http://www.instructables.

com/id/How-to-take-AWESOME-night-photos-WITHOUT-a-tripod/
Home Sign Up! Explore Community Submit
How to take AWESOME night photos WITHOUT a tripod
by thesparine on May 28, 2007
Table of Contents
intro: How to take AWESOME night photos WITHOUT a tripod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
step 1: Get a digital camera that lets you control it's basic settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
step 2: Experiment with these settings, and conduct principal photography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
step 3: Pick your ponies, and brag to the local photo developer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Related Instructables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Customized Instructable T-shirts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-take-AWESOME-night-photos-WITHOUT-a-tripod/
intro: How to take AWESOME night photos WITHOUT a tripod
This instructable will teach you how to use the normal digital camera you already own to take night photos that are not blurry, and without a tripod. Don't believe me? The
photos on this page were shot just last week with my digital camera without a tripod. Read and learn, grasshopper! And press the "+" sign on this instructable so I can get
closer to winning that dad-gum laser carver thingee.
(sample photo shot at ISO 400, 6/10 of a second, no tripod, of the downtown Omaha skyline)
step 1:Get a digital camera that lets you control it's basic settings
By basic settings, I don't mean resolution, zoom lens, or movie mode. The only settings you will need to control are ISO, exposure time (shutter speed), aperture and
shooting mode.
Relax, you don't have to run out and buy a new fancy-shmancy digital camera to do this. Most digital cameras that aren't the bottom-of-the-barrel or older than 3 years old
will let you do this. Usually you just have to set the camera into "custom" or "manual" mode to accomplish this.
If you want to know how to set up these features on your digital camera, consult your owner's manual just like I had to do.
Also, while IS or VR (image stabilization or vibration reduction) can help, they are not necessary. All of the sample shots on this instructable were shot on a several-year
old Canon A620 that lacks IS, and only goes up to ISO 400.
If you need to update your camera, and got some dough, I would recommend buying the Canon SD800 IS. If you don't got $300, but have $200, then I would get what I
got, the Canon A620. If you only have $100, go on eBay and buy a used Canon A530. All 3 will enable you to do this instructable.
Here are a few guideline definitions that you can skip, but I am including them just so all the photographic "measurebators" don't have a hissy fit:
ISO = how sensitive your camera is to light. ISO 200 is twice as sensitive as ISO 100. ISO 400 is twice as sensitive to ISO 200. The more sensitive (higher ISO) the
shorter the exposure needs to be for a similar image. So why not jump to ISO 1600? Because in digital cameras, that will make for a very grainy photo unless you got an
electronically cooled CCD like they use for photographing astronomy. Most "normal" digital cameras only go up to ISO 400, anyways. And yes, there is a bit of noise in
these photos, but the end results are more than passable when printed on a high-quality printer.
Exposure (shutter speed) = how long your shutter will stay open, allowing light to collect on the image sensor. 1:15 is 1/15 of a second. 1:4 is 1/4 of a second.
Remember, in shutter speeds less than a second, the LARGER the bottom number, the SHORTER the exposure (provided that a 1 is the numerator) 6/10 is more than
twice as long as 1/4. Also, camera shake can cause blurry photos at settings longer than 1/15.
Aperture: F-stops are different settings allowing different amounts of light to enter your camera. This is different from exposure, in that the aperture is that funky iris/anus
looking thing that is a series of connected sheets that either open or contract to make a hole get bigger or smaller. Think of the opening to the old James Bond movies
where that aperture starts as a small dot and opens up to get bigger. If you watch the LCD on your camera and adjust the aperture, you will see which setting opens up
the iris to allow more light in by watching your LCD become brighter or dimmer.
(UPDATE: No, these definitions aren't taken from Standard Photographic Definitions 9th Edition or New England Journal of Expert Photographic Advice and Medicine.
These are thumbnail definitions, and I am not an expert. I am just trying to explain what I think is correct to people that don't know any better. If you know something I
don't know, I'm not surprised. Post it in a comment below and show the world how wrong I am.)
(sample photo shot at ISO 200, exposure 1/5 of a second)
http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-take-AWESOME-night-photos-WITHOUT-a-tripod/
step 2:Experiment with these settings, and conduct principal photography
Here is the philosophy:
It is true, that with exposures slower than 1/15 of a second, you will get more blurry photos. But, it is also true, that with exposures as slow as 6/10 of a second NOT ALL
of your photos will be blurry.
(UPDATE: and by blurry I am referring to "naked-eye" blurriness when viewing it after it has been printed and from a reasonable viewing distance. If you look at the image
pixel by pixel on your computer screen it will probably look blurry.)
