made a mistake in my first post, basically i want to ask if it is feasible to scale focus (thats the term!) and just shoot wide open in the night.

 

It is absolutely not reliable but can give sometimes nice results. This one was at 1/60s + f/1.0 and focus pre-set to 3m:

 

 

Not in focus at all but I like it. I have tried night-shooting with scale-focusing a couple of times (to many times ....) but the rate of keeper is below 1%.

 

Cheers,

 

Gabor

 

I particularly like that image, probably because it doesn't Snow in my country ...

[giordano]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think I made a mistake in my first post, basically i want to ask if it is feasible to scale focus (thats the term!) and just shoot wide open in the night./quote]

 

At about f/2.8 or wider and typical low-light shooting distances, depth of field is too shallow for scale focusing to be much more than a matter of luck. Early Leicas only had scale focusing, but as soon as Leitz started to sell fast (f/2.5 at first!) lenses for low light, the rangefinder became almost essential.

[Jager]

No, scale focusing in general, and hyperfocal distance in particular, won't work in any meaningful way at maximum aperture. As others here have mentioned, the plane of focus is simply too thin.

 

You might, for instance, be out on the street shooting in good light at f8 and with the lens barrel set to hyperfocal distance. Zone focusing works fine there.

 

But then you walk into that dark cafe and in order to get a reasonable shutter speed you have to open up to f1.4. No way is zone focusing going to work.

 

Zone focusing only starts to become practical, in most cases, at around f4 or f5.6. And as Lars points out, its very dependent upon focal length.

[menos I M6]

No Yoricko, when shooting in low light (I mean really low light), you are squeezing your camera and lens the hardest, to get at least a little light on you film/ sensor.

 

I usually shoot on an outing during the night entirely wide open and compromise between highest ISO and lowest shutter speed, hand-holdable, depending on the subject.

 

At wide open shots (I use 28/35mm f2 and 50 f1.4 lenses) I always focus as precise as the situations allows (that is, why 21/ 24 Summilux lenses make no sense for my camera bag with the need of an external finder).

 

Scale focussing is practicable at much smaller apertures (minimum f5.6 with the lenses, I use, better f8).

 

I do consider dof though, also when shooting in the night. I place my focus point accordingly, to have the parts of the frame in focus, I intend to have, as slim as dof might be.

 

I do have a CV 15 f4.5 Heliar II, which I do like to scale focus during better light though.

 

Zone focussing is a different technique, where you focus on a fixed mark and wait until your moving subject passes this mark for you to shoot without having to continuously correcting focus.

[Yoricko]

Right, thanks for all the replies folks.

 

Guess I don't know my M camera in the back of my head yet, since I particularly use scale focus most of the time when shooting in daylight in the streets.

[lars_bergquist]

Right, thanks for all the replies folks.

 

Guess I don't know my M camera in the back of my head yet, since I particularly use scale focus most of the time when shooting in daylight in the streets.

 

Learn to know your rangefinder. You'll like it. Train assiduously with it, even around the house. Snap a picture occasionally, to check that you find the focus correctly. With a digital camera, this costs you nothing.

 

I'll repeat here what I have ofgten said: The quickest way to use the rangefinder is to always return the lens to infinity after shooting. This way, you will never be in doubt which way to turn the focus ring when you raise tha camera to your eye, and all normal shooting distances are just a couple of millimeters away. Yo save time by saving on indecision.

 

Also, learn the two ways to use the rangefinder: going for maximum contrast in the patch, or use as a split-image rangefinder: Find a reasonably vertical line, and adjust until it does not 'jump' where it passes outside the rangefinder patch. The two methods work best for diffferent subjects.

 

The old man from the Age of Tape Measure Focusing

[menos I M6]

… always return the lens to infinity after shooting.

… Yo save time by saving on indecision.

…

 

Not to forget about saving packing space in yer shirt pocket, as the lenses colapse at ∞

[yanidel]

Most of my shots are wide open with guess estimated distances. I set my 35mm lens to 2.5meters and the 60mm to 3-4m depending on situations. With time I have learnt to guess estimate distances pretty well so if I don't have time to fine tune the focus in the viewfinder, my shots are usually within acceptable sharpness. I also modify the focus distance blindly, after some time you know which slight move of the focus ring brings the distance from 2.5m to 2m per example. It is not a reliable method but with practice, the hit rate increases substantially.

Obviously, if you zoom in 1:1 on a big screen, you will not see spot on focus on all shots, but in A3 prints, perfect sharpness is rarely what makes a shot or not.

[Yoricko]

Learn to know your rangefinder. You'll like it. Train assiduously with it, even around the house. Snap a picture occasionally, to check that you find the focus correctly. With a digital camera, this costs you nothing.

 

I'll repeat here what I have ofgten said: The quickest way to use the rangefinder is to always return the lens to infinity after shooting. This way, you will never be in doubt which way to turn the focus ring when you raise tha camera to your eye, and all normal shooting distances are just a couple of millimeters away. Yo save time by saving on indecision.

 

Also, learn the two ways to use the rangefinder: going for maximum contrast in the patch, or use as a split-image rangefinder: Find a reasonably vertical line, and adjust until it does not 'jump' where it passes outside the rangefinder patch. The two methods work best for diffferent subjects.

 

The old man from the Age of Tape Measure Focusing

 

Yeah I've read about the infinity thing from a book by Ralph Gibson called refractions on photography or something like that. Never did really try it though. I'm too used to setting my 28mm to about 1.2 metres (and about 3 metres for my 50mm), and then when I see something interesting, I would turn the focus ring either to the left, right, or not at all depending on the distance I think the subject is at.

 

Two ways to use the rangefinder? Didn't know that and I don't really quite get the 'jump' part. I usually just find the most contrasty areas with hard vertical lines if possible.

 

Been using my Leica M for about 9 months now.

 

 

Most of my shots are wide open with guess estimated distances. I set my 35mm lens to 2.5meters and the 60mm to 3-4m depending on situations. With time I have learnt to guess estimate distances pretty well so if I don't have time to fine tune the focus in the viewfinder, my shots are usually within acceptable sharpness. I also modify the focus distance blindly, after some time you know which slight move of the focus ring brings the distance from 2.5m to 2m per example. It is not a reliable method but with practice, the hit rate increases substantially.

Obviously, if you zoom in 1:1 on a big screen, you will not see spot on focus on all shots, but in A3 prints, perfect sharpness is rarely what makes a shot or not.

 

Sounds like what I do often, but I think I'll keep shooting with the infinity trick to get used to it.

 

Cheers folks

[lars_bergquist]

Two ways to use the rangefinder? Didn't know that and I don't really quite get the 'jump' part. I usually just find the most contrasty areas with hard vertical lines if possible.

 

The split field method is just like using a split field aid in a manually focusing SLR camera. Find a fairly straight, distinct vertical line or edge. That line is in focus when the picture of the edge in the RF patch joins seamlessly to the image of it outside the patche, i.e. when the line or edge does not look 'broken'. This is the most precise method of focusing. If the only edge you can find is horizontal, turn the camera ninety degrees.

 

T.O.M.