Spudgun GTR

i need to take some pics of my car at night, darker the better.
i took some yesterday, but when they were developed, they looked sh1te.
i need to be able to get a good pic of the colours, but in an outside setting.
i have a normal camera, with a flash.i use fuji 400 film. i'm no photography expert, but would appreciate anyone being able to give me any tips on this
thanks folks

chiark

Difficult, this one. In fact, damn hard.

I have a very, very, very limited knowledge of photography. *very* limited. So hopefully someone with a clue will answer, but in the meantime...

Why do you need everything to be dark? Will the car be "lit" at all? If so, you need to forget the flash and try to provide some other form of illumination.

Depending on the amount of light you can get, you'll want to move to a faster film if possible. Image will be grainier, but...

Set your aperture to the largest possible (smallest f-stop). A side effect of this is that you'll have a small depth of field, so if you're close to the front of the car you'll need to be aware that the back may be out of focus...

I think you'll need to experiment

SWRTWannabe

Again, I'm no photography expert but a few hints...

First, either use a tripod or stand the camera on something firm - because of the slower shutter speed it will be more prone to shakes.

The problem with the flash is that if you are too far away, it has no effect, but if you are close enough that it does have an effect, it doesn't evenly light shiny surfaces like car bodies - you'll get a bright spot where the flash light reflects. It might be better to take the picture in a reasonably lit area and utilise the light from that instead.

Hope this helps!

Ian Cook

Definitely use a tripod ! or you will blur the images with camera shake !

If using a flash dont point it directly at the car try to bounce the light of soemthing else or you will get a very bright point on the pic if too close !

Diablo

Spud,

If you can set your shutter speed/aperture then have the slowest possible shutter speed, widest aperture and use a tripod as has been suggested. If you don't have a tripod use something solid and use the auto timer on the camera.

If you cannot set the speed and aperture,then your camera will probably default to 1/60th or 1/125th of a second for flash use.

Anyways, as for lighting, use another car's headlights, but try and difuse the light by bouncing off a light coloured wall or something,or by placing fine gauze in front of the headlights.

Tinfoil (matt side) can be quite good for the bouncing light bit.

On that basis you would ideally need a slow shutter speed (up to a number of seconds) but it might work. oh, and if your camera insists on using the flash, cover it with something so you get no reflection.

Hope this helps

D

Brendan Hughes

I'm an idiot, but I usually take reasonable ones on a totally auto camera by setting it up on a tripod/brick wall etc and switching the flash to "off". Then put it on self-timer and let it work stuff out by itself. Can be almost 1 sec shutter if necessary. this is with Olympus mju-1 etc.

Flash is awful, I end up with nasty grainy photos.

Wife now has Nikon F65, it's like going from a typewriter to a Win2000 PC. Found the on button, still can't find the mouse though

BJH

Josh L

If you could give me an idea why you need to photograph the car at night, and what you're trying to capture, I'll do my best to offer some tips.

Josh

KF

Having really long exposures brings into play an film property called "reprocity failure". It messes with colour balance on long exposures.
Good luck.
KF.

Spudgun GTR

cheers guys
jesus, this sounds more complicated than i thought.
until today, i didnt even know what make my camera was, let alone model
its a canon eos 3000.
it has to be at night, coz ive had a full blue neon kit fitted, blue neon in the footwell, and blue electroglo dials.
i know some might think it a bit tacky/kev/stupid, but if you saw how it looked in real life...you wouldnt
a brilliant white shiny r33 with gold blitz z1's, underlit with blue neon(its actually quite subtle lighting) looks gobsmacking, IMHO.
unfortunately, the photos i got developed basically left out the blue glow.
i really want to have some pics of this, coz i think a few folks here might like 'em

i dont own a tripod. is the 'iso' thing on the camera the shutter speed??

thanks for the help so far

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Hi Spudgun,

The shot you're attempting can't be taken without a tripod. Beg, borrow or improvise! You can always balance the camera on a wall, or a mate's car, or anything else solid. Heck, you can buy one for under £20, which would be money well spent given that you already have a decent camera.

You'll need to illuminate the bodywork of the car somehow, or you'll just get a picture with a few points of light on it (your blue neons) and not a lot else. Don't just point the flash at the car, it'll overpower the lights you're trying to capture. Try taping some tissue paper over it, or point it at a reflective surface (a white wall would be ideal) just to diffuse the light. You could abandon the flash altogether and take the picture under a street lamp, or lit by the headlights from another car.

Once you've picked a location, put the camera on the tripod and set it to AV (aperture priority) mode. Setting the aperture to around f/8 should give the sharpest image. Push the shutter halfway and make a note of the shutter speed it recommends - probably around a second or so, I'd guess.