So the philosophy I am preaching is this: take lots of photos at a few different settings, and you are DESTINED to have a few winners. Actually, many more winners than
you think. And you won't have to take hundreds of photos every time you want to take a nice night picture. The following instructions are only to be used the first time you
take night photos, in order to determine which setting for your camera gives you the best results. Then in the future all you have to do is set your camera to your preferred
settings, and take 5-15 frames so you can be sure to have one that isn't blurry. It's a small price to pay to finally get to bury that g-d tripod and actually get to capture the
cool night shots when you see them.
The first thing you have to do is make sure you have a large-capacity memory card for this. With my A620's 7 megapixel full-resolution size, I like to load a 1GB card. This
will be fine.
Second, set your shooting mode to "continuous," meaning that as long as you are holding down the shutter button, your camera is taking pictures.
Next, experiment with these settings: ISO at 200 and 400, shutter speed from 1/15 of a second to 6/10 of a second (or whatever looks good on the LCD as you adjust
settings), and aperture set to whichever setting allows the LCD to appear as bright as you want the photos to be. In otherwords, set ISO first, shutter speed second, and
aperture to the brightest setting. Now, start taking pictures.
Hold down the shutter so you get 5-15 shots at each setting, experimenting with the variables. Take lots of pictures. Try to hold the camera as still as possible while doing
this. Cheat if you have to. Lean against a parking meter, bus stop sign, railing, tree or wall. Sit on the bumper of your car or indian style on the curb. Get as still as you
can, but whatever you do, don't lug a tripod with you when you take these shots.
Your first night photography session after reading this instructable should easily net you 200-300 pictures. If you don't have a large enough memory card, then lower your
image resolution to the smallest setting just so you can take a shitload of pics. At this point, like the old lie goes, "size doesn't matter." This is an experiment just to see
which settings your particular camera loves most for hand-held night photography.
Now, after taking a few hundred shots of your city's skyline at about 10pm, using continuous shutter mode at a variety of settings, go home and prepare to be amazed.
(UPDATE: Upon further reflection, I have reconsidered and logic tells me it actually might work better if you set your aperture (F-stop) to the widest setting first so that the
most amount of light is entering to begin with. "So is that the large F-stop number or the small F-stop number?" I have no idea. It is whichever setting makes the LCD the
brightest as you adjust it. After you got the F-stop opened up, then set the ISO, then the shutter speed or exposure or whatever it is called on your digital camera.)
(sample photo shot at ISO 200, at 1/4 of a second)
http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-take-AWESOME-night-photos-WITHOUT-a-tripod/
step 3:Pick your ponies, and brag to the local photo developer
Load all the images into your computer, and start looking at them one at a time. If it is blurry, get rid of it. Throw it out NOW.
This alone should pare your 300 photos down to about 50-100 photos.
Next, go through the photos zoomed in a little (NOT zoomed in at pixel level though) and look for only "The Best" ones. In other words, if you don't say "wow!" when you
look at the photo because it is still a tiny bit blurry, or it is too dark or something, then get rid of it.
This second culling by saving only the best photos will further reduce your pool to probably 20-50 photos.
Now, look at these remaining pictures one at a time, and pick your top few pics, throwing the others out.
After you do this, then look at the "info" part on each photo and rename the pictures to the settings for ISO and shutter speed, just like I have done with all the photos for
this instructable.
Now, all that is left to do, is burn these pics to a disc and run around your neigborhood getting reprints made at any local photo counters and compare the results. I took
my pics to a high-end camera store in my city that prints photos called Rockbrook Photo, Wal-Mart, Target and Walgreens and made 8x10s of all 4 of my favorite photos.
The prices ranged from $5.99 at the fancy camera shop to $2.50 at Walgreens. Results: #1 is Walgreens, a close #2 is Wal-Mart, and nobody believed me when I told
them I shot the night pictures on a digital camera without a tripod.
Now because of this experiment I now know exactly what settings to use on my camera next time I see a great night shot. But REMEMBER: with these settings you still
have to use continuous shutter mode and be sure to take a good 5-15 shots at this setting because most of them will be blurry, but not all of them.
Now go forth tonight, take pictures of your boring-old skyline, and then make the counter people drool at your local photomats when you tell them you shot those beautiful
night shots with your normal digital camera without a tripod. AND, vote for this instructable so I can win the laser-carver thingee! AND AND, post your cool night-pics as a
comment to this instructable so I can justify to my family that the time I am spending making instructables is making a difference in people's lives, albeit, unknown
stranger-people that are also shunning their family.
