As you might have read, I finally got a new camera. One aspect of getting to know a new camera is learning to get good night photos from it. Until I do, I wanted to talk about using my old compact camera to get night shots.
To make it simple, there are 2 challenges with low-light photography. First, your camera will boost the "gain" on its sensor to try and capture every last photon that strikes its surface (camera speak: increasing the ISO). The problem with this is that higher ISO levels increases "noise" - makes a photo look grainy becuase of a scattering of white pixels that the camera thought it captured. Second, the camera wants more time to capture the light (camera speak: uses a slower shutter speed). The problem with this is that moving subjecs (or a shakey camera) will cause blur.
One solution is to get better hardware of course. Frau A has an advantage here -- she has one of the best low-light DSLRs made, the full-frame Nikon D700. That's why it is used by so many professionals for weddings (lots of movement in low light). Most of us use smaller cameras that don't have this asset advantage. However, you can get interesting results from compact cameras.
Here are some random thoughts and night photo examples from some compact cameras (my now-dead Canon SX200IS and Frau A's Panasonic LX3):
(1) Use a tripod to reduce camera shake and (2) go after static subjects. The first reduces blurriness due to camera shake, the second elimiates blurriness of moving subjects. I like to (3) set a 2 second timer to the shutter, so there is a brief pause between the moment I press the button and when the camera starts the exposure. It's the same thing you do to take a group photo and run to get in the picture. This makes sure you don't disturb the camera during the exposure.
You can also try (4) your camera's "Night Scene" or equivalent mode. It helps a bit, especially if you don't have a tripod. But often the mode will not quite be "smart" enough to get a good result, so you'll have to take more manual control.
In the first example, I simply set the camera on a wall (no tripod available), changed into "S" or Shutter Priority mode, and experimented with different shutter speeds. I found one that game me some resolution & color without over exposing too many of the small lights in the scene. I just wanted a good memory, not a printable work of art, so this worked fine. It's a view of the skyline in Doha, Qatar.
You will usually get better results when (5) shooting subjects that have some modest light available. This church in Mallorca was lit from the right, and did not have any lights facing directly into the camera. It's a little hazy due to the noise, and the colors are not that consistent top to bottom, but it's not bad. I did not have a tripod, but was again able to set the camera on a short wall, which really helped reduce blur. If it's a static subject with a little light on it, you can probably get a passable photo.
The Museum of Islamic Art in Doha, Qatar was also well lit. Of course, the bottom of the frame is almost black, and some of the lights are overexposed, but that's the cost of doing business with a camera that fits into a pocket. Good enough for me, not for a pro though. Fortunately, there was enough light at dusk that the shutter speed could be 3x faster than the photo of the water and skyline (above) - otherwise the people here would be much blurrier.
When you are trying to take any photo where a light source is coming straight at you, you will have issues (including in the daytime, facing the sun). In camera speak, you will go beyond the limits of the sensor's dynamic range - the ability to capture bright and dark together in the same photo. Like the difference betweenthe foreground and the museum in the picture above.
You could do (6) exposure bracketing (capture multiple photos: some get shadow detail, others get light area detail -- and them merge them in software like Photoshop), but most casual shooters don't do such post processing. Another option (7) is just to accept the facts of physics and artistically work within the limitations. The photo below was of the moon and a tree. If I captured the detail in the moon using a shorter/faster shutter speed, the tree would be basically black. Therefore I let the moon get "blown out" (just white smear, no detail, because the shutter was open longer) as a sacrifice but got an interesting effect in the clouds, and just enough color in the trees. Looks more like art than reality, but OK with me.
In fact, sometimes the "artifacts" produced by small sensor compact cameras (like the color in the clouds above) can be nice. In the photo below, I was a one of Munich's biergardens, and tried a few photos with shutter speed ranging from 1 to 5 seconds. The camera was simply set on the table rather than holding it by hand. This was the nicest one, especially because of the "star" effect that the lens/sensor produces with some night lighting. In this case, the light coming directly into the lens worked OK, the moving people are not too blurry, and it leaves me with a great memory of that evening.
Subject-motion blur us usually not wanted, but there are a lot of running-water photogaphs that are nice -- having a "blurry, fluffy" effect on the water. In the case below (again in Mallorca), the fountain is blown out, but I can live with this because is has interesting shading near the top and I get some reflections on the water. Again, if I were to keep the water exposure withing my camera's limits, we'd see nothing but black palm trees.
None of these photos are professional quality, but they do depict an interesting scene and, more importantly, capture memories. My recommendation: (8) get a tiny tripod (many are just a few inches long for compact cameras, fit in pockets/bags, and cost $15) and (9) experiment. Go into Shutter priority or "S" mode, use the 2-second timer to ensure a stable camera, and try different shutter speeds in different situations. See what happens and have fun.
