Jump to content

Your low light tricks


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Last night I finally got a chance to hammer the M8 in mixed low light situations here in Bangkok.

 

I've found that anything above 640 ISO is pretty unusable, picture editors have said they will not accept the files produced by the M8 at high ISO.

 

Obviously this leaves anyone with the M8 in a situation whereby they need to get the best out of the camera in low light using what is available.

 

Whilst I found that shooting at 320 ISO and using exposure compensation to +1 seemed to produce very pleasant images, but i'd love to hear what others are doing and possible learn something new in the process.

 

3520205557_474c122c5e.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

For low light or night shots I get best results with auto iso and minus 1 2/3 exposure compensation as often there are large dark areas in the picture which otherwise are lifted to noise lighted zones. For raw processing I prefer Capture one.

 

Regards

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

For low light or night shots I get best results with auto iso and minus 1 2/3 exposure compensation as often there are large dark areas in the picture which otherwise are lifted to noise lighted zones. For raw processing I prefer Capture one.

 

Regards

Steve

 

That is right Steve. The best method of course is to choose a fixed ISO and use an incident light meter to determine exposure.

The one thing to get clean files out of the M8 is correct exposure. 1250 should satisfy any editor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is right Steve. The best method of course is to choose a fixed ISO and use an incident light meter to determine exposure.

The one thing to get clean files out of the M8 is correct exposure. 1250 should satisfy any editor.

 

Afraid that the current crop of cameras that are able to shoot at high iso have made that statement incorrect.

 

I don't want to get into an argument, the fact of the matter is that 4 very large publications in the UK and US denied files produced by the M8 at 1250 ISO. Exposure was good, just the noise compared to the 5d/d700 wasn't suitable.

 

Really don't want to turn this into a noise argument, so let's leave it at that huh?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In low light I meter a fairly bright area of the scene then set the shutter speed manually to one stop faster. This is IF the scene will have a fairly constant lighing.

But I always use a fixed, set manually, shutter speed and never use Auto ISO in low light. The only time I'll use Auto ISO is IF I'm working in varying lighting conditions

 

And just let the chips fall where they may.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got my M8 always set to EV -2/3 and in low light set the ISO to 640. I use Auto shutter speed. I choose the aperture (obviously usually wide open) and meter against a relatively bright part of the scene. If I can live with the exposure time I get, I'll fix that by keeping the shutter button half-pressed, focus and frame, and shoot. It's what works best for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, what max ISO/shutter do you normally use with auto?

 

My max iso setting is 1250. For b&w shoots I do not mind to use Iso 2500 which gives very nice results in my point of view. In most situations where is time for testing I prefer a fixed setting of e.g. 320 which is often sufficient with fast lenses.

 

My a.m. compensation of minus 1 2/3 is of course no general rule. The amount of compensation depends on the focal length of the lens as this might change the ratio of dark to light areas in the scene you are shooting and thus the metering of the camera.

The advantage of digital is that you can check on the lcd for clipping of the highlights. I think that a lot of images get to noisy because the photographer shifts the histogram too far to the right.

 

Have fun with experimenting with your camera lens combination.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

1250 should satisfy any editor.

That's absolutely right, dunno what editor should deny to publish a 1250iso file from the M8.

Ok it's not top class, but it seems quite srange to me such a claim by an editor.

 

...ooh, yes, a properly exposed 1250iso file is what we're talking about, isn't it?:rolleyes:

As Jaap pointed at in the past many many times (an me too), when shooting at 1250iso and above, you don't have margin for exposure error in practice.

If you have a good metering "eye", you'll see your high iso files still great.

Since I use my M8, my exposure reading ability is much improved.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's absolutely right, dunno what editor should deny to publish a 1250iso file from the M8.

Ok it's not top class, but it seems quite srange to me such a claim by an editor.

...ooh, yes, a properly exposed 1250iso file is what we're talking about, isn't it?:rolleyes:

 

I'm loving the M8 but really this sort of 'blame the user' post is simply rubbish in this context.

I don't know about newspapers, but as far as an ad bureau is concerned, the times when it's necessary to use 35mm (not so often admittedly), there's nothing I've seen so far that would come close to being acceptable from the M8 at higher ISOs.

Not interested in seeing some tiny jpeg posted to 'prove' how good it is, either. And naturally editors or ADs can set as high a standard as they wish these days.

 

This situation doesn't in any way interfere with my enjoyment of the camera. But these fantasy posts are just wishful thinking, and hardly spur Leica on to better things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't make one whit of difference to me, but I cannot imagine any editor looking at the exif instead at at the image. Tri-X and Delta 3200 images used to be fine as well - provided the grain matched the contents - As for the OP with the sweeping statement - we don't know his profession, his relationship to those magazines or even his photographs, so the whole discussion is on a rather wobbly premisse anyway....

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't make one whit of difference to me, but I cannot imagine any editor looking at the exif instead at at the image. Tri-X and Delta 3200 images used to be fine as well - provided the grain matched the contents - As for the OP with the sweeping statement - we don't know his profession, his relationship to those magazines or even his photographs, so the whole discussion is on a rather wobbly premisse anyway....

 

Indeed, all of those things are unknowns. But I'd need to have some 'star' shooting fashion to get away with Delta 3200 these days... (which incidentally would look nothing whatsoever like the M8 at 1250).

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the advantages of digital over film is the ability to take more photos. Use the "C" position and you will almost certainly get a noticably less blurred photo (out of three or more exposed) when using slower shutter speeds. Perhaps not an overly professional approach but it does work. regards, ron

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, all of those things are unknowns. But I'd need to have some 'star' shooting fashion to get away with Delta 3200 these days... (which incidentally would look nothing whatsoever like the M8 at 1250).

Of course it doesn't, I agree, Mani. I meant to say that I cannot imagine any editor worth his job judging an image on technicalities over content and artistic merit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, no wonder so many magazines are going under these days. If this is what they concern themselves with rather than the artistic quality of photographs, then they might as well pack up. Look at new Magnum member Christopher Anderson's black and white photos. Absolutely stunning and lots of grain, and any respective magazine should be so lucky to get this quality of work. How big do they end up printing the pictures anyway?

 

I agree, the M8 really needs improvement in the high ISO department. It upsets me that I have a 50mm f1 and really have a huge disadvantage compared to other cameras, but these blanket statements by magazine editors are such bull. I bet stock agencies will raise their limit for megapixels from 10-20 soon as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not gonna get into a discussion about value-judgements in advertising, nor about who has the greatest 'artistic integrity' ("Moi! - I am not a slave to mere technicalities!" etc)

 

The fact is, I cannot envisage a situation where the particular noise characteristics of the M8 at high ISO would ever be the appropriate choice for a campaign. Film at high ISO is a different matter.

 

It is highly unlikely that 35mm enters the discussion in any case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...