(sample photo set at 400 ISO and 1/10 of a second, no tripod)
http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-take-AWESOME-night-photos-WITHOUT-a-tripod/
Related Instructables
Better closeups
by neelandan DIY
Flash Diffuser
with Hundreds
of FREE Color
Filters by
deth2all
Weekly Project:
Starry Sight--A
DIY CCD
Camera for
Astrophotography
by PSdp
Panorama: How
to by PetervG
How to take
photos of stars
by
SubzeroFusion
Interesting
photography
tricks for all by
killerjackalope
Improve your
digital camera
extremely by
isr_Raviv
Macro
Photography:
An Essential
Skill for Good
Instructables by
1up
Advertisements Customized Instructable T-shirts
Comments
50 comments Add Comment view all 86 comments
CalcProgrammer1 says: Sep 8, 2008. 10:38 PM REPLY
Nice tutorial of the various tricks to use when shooting at night. At the beginning of the summer, I went to New York and Canada for my last year of High
School Band Tour. We took tons of pictures, but out of all 400-some pics, my favorite is the one I took of Niagara Falls lit up at night. I had to stabilize the
camera on the rail and use a second or more exposure, repeated the shot like 20 times, but sure enough, one of them came out quite clear. I have a
PowerShot A520, and I'm definitely going to get a Canon for my next camera whenever I upgrade, as they have tons of features and great quality optics.
Tom Trottier says: Feb 22, 2008. 6:57 AM REPLY
Tripods are nice because you can point your camera anywhere. But you can stabilise the the camera many ways. A cable release or remote will avoid hand
vibrations, but you can use the self-timer to do this too. Stabilisation helps at night, but it also helps during the day when you are taking telephoto shots.
Ways to stablilise:
use any non-vibrating surface - car top (turn engine off), planter, fence, ...
use a beanbag - any bag filled with seeds or granules. Put it down somewhere and put the camera on it. It gives you some aiming possibilities
attach a 6' rope or chain to the tripod screw or camera. Step on the other end. Pull up on camera, aim & shoot.
hiking staffs often have a tripod screw under the top knob.
buy & carry a "pocket tripod" or ultrapod. Put these short tripods on the ground, or on other objects to choose your point of view, or strap them to a
http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-take-AWESOME-night-photos-WITHOUT-a-tripod/
tree or post with velcro.
get a 5"length of foam pipe insulation, the kind with the slit down one side. Put this over a partly-open car window and rest the camera on it.
If you are holding the camera, you can minimise vibrations by taking a breath, letting it out & relaxing, then squeezing the shutter release. Don't stab at the
release - use a gentle squeeze. Drink less coffee...
tOM Trottier
rrrmanion says: Jul 27, 2008. 10:31 AM REPLY
maybe make an instructable so more people can benefit from your knowledege
Velotrash Industries says: Apr 20, 2008. 11:39 PM REPLY
excellent stuff.
thesparine says: Mar 5, 2008. 8:30 PM REPLY
Hi, here is a quick follow up... I went to China and took a few night photos using this technique. The first two pictures are without a tripod, and the third one is
with a tripod, and to me they look the same, especially when printed out.
Tom Trottier says: Feb 22, 2008. 7:03 AM REPLY
Also, many image editing programs have a "sharpen" command, and an "undo". Try sharpening until it looks funny, then undo a notch or two.
tOM Trottier
rcalmeida says: Jan 15, 2008. 1:46 AM REPLY
Dude thank you so much for this Instructable! As photohontis said, the "real talk" just worked great. I hope you win that laser thing!
fruitcake says: Jan 15, 2008. 1:01 AM REPLY
thank you... that really helped.....
chesler says: Jan 13, 2008. 8:48 PM REPLY
"Take lots of pictures" isn't bad advice for those of us raised on film.
I'd add "Use the self-timer!" I wish these digitals came with a cable release or remote, but on or off tripod (and what's so bad about a tripod? I've got minis
that I bought for a dollar, a C-clamp style, and a light-weight full-size) I get a lot less jitter if I use the Custom drive mode to take one shot after one second.
Any sort of bracing, especially nearer my hands, helps a lot.
theLichKing says: Jan 12, 2008. 1:08 PM REPLY
This instructable is a waste of time. It is so full of text and all he really wanted to say is play with settings and take many pictures and choose the best one.
if you jumped right to the comments, don't read this instructable, that's all it's saying.
photohontis says: Oct 2, 2007. 8:52 PM REPLY
I enjoyed reading your "instructable". Thank you for using real talk so I could understand what you were talking about. I will put your advice to good use!!!
moep says: Jun 22, 2007. 7:41 AM REPLY
I can't believe people actually give a + for this kind of shite. "Take lots of photos and you will get a good one in the lot!". Wow how genius ! LOL
http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-take-AWESOME-night-photos-WITHOUT-a-tripod/
gw60199 says: Jul 16, 2007. 7:32 PM REPLY
This afternoon I assisted in a class on this subject for beginning digital photographers. The class covered essentially the same material and suggestions.