Now set the camera to M (fully manual - scary!) mode, set the aperture as before (f/8) and the shutter speed to the value that was suggested by the camera. Take a picture. Leaving the aperture unchanged, set the shutter speed a stop faster (eg. 1/2 sec instead of 1 sec) and take another. Then set it a stop slower (eg. 2 sec) and take a third. If you don't mind using up some film, experiment with other speeds in that range - every combination you take increases the chance that you'll get a picture you like. I'd certainly suggest going two stops either side of the recommended speed, so if the camera says 1 sec, take everything from 1/4 to 4 secs.

The 'iso' setting on the camera refers to the film speed, ie. its sensitivity to light. Set it to match the film you're using (400?) and leave it there.

Tip: use the camera's self timer to take the picture - that way the camera won't still be shaking from having had the shutter pressed, and you'll get sharper pictures.

Looking forward to seeing the results!

Andy.

Hoppy

Spudders, you have two problems. First, getting basic night exposures right is difficult and, depending on the circumstances, most automatic in-camera metering systems will struggle. Hence Andy's advice to bracket your exposures, ie take lots at different shutter speeds in the hope that one will be okay.

However, the other problem is that you've also got to balance the light level from the glow, with the level of ambient light. This is very difficult indeed. So without going to extraordinary lengths, I would try these two options.

Wait until dusk is approaching, then position the car and nail the camera on a tripod. As the sky darkens, so the glow from the lights will become steadily brighter, relative to the fading daylight.

When the car and the lights begin to look 'right' see what shutter speed and aperture the camera is suggesting. Then transfer these settings to the manual controls (flash off) - say 1/2 sec at f/4 for the sake of this example (although it could be miles off this, but it doesn't matter as it's only a starting point).

Take a picture. Then do another at double the shutter speed, ie 1 sec at f/4, then do 2 secs and then 4 secs. Don't bother going for shorter exposures as under-exposure is the danger and colour negative film will take masses of over-exposure and the printer will compensate. This will also take care of any reciprocity failure which can have an effect when exposures get over a second or so.

Wait until it gets a bit darker and repeat. Don't forget to take new meter readings each time. Then wait some more and repeat etc. You'll soon be running some very long exposures so make sure the camera is steady (eg no wind).

Alternatively, find a well lit indoor car park or petrol station. The glow will prolly look okay under the flourescent lights and if so, repeat the above.

If the glow from your lights is still overwhelmed by the ambient, try the petrol station location and just move your car further from the forecourt until it looks okay. Double the distance reduces the light level to a quarter (inverse square law). Repeat the above.

When you get the film printed, take it to a mini-lab so you can talk to the operator. Tell them what you're trying to achieve, as more than likely your images will bamboozle the printer's exposure calculations. The printer will also stuggle like hell to get the colours right. Take a look at the prints, choose the best one and ask the operator to make it darker/lighter or correct the colours.

You should be able to get a good result, but it may not be possible to get both the colour of the car and the glow spot-on. Getting the colour of the car right will look best.

Let us see how you get on

Richard.

Spudgun GTR

cheers guys, i'll give it another shot on monday

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Hoppy: I'm interested in your comments about under/over-exposure. Personally I use a Canon D30 digital SLR which, like all digital cameras, doesn't tolerate over-exposure at all, whereas under-exposure can be easily fixed up in Photoshop. Would a high street photo processor be able to compensate for over-exposure? Can you recommend anywhere in particular? Personally I'm glad not to be stuck using film any more

What's reciprocity failure? I've never heard of it before.

I agree that the difficult part is lighting the car without overwhelming the neons or causing them to be totally overblown if the car is correctly exposed. I guess it depends whether Spudgun's looking for a prize winning photograph or a snap to show off on Scoobynet...

Andy.

Spudgun GTR

andy
all i wanna do is post a nice pic, not win any photography awards. i will try the lighting suggestions, turning flash off etc etc.
i dont even know if i can adjust the shutter speed on my camera. i will check on monday when i go to work( i only use my camera for taking close ups at work)

GM

Andy,

If you're using negative film you can nearly always get away with some degree of over exposure. One of the old maxims was to set the exposure so you got detail in shadows and let everything else look after itself. Any colour processor should be able to cope with this (some better than others) as it's the secret behind throwaway cameras without an adjustable aperture or shutter speed. Doesn't apply for reversal (slide) film where you probably want to under expose slightly as this can improve colour saturation.

Reciprocity failurecan happen when you start using long exposures. Normally there is a direct relationship between the amount of light and the length of exposure required. However at very long exposure times the film starts to lose sensitivity and you can end up with underexposure. What can also happen is that the three different colour sensitive emulsions lose sensitivity at different rates which will result in a colour cast on the negative. If you have a good printer he can filter this out - as long as he knows what the colour is supposed to be!

G

KF

Only scan read the above. Apologies if this has been touched on before.
I don't know the camera, but this approach may be less hit & miss.
Take an bulb exposure of the car in darkness, no flash. Then wind the camera holding the film rewind button, so the film doesn't move - enforcing an multiple exposure. Take a underexposed flash photo of the inside of the car.
May yield the required results. Obviously you are going to have to keep the camera totally still - tripod or rigid mounting compulsory.
KF.

mook

I'm no photographer but here's an idea for a wicked shot. If you can take the car to a road by the sea/a lake and park infront of the road with the water in the background. Take the pic at dusk and get a mate to drive past behind your car with his sidelights on. The finished article would be a class pic of your motor, neons blazing, some reflection from the water and a streak of lights going past behind. Nice

Hoppy

Andy, GM knows what he's talking about, but here's a bit more info which might help others understand the basics of exposure and the terms used. It's very easy once you've grasped it.

Correct exposure can be achieved by either giving the film a lot of light for a short time, or less light for a longer time. Shutter speeds (more correctly called shutter times, but let's not go there) and lens apertures work together by halving or doubling and you can use different combinations depending on the result you're after - eg fast shutter speed for action etc. This is a 'reciprocal' relationship and holds good until exposure times get very long - several seconds usually.

This principal is obvious with shutter speeds, where 1/250 sec is clearly half 1/125 sec. What foxes most people is that lens apertures are not marked so obviously, even though they work in the same way. For example f/4 is double the size of f/5.6, and four times larger than f/8. Instead of multiplying by 2, the numbers are multiplied by the square root of 2, ie 1.4, and just to confuse you a bit more, large apertures have small numbers and vice versa. The guy who dreamed all that up (Mr Waterhouse, I believe) and then decided to call them f/stops, was a total @rse. But he's dead now. And we're stuck with it.

So, as far as correct exposure is concerned, 1/250 sec at f/5.6 is the same as 1/500 sec at f/4, or 1/125 sec at f/8 and so on and on. You will also hear photographers talking about 'opening up a stop' or using 'a stop faster shutter speed'. This means that the lens aperture needs doubling, or the shutter time should be halved. Using the term 'stop' in relation to shutter speeds is technically wrong, but that's how most photographers talk about it.

Hope that's of some help. You need to understand it when using manual camera settings.

KF, I think Spud's camera has a muliple exposure facility, and this is how the picture he's after should really be taken - using separate exposures for the glow, and then for the car. Do the first at night and the second in daylight for a really trick effect Mook's idea would look cool, too

Cheers,

Richard.

KF

Focal Ratio (akka f-stop) is a ratio of aperture to focal length. Therefore, if it is f/10 it is because the size of aperture (in mm's) is f/10, where f stands for focal length (also in mm's).
It is dimensionless, and meaningless without the context of focal length. This explains why large focal ratio lenses are so expensive. To get f/3.5 on a lense with huge focal length is going to require a physically enormous aperture. It is much more difficult to create the optics capable, and therefore much more expensive.

Not rocket science, and not worth calling some(dead)one an **** over.

The reason why the linear reciprocal nature is maintained between, for example, 1/60th at f/8 and 1/30th at f/11 (or 8 x squareroot 2) is because the amount of light passing the aperture is proportional to the square of the aperture size. This is borne out by the equation for the area of a circle : pi*(r^2).

The above are right about reciprocity failure, it often affects different colours at different speeds, and is caused by the non linear reaction between the film and light.

KF.

EDIT: Some brackets for better illumination

[Edited by KF - 12/24/2001 1:07:46 AM]

Spudgun GTR

i bought a tripod today!
ive got some street lighting near me, gonna chuck a bucket of water under the car on my drive, so the light reflects better
probably skid like a bast4rd in the morning reversing it out
i'm gonna do this boxing day, and get 'em developed day after.
i'll keep trying till i do it.

steve e newcastle

move to the north pole in the summer !
d sun always shine

Hoppy

KF, without particularly wishing to pick an argument (it's Christmas, I think) your second sentence is also meaningless by your own definition.

And your explanation of why long lenses are costlty is economoical in explanation.

Do you think Mr Waterhouse's nomenclature is at all helpful?

Richard.

steve e newcastle

thats impresive at 12.30!
or your at work!

KF

(not wanting to argue, but defending a viewpoint - please take it as intended - I am sorry to have got your back up.)