The submitter has provided good practical advice for night photography novices and that IS the purpose of this forum.
I have been involved in photography for over thirty years to include having a complete darkroom. I found the article useful and informative. If you have an
instructables article of practical and useful content please post it.
Kelani says: Jun 14, 2007. 5:17 AM REPLY
fitzhugh: Perhaps you should consider finding that train-station idiot and borrowing some of his ganja. It might actually help that shaky hands problem. :)
Just kidding (Sorta).
Anyway, I must say the beanbag as stabilizer is an excellent idea. I have an old one I once used as a trackball wrist rest that's getting moved to photo duty
today. Anyone who wants one, they sell them anywhere you can buy computer junk.
I wonder which works better: beanbag or gel?
bobparker says: Jul 10, 2007. 11:40 PM REPLY
The beanbag allows you to adjust the angle easier.
hooaww555 says: Jun 7, 2007. 1:54 PM REPLY
great instructable - I liked it better than the pictures. It definitely inspired me to grab my camera and run outside and take pictures, darnit it's daylight outside.
jesusali says: Jun 3, 2007. 9:02 PM REPLY
This "instructable" is pretty poor and shamelessly padded.
It basically says, "set your camera to be as sensitive to light as possible, stand as still as possible, and take as many shots as possible, hoping that one is in
focus."
Setting the ISO is the only thing presented here that is isn't utterly common knowledge. But the vast majority of consumer grade digital cameras don't have
selectable ISO, which makes this tip even less useful.
audiomind says: Jun 7, 2007. 1:48 PM REPLY
I have to agree here. This instructable(sic) is primarily common sense, even for an amateur.
thesparine says: Jun 4, 2007. 10:31 PM REPLY
yet another piece of expert advice from someone that hasn't written a single (let alone "helpful") instructable.
jesusali says: Jun 5, 2007. 4:20 AM REPLY
hey doof:
http://www.itunes.com/podcast?id=251659448
No, it's not an Instructable (it's an enhanced podcast), but it's hella helpful to fellow photographers; ask everyone I continually help at
http://www.flickr.com/groups/strobist/discuss/
Aside from that, it's a complete non-sequitur (look it up) on your part to infer that just because I haven't posted an Instructable (and don't beg votes),
that I can't spot garbage when I see it.
I know the hard work that goes into a decent how-to and Instructable. And you haven't displayed that hard work or utility here. So drop the attitude
and quit fronting like I'm the bad guy.
thesparine says: Jun 5, 2007. 12:12 PM REPLY
I have thick skin, don't worry, i am not bitter.
It is just that instructables is such a great site with so many cool instructables that to take the time to write "this instructable is poor and padded" is
pretty freaking lame. If you don't like an instructable, go read a different one! If you can make a better one with more "helpful" info, then by all
means contribute to this great site. Didn't yo mama ever tell you that if you can't say anything nice...
I wrote this instructable because I am not a pro photographer, and I thought these tips might help some people get some better night shots with
their digital camera. Judging by the overwhelmingly positive feedback, I consider this a success.
http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-take-AWESOME-night-photos-WITHOUT-a-tripod/
jesusali says: Jun 5, 2007. 2:40 PM REPLY
You are straight up pathological. Now you're insisting that only compliments should be left in the Comments field! Give me a break. If you had
a "thick skin" you would have let my original comment stand, unacknowledged. But I think it must've hit a nerve...
thesparine says: Jun 5, 2007. 5:04 PM REPLY
I am not insisting anything my friend... I am just suggesting that... ahh nevermind... if you keep posting negative comments time and time
again when instructables clearly states they have a "be nice" policy, asking to post only positive and constructive comments, I don't think
you will listen to anything more that I have to say.
Take care dudes!
Troubleshooter says: Jun 4, 2007. 8:31 AM REPLY
I can totally agree.
Most camera don't have settings as advanced as that.
And if you do... that mean's you've bought a camera with more than basic settings, meaning you probably know a bit about cameras, meaning this
intructable is pointless... and padded...
But I'm just referring to the majority.
thesparine says: Jun 4, 2007. 10:38 PM REPLY
Padded? WTF does that mean? And yes, in USA, most consumer digital cameras DO have selectable ISO, shutter speed, & F-stop. Most consumers
just don't know how to use them. Also, please tell me you are NOT one of those lurkers on here that only offer expert advice on other people's
instructables, instead of creating your own...
markuss5 says: Feb 17, 2008. 11:16 AM REPLY
yeah it's true most cameras have iso settin and most people doesn't know about it. but those people does not care anyway. this is not helpful for
a beginner who is serious about photoraphy.