"Focal Ratio (akka f-stop) is a ratio of aperture to focal length. Therefore, if it is f/10 it is because the size of aperture (in mm's) is f/10, where f stands for focal length (also in mm's).
It is dimensionless, and meaningless without the context of focal length."

OK. Perhaps not the most eloquent statement in the world. Surely you understood what I meant?
Another try, this time sober:
"Focal Ratio (a.k.a f-stop) is a ratio of aperture to focal length.
Therefore, if a lense is f/10, it is because the size of the aperture (in mm's) is f / 10, where f is focal length (also in mm's).
Focal Ratio, is dimensionless and meaningless outside the context of focal length."

I was responding to your insult against a dead chap, and was defending the science.

[pompous] I don't think it seemly to have a pop at a dead bloke, when you are insulting him for something that he put his name to, and has been in use for 150 years (not such a bad idea then? ). I can't understand why people directly insult someone because they have a different perspective on an idea. Call the idea crap if you like. Don't label the guy (whom you never met) an ****. He was living in a time when photography was not a plebeian pursuit.

I guess I was being economical - It wasn't intended to be a full discussion of lense economics, manufacturing tollerances, environmental issues, optical aberrations and field curvature, handling and robustness issues and power consumption, and their effects on cost. Perhaps a full discussion of cost vs price and market forces too?
[/pompous]

And, yes. I have never had a problem with f-stops - although some reading (having never heard of J.Waterhouse) would also suggest that it is doubtful that it is his invention.
Happy New Year.
KF.

Ian Cook

Taken from here http://www.donaldmckay.com/mainSecti...g-question.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------

And the "f" in f/stop, what specifically is the letter about?

The f number is the ratio between the size of the aperture and the focal length of the lens. The f "stop" is determined by taking the focal length of the lens divided by the diameter of the aperture in millimeters. An example of this would be on a 50 mm lens where the aperture measures 25 mm in diameter, the f/stop would be f/2. Each f/stop, regardless of the focal length, film format, etc., means that the same measurement of light is reaching the film. Each change in f/stop indicates either a doubling or halving of the amount of light passing through the aperture of the lens. Therefore, f/11 is half as much as f/8, and f/5.6 is twice as much light as f/8.

The average 35 mm camera lens will show f/stops similar to this:

2.8 4 5.6 8 11 16 22

"Stop" is a term generically used to refer to the measurement of light reaching the film. (However, as you read further, I have a somewhat different take on all what an f/stop is.) A one stop change is halving or doubling of light by one point change in either f/stop, shutter speed, film speed or even light output if using artificial lighting.

Hoppy

KF, I was as unhelpful with my description of Mr Waterhouse as are his aperture definitions. Apologies. But they have confused many generations of photographers, and I dislike like the common academic habit of trying to 'blind people with science' which then requires some daft formula to explain.

What is wrong with a straight arithmetical scale, where 128 = f/1, down to 1 = f/16? And on down to .125 = f/64 etc?. We could call them Aperture Values, as does every camera manufacturer when referring to Aperture-priority meter settings, and the difference between each is immediately obvious. Likewise, in the same way shutter speeds should be called Time Values, again as every camera manufacturer does when referring to Shutter-priority metering.

I just like to keep things as simple and sensible as possible.

So let's not talk about T/stops then, or how focal length itself is pretty meaningless when what everyone wants to know is what the angle-of-view is.

Best let Spud get on and take his pictures

Seasons best,

Richard.

Steve Williams

Nobody really asked the obvious (to me)

Where is the car parked when you take this pic???

Dark country lane, residential street with street lights, supermarket carpark with more lights, under a "security" light (halogen spot type), full moon, overcast sky, etc.......


If you are not going to use a flash then it is vitally important to know what natural/ ambiant light is available....

KF

I can't speak for Waterhouse, but I thank you for your apology

I wholeheartedly agree with you about when someone with a technical bent obfusicates issues. I don't think this is the same, as an understanding of the basic principles are obligatory for a serious photographer. As a developer (software) I am both pedantic (so people tell me ) and scientific, but also have an strong desire to have things expressed explicity. Never use one variable to represent two things. However the other options in this case are even less attractive.

Let me expand. If you were talking about "Aperture vaules", you would be implying that a lense with aperture value (x) would have the same size aperture whatever the focal length. People would get confused - this is even more unintuitive.
So, I assume that you were talking of something analogous to a "Transmission Rating" (hence the nod to t-stops?). However, this doesn't remove the need for the focal length (perspective) and f-stop (depth of field) information and is just substituting an artificial scale for one that makes sense when you take the time to learn it. I didn't understand the numbers you gave (and thought them too similar to exposure speeds anyway) - apologies if I have misinterpreted your idea.