Troubleshooter says: Jun 5, 2007. 5:08 AM REPLY
You sound very bitter hearing negative criticism. You should be thankful you got on an email.
The reason I haven't made an instructable yet is because I'd rather not make an instructable for the sake of it (I hate to say this, but I could have
made this instructable), I'd rather make one that shares rare knowledge.
Yeah, padded is what this article is. It is an antonym of concise.
jesusali says: Jun 5, 2007. 4:37 AM REPLY
"Padded" means you stuffed it full of superfluous text to fill more pages. Which you did. You KNOW you did. I just summarized your entire
Instructable in ONE SENTENCE. Have you ever heard of HYPER TEXT? Have you ever made a link? That's what the world wide web is for. You
needlessly paraphrased/plagiarized information which you could have simply linked to, in order to fill space. That's what "padding" means. But I'm
pretty sure you all ready knew that.
And what do you mean, "in the USA"?! Does my name make you think I'm not in the USA? Now you're a hack and a bigot.
And the fact is, you're wrong. Most consumer level cameras DO NOT have ISO settings. They are for consumers, at most they have "Night
Mode" settings. (A fact to which your Instructable seems to be completely ignorant.) In fact, you go out of your way to suggest only TWO
particular Canon brand cameras that people should use in order to follow your guide!!!
As far as lurking goes, you better be thankful for it. You'd have absolutely NO POINTS if it wasn't for uninformed lurkers not recognizing the
uselessness of this tip.
thesparine says: Jun 5, 2007. 12:17 PM REPLY
In USA was simply clarifying that I am speaking from my experiences in the USA. I was at Best Buy yesterday and it is hard to find a digital
camera that does NOT let you choose the ISO.
My friend, your contention that I would have no points if blah blah blah... is wrong. I would have no points if:
A) I made a crappy instructable ( which this is not)
or
B) made NO instructable... remind you of anyone? : -)
jesusali says: Jun 5, 2007. 3:11 PM REPLY
Go to Target or Walmart and find ISO settings.
Troubleshooter made the point best. It is better to make nothing than to make useless junk only for the sake of making junk (or for the
sake of a laser cutter, in this case).
Wow. This could have been two negative, yet thoughtful comments, but now you made it a whole long flame war. It seems you do have
useful skills to share! You should post an instructable on how to flame honest critics like whiney baby!
http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-take-AWESOME-night-photos-WITHOUT-a-tripod/
dunlopm says: Jun 6, 2007. 10:30 PM REPLY
My simplistic approach to the f/stop is as follows:
Lets assume a 44mm lens is on my camera-
if you are at f/2 the aperature is 22mm, or half the diameter of your lens;
if you are at f/4 the aperature is 11mm, or one quarter the diameter of your lens;
if you are at f/11 the aperature is 4mm, or one eleventh of the diameter of your lens.
You can think of it as a fraction of the diameter of the lens. 1/4th, 1/8th, 1/16th etc.
fitzhugh says: Jun 1, 2007. 2:15 PM REPLY
I own a 620, same camera used here.
My only real argument with this what you consider "awesome" will be "great considering the circumstances" for others. You can get surprisingly steady shots,
but they won't hold up under close scrutiny, as you readily admit (you mention viewing from a reasonable distance etc.) and for me there is way too much
noise over the lowest iso 100 setting, though I use 200 at times for just this approach. I never bother with 400 unless it is a "I want to remember this" photo
and not a "wow, I hope this turns out well enough to hang on my wall".
I have shaky hands so the 1 in 300 good shot would be more like 1 in a full 1 gig card, but regardless, I find carrying a small bean bag is a better
compromise. Just a counter suggestion.
The a620 has been a great camera for me, much better than I expected, and has received generally great reviews. However, there are better cameras, of
course. I prefer canon's interface and many of the features of this camera over the other options out when I got it. The arguments over camera manufacturer
in the end boil down to preference, with clear leaders in different areas and plenty of outright losers everyone should avoid, but I would buy this camera
again if I had reason to.
To me finding something to stick the beanbag on, then camera on beanbag, then use low iso, long exposure and timer works much better and is simpler and
faster (convenient) than taking a great many shots. I still end up taking a fair number to bracket my exposure and make up for my lack of brilliant knowledge.
This camera is large enough that I carry it in a waist pouch or my ever-present backpack anyhow - not really a pocket camera unless you are wearing a large
coat - so tossing in a beanbag is no real problem. I also have some lenses, lens cleaner, etc. The one thing this does not allow for is the freedom to compose
your shot as easily, but that is less of a problem with this kind of long distance shot where exact angle is usually less critical. I might lean the other way if my
hands were steadier, but doubt it. Hell, some people can win a gold medal shooting a rifle between heartbeats after flopping down in the middle of a ski
race... not me. I can't ski and am lacking the rifle, but I know my hands shake too much sitting at my desk.