The example of the focal length is another example. People who understand optics will understand the relationship between the focal length and the perspective of the shot, by virtue of the film (or CCD) size. See the discussions about the difference in Digital camera backs and film camera backs, and think how much more complicated it would be if the users had to go through another layer of indirection (from "Perspective Rating") to work out the correct focal length for normal perspective with their digital CCD.

After all this Spud had better post his pictures
KF.

Hoppy

KF, a truce on Waterhouse then But reading between the lines of your post I think we have more in common than not, if we agree the basic principle that simplist is best.

Stand-by - I feel a long post coming on...

Let me explain 'my' aperture values a little more (I only thought them up yesterday, so bear with me and apologies to everyone else for whom this thread has gone seriously off beam).

F/stops are indeed the ratio of lens aperture to focal length, but their only application is to put a measure on the light passing through the lens. Would it not make more (common) sense if big apertures were represented by big numbers, and arranged in a straight-forward arithmetic sequence?

Hence, using the same focal ratios, f/1 would simply be re-numbered Av128, f/2 would become Av64, f2.8 would be Av32 and so on to where f/16 = Av1. That covers the entire range of commonly used f/stops but going on for large format users, f/22 = Av.5, f/32 = Av.25 and f/64 would be Av.125. Take this as far as you like.

This makes logical sense to me, and it is then immediately obvious that f/2 passes 64 times more light than f/16, for example. I wonder how many people could deduce that from f/stops without a calculator ? I think it would also be a bit of an eye-opener for those people buying a compact zoom thinking it's the mut's nuts when at the lens' long end their maximum aperture is f/6.7 or something equally useless anywhere but the Sahara desert.

Now to focal length, another measurement that confuses a lot of people, especially now that we have 35mm, APS and digi-cams using vastly differing focal length lenses for similar tasks. Manufacturers now have to convert their lens' actual focal length in to "equivalent of XXmm on a 35mm camera." How confusing is that!!! How many people know why they're called 35mm cameras anyway? It's simply the width of the cine film that Ernst Leitz put in his first Leica still camera, but I digress.

The main significance of focal length is that it defines angle of view, but this alters according to film/image format. So why don't we convert focal lengths to degrees, maybe something like this. A 50mm lens (35mm camera) would be renamed AoV46 (can't do a degrees symbol on this PC) and a 28mm lens would become AoV65. I'm working from memory here so those degrees figures might not be correct, but you get the drift. With this definition the angle of view of any lens on any camera (from tiny digi-cam to Hassleblad) would be immediately clear and require no conversion to understand immediately.

Now, before anyone accuses me of forgetting about the effect of focal length on depth of field and perspective, let me nail that one to the floor. Focal length has NO effect on perspective. Focal length also has NO effect on depth of field, either.

Please bear with me. Perspective is a function of camera to subject distance, and nothing else. Yes, you can use different focal length lenses to make use of perspective changes, but it is the distance between you and the subject that is making the difference, not the lens.

And depth of field (another unhelpful term, especially when confused with depth of focus, but whatever). This also is not directly related to focal length. It is image size (amongst several other things) that determines depth of field. Hence, most digi-cams with tiny CCDs have huge depth of field (ditto the now defunct 110 or Disc film formats) whereas with a 5x4in studio camera it is tiny.

Okay, so focal length effects image size but it is the latter that determines depth of field (in addition to the f/stop and focusing distance of course). However, while this may be true, it is often the case that telephoto lenses give the appearance of shallow depth of field (and vice versa for wide-angles). This is a trick of the narrow angle of view of a telephoto which cuts out so much background that, whatever the theory, it makes the subject stand out more from the background. But I think it's important to know what is actually happening. And wide-angles give more depth of field because their focal length reduces image size - every thing is relatively smaller, all other things being equal. I'm talking about Circles of Confusion here (yes that's a pukka optical term!) which seems like a good place to stop.

If anyone is still reading this, thanks for your patience and I hope it makes sense.

Best,

Richard.

KF

Richard, (and anyone out there still awake )

I understand your system now.

Personally I started with Circle of Confusion, and worked forwards from first principles - but that is me I guess that would explain the differences in perspective

I can see where you are coming from, and understand why you feel it would be a good idea. However, those that care enough about it will take the time to figure out the science. Those that don't, won't. The people that are content with a £50 point and shoot will give scant regard to either system, but will have a learning hurdle with one of them when wanting to progress.

I was considering writing a java applet to explain optics with some rather funky graphics, but then got bored and stuck into the Christmas port.

KF.