It is all personal preference and the statements of absolutes are quite silly. When taking photos of bugs I often take an insane amount since "It is humanly
impossible to stick a camera up a bee's ass and get a good shot before it flies away (and returns to sting you)" is pretty much true, but I could show you
some good shots of bees taken before I got a macro lens and still had to have the camera within a wing's body length to get the shot. Try it 200 times and
you get a few interesting and often quite good shots. Same goes for night shots w/ long exposure: sure, you will happen to get a few decent shots out of
many since you just hold the shutter button down and let it go... some will be between heartbeats and breaths. This belongs in the point and shoot
photographer's repertoire, but I would not expect "awesome" shots due to iso 400 noise (post processing can help, but can't solve that, in my experience.
Why do people get so worked up over photo topic stuff? Really, it is supposed to be fun, and I promise there are lots out there that are better and know more
than each of you (and you likely know more than me). As I stated first, I think the problem here is the title. It should be something like "How to get surprisingly
decent shots without investing in equipment a camera with less noisy high iso results and a sherpa to lug it for you."
thesparine says: Jun 2, 2007. 2:45 PM REPLY
Yeah, it's funny how people get "worked up" over photography stuff. I think its because it is a topic that easily lends itself as being attractive to people
that like to analyze numbers, what with all the different variables and possibilities. Then these nerdy number-crunchers comb message boards and try to
validate their many hours of analysis by "setting the record straight."
Whatever. I think it all just boils down to having a good eye, a camera that you understand how to use, and taking pictures. If you have an emotional
attachment to the image in a picture it really doesn't matter how nice of quality it is. I mean, who doesn't still have faded old pictures of great-
grandparents or something that they cherish? Would you try telling a person their heirloom pictures suck because they are out of focus? Nope.
Likewise when some stranger trashes a picture of my by saying "its got too much noise" I think to myself, "no, noise is what you are making."
ELF says: Jun 6, 2007. 2:18 AM REPLY
I think it all boils down to taking technically good photos :)
It's kind of a bragging right being able to get super sharp noise free photo's with great contrast and all... It also helps alot on being an eye-catcher
and all...
I personally love nice sharp photo's with no noise and all :)
I like your instructable, it IS "padded" and might not be too in-depth, but nearly all consumer cameras have direct or indirect control of the sensitivity
these days, so it would be nice for newbs, and it is also encouraging.
One thing I might add, is that it's not so clear, not even sure if you mention it, but it can help alot to hold the camera against something, like a pole or
tree or bench. I noticed you suggested leaning yourself against something, but pressing the actual camera against a rigid fixed object should do a bit
better. I usually do that :)
Another idea is to use a remote shutter and making a buttstock for holding the camera like a rifle, but I don't suggest that in paranoid USA...
and in extend to sassycrafters fine explanation. The fraction f-stop is actually explaining the fraction which represents the diameter of the
aperture/iris.
The formula for the area of a circle is pi * r
2 right?
Now, I don't know the exact formula or anything, this is just as an example. (It actually boils down to the relationship between focal length and the
diameter of the front opening, compared to the size of the CCD and stuff like that... :S)
but...
pi *(1/2,8)
2 = 0,4
2 = 0,1963
http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-take-AWESOME-night-photos-WITHOUT-a-tripod/
pi *(1/4)
As you can see, the at first, kind of "off" numbers actually follows a linear pattern for halfening the amount of light passing through each time. The
scale is rounded off each time though.
The scale, in full stops: 0,7 1 1,4 2 2,8 4 5,6 8 11 16
As you can see, it's a doubling of 0,7 and 1 each time up to about 16...
And yes, I'm a bit TOO mathematic I guess.. ;)
fitzhugh says: Jun 2, 2007. 3:46 PM REPLY
Ha, I must say I stand somewhat corrected, even though I didn't say you were wrong, just that the noise would make it not usable for me. Last night I
missed the second-to-last train home by minutes and had to wait nearly 2 hours, until 12:25 am, and while trying to find ANYTHING to avoid the idiot
asking everyone for ganja between idiotic monologues about world affairs (He had a serious misunderstanding, thinking California is a country - let's
leave it at that)... I remembered I had my camera with me. I took a large number of test shots, following your directions (assuming I recalled them, I
believe so since they were simple and common sense IF you knew to try them, not knocking them - your post's value lay in suggesting they would
work and to try them). I was quite surprised! \
-I did not have a tripod or even my beanbag, so I took shots holding the camera at iso 200 and 400 while holding the camera and at 50 with it sitting
on a granite bench. mistakenly typed 100 as the lowest iso for the a620 in previous reply, just wasn't thinking
-all pictures were taken with timer set of three seconds and set to take 6 pictures in a row. This way I avoided any shake from holding down the
shutter button when holding camera and let it settle when sitting on bench.
1) Even with my admittedly very shaky hands I got many more clear shots than expected - way more than 1-in-300, more like one in 5, and this was
with 1/10 second. Clear is in comparison to those taken with camera on bench at iso 50 with much longer exposures based on both overall
impression and viewing details at various magnifications on screen (both LCD and home computer - didn't waste paper printing).
-I found that in certain shots the noise difference was a lot less than I expected... I don't know why some seemed to have less noise, or at least the
noise was less salient (which is close to the same thing for what we're aiming for - not going for gallery art here)
-Holding the camera by my face resulted in nearly all useless shots. Holding it around the height of my diaphragm gave MUCH better results (the
a620 has an LCD that can be swung out and angled to just about any viewing angle, including for aiming self-portraits - a feature that is so useful I
almost never take a picture at eye level since usually a better shot is easier otherwise, though I would kill for a good LCD viewfinder or DSLR with
this feature - the a620 viewfinder is decent for a digital P&S camera since all I've seen suck)
-Based on reading road signs, large print train schedules and other sources of barely or almost legible text, point sources of lights, thin lines on metal
fences etc. I found the best of the handheld shots were almost as good as the shots taken with the camera at rest - the differences were very hard to
make out in that way. However, those best handheld shots were never quite as good as those from the camera at rest.
-the noise was a significant factor, but.... In about 1/5 of the sets of shots (a set being the same subject, both handheld and resting on bench) the
noise was low enough it did not greatly detract from the photo, though the rest it did... I could not tell well enough through the LCD to figure out what
the important factors were and have no idea. It was still there, of course, but not horrible to me.
So, I will now see this as a useful option for taking shots I'd otherwise miss, and isn't that pretty much what you were saying to begin with! I still see it
as significantly less effective than having a beanbag or tripod, but there I was with neither, as I had left even the beanbag when running out the door.
Not my first choice but more useful by far than I'd realized. I stand corrected, though I did not previously discount it as much as many.
Thanks!
Note - I'm not bothering to post the pictures of ugly train station - if you don't believe me go take some pictures and see. The pictures, though clear,
were utter junk since they were just test shots trying to find the right exposure.
thesparine says: Jun 2, 2007. 8:20 PM REPLY
Cool dude. I could tell you were an intelligent dude from the fact that you own the A620. That "swivelable" LCD screen is AWESOME. I agree with
you, I almost never take shots at eye or face level anymore because with that swivel LCD why would you? Just too bad the A640 and the A620
don't have image stabilization.
Anyways, I am glad you tried it, and I want to thank you for sharing your experience. I was actually quite shocked at the results when I tried it
myself, which is what made me write this in the first place.
The end result is simple: it is possible to take awesome night shots with your digital camera without using a tripod!
Take care friend
TriadX1 says: Jun 5, 2007. 10:51 PM REPLY
Good instructable. I have used a similar technique and have good luck. BTW, I assume your are in Omaha. I am in Omaha too...
sassycrafter says: Jun 4, 2007. 10:29 AM REPLY
"So is that the large F-stop number or the small F-stop number?" I have no idea. It is whichever setting makes the LCD the brightest as you adjust
it.
Regarding F-stop settings, the smaller the number means the bigger the opening and thus the more light getting into the camera. This is because the
number you see actually represents a fraction, i.e., 16 is actually f/16, where you insert the focal length of the lens for the f.
BTW - nice shots of Omaha!
http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-take-AWESOME-night-photos-WITHOUT-a-tripod/
thesparine says: Jun 4, 2007. 11:37 PM REPLY
Hey, thanks a zillion for your explanation of the F-stops... that always baffled me. And thanks doubly for the compliment on my shots of Omaha. Have a
nice day friend, and I appreciate the nice tone in your message....
cybergaar says: Jun 1, 2007. 5:27 PM REPLY
Great Instructable. Could pass for 35mm. Hope you win the laser cutter thingie!
thesparine says: Jun 2, 2007. 2:47 PM REPLY
Thanks man. I hope I win it too!
nwcurtis says: Jun 2, 2007. 12:14 PM REPLY
Thanks thesparine - this was really helpful & I will enjoy following up.
nvnusman says: Jun 2, 2007. 5:59 AM REPLY
First off, ignore the nay-sayers!
You warned up-front that this system wasn't for big enlargements or commercial purposes. This system relies on playing the odds that, out of multiple shots,
one will be acceptable. That's not an invalid method, especially in these days of "free" digital erasable film (buy once, use forever).
For those who would like to try your system. I'll offer some tips to improve the odds.
Let me explain that I've taking photos for over 40 years, spent untold hour in darkrooms and on night shoots and earned thousands of dollars doing so for
newspapers, while I also shoot for my own pleasure. I've shot everything from 8-mm to 120 rollfilm in a Hasselblad.
The enemy we're battling here is vibration, but most digital cameras don't present the vibrational challenge of a mirror flopping up and down that film SLRs
had (I suspect that some DSLRs do indeed have a flopping mirror, but their owners are probably not in the audience of this Instructable).
The prime source of vibration for you readers is the instability of the human body. Thesparine presents his/her system for overcoming it.
There are many other things a shooter can do to improve the odds. All the advice about leaning against a stable object is extremely valid.
Other time-tested methods include:
Spread your feet apart a bit to provide a wider base, take a breath, release it half-way and hold it, then gently squeeze the shutter button.
Do the above while leaning against and rail, wall, tree, etc. -- combining methods raises the odds. (If you were to check out hunting mags for advice on how
to make an accurate shot with a rifle, it would look prett much the same, as is the goal: a killer shot.)
Cheat the no-tripod rule by tying a plastic (as in non-stretchable) cord to a 1/4x20 eyebolt. Screw it (GENTLY!!!) into the tripod socket, step on the end on the
ground and put some tension on it. That will offset your body tremors somewhat. (Put it in your pocket between shots and remind yourself that you're NOT
using a tripod!) ... Search this site for "tripod" and you'll get a couple good instructables on this.
Using telephoto magnifications magnifies the shakes! Go wide angle and you shrink the shakes. Get up close and "zoom out."
Beanbags work! As does putting the camera in a stable situation and triggering it with the self-timer.
And, frankly, even a cheap monopod would make a big difference and they really aren't that debilitating, big or expensive. There are "walking sticks" with a
hidden tripod screw that collapse to a foot long and weigh ounces, not pounds.
Having come from the film generations, I'd rather shoot a few well-planned pictures than dozens of "maybe one will work" exposures.
But that's just me. The beauty of today's photo technology is that we have so many possible paths to what we want to capture. Experiment!!! Enjoy!!!
Innovate!!!
And tune out the nay-sayers who get more pleasure from cutting someone down than from expanding their vistas!!! You've got MY vote!
zcat says: Jun 2, 2007. 1:50 AM REPLY
my 2c.. if you use it like a digital (holding the camera in front of you and looking at the screen) you get really bad blur. Look through the viewfinder like an old
film camera and you end up holding it a lot more steady.
newuser says: Jun 1, 2007. 6:47 PM REPLY
For even better results get a Panasonic camera with manual adjustments and an image stabilized Leica 10X zoom lens for less money! They don't advertise
so much!
sorchah says: Jun 1, 2007. 4:18 PM REPLY
Smal number does wit da big hole, mate.
http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-take-AWESOME-night-photos-WITHOUT-a-tripod/
patryk.mirek says: Jun 1, 2007. 4:17 PM REPLY
Hi!
i'm also trying to make good photos in night, sometimes is VERY dark places such as clubs.
I've learned something since i've bought digital camera(about 2 months)
Here is my advise:
Find some stable terrain obstacle such as traffic sign pole, rock, car or even trash bin(everything that is suitable to hold Your hand a bit steadier) and use it
just like a tripod, use high(or highest ISO) available such as 800/1600/3200 i've made some good, clear photos using my 350d and usualy 70-200 lens(or
bundled one) even using loong exp times (more than 5seconds)
here's an example
i've found steady chair and a duct tape. Then i've attached my eos to chair, set an exposure time to 30" or even bulb(sic!) and used my remote control (old
C64 joystick+some parts) and shot some thunderstorm lightings:
( http://picasaweb.google.com/zagle.org/Burza )
Remember also to catch less light spots such as lamps etc -they also make photo look darker,
Also You can wrap tight this strip what is atached to camera around wrist
(or drink ONE (no more)beer -it helps a bit in small quantities)
ps. My english is not good as Yours but i'm trying ;)
superdude4agze says: Jun 1, 2007. 1:15 PM REPLY
Its a good think I have a Konica Minolta Z6... has this feature built in. Takes three pics in a row at different ISO speeds and I can set the aperture and
exposure myself at the same time.
w00t.
ferret2992 says: Jun 1, 2007. 1:52 PM REPLY
yup I have the konica minolta z10 and alot of nicer cameras especially the ones with ccds have this feature it's called bracketing =] it is very helpful
indeed
superdude4agze says: Jun 1, 2007. 1:25 PM REPLY
That it is... couldn't remember what it was called.
How long have you had your Z10? I almost got one but got a great deal on my Z6 couldn't pass up double the megapixels and extra features.
view all 86 comments