Help me take low-light images w/o flash.

K

KevC

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 21, 2001
Messages
6,365
Hey. I've got a Canon S230. Unfortunately, with our busy lives, we don't really get out much during the day, and I almost always take pictures of people :)

There's a bit of customisation with the camera, but I haven't really had time to play around with it and get nice photos out of it. I always slap it in 'auto' and let the camera do the rest. I figured that's the safest.

Anyway, I'm believing that you [H]ard|photographers can help me set my camera so it'll do well in lowish light situations without the flash (i really hate redeye, and a lot of my (prettier) friends have blue/green eyes).

Example: http://198.87.87.18/~edenws00/IMG_2134.jpg (warning, large file... ~1.3mb)

That was taken without a flash in a decently lit area (at least to my eyes). But notice all the NOOOIZEEE! Can somebody please tell me which settings to set (ISOs and etc) to get better images in low light without a flash? Thanks!
 
What you are asking for is impossible with the equipment you have.




The noise is the only thing keeping your pictures from being blurry. In this cases you WANT a high ISO so the shutter speed is fast enough to not give you blurry pictures. You can lock the S230s ISO at 50, its lowest setting, but then the picture would end up too dark.

What you are asking for could be done a little better with a camera such as the S50/60/70 since with manual controls you could do something like set the shutter speed to 1/30s/no flash/tungsten WB/ISO 100. You would still need a reasonable amount of light in that situation for the shot to not come out too dark. And my guess is, in that setting those cameras would be too big to carry around anyway.

The only REAL solution to getting the type of pictures you want would be to get a DSLR. 300D/D70 etc. and a $70 f1.8 lens. With such a setup you could get gorgeous indoor pictures with little noise, no blur, and pictures that aren't too dark.


A little less expensive option would be something like a used EOS D30 and the same type of lens.
 
Basically w/o the flash you have to set the ISO as high as possible and use the smallest F number available.
 
*sigh* Alright. Well, when all my finances are taken care of (sh~tload of loans) I'll definitely invest in a D70 or something of the like. But for now, I'll just ask to do things during the day, in the sunlight :)
 
You don't need a DSLR and a high apperture lens, but you will need a better camera. Get a camera with a hotshoe mount (Canon G series), and buy a hotshoe flash (Canon 420EX). You can take pictures with the flash and get much better results, but with the hotshoe flash you can bounce the light off the ceiling or walls. Even direct flash pictures with the hotshoe flash wont redeye because the flash is higher than the lens, but I like to bounce it off the ceiling for a more natural look. If you're outdoors in a place where you can't bounce the light, you can get a diffuser to go on the flash which softens the light and makes for a more natural look.

The only option with your current camera is to use high ISO setting, which will make for noisy pictures, or use a tripod and make everyone stay still for a longer esposure.
 
My wife, the photoshop expert helped me out with this, let me know what you think. If you like the work, I can tell you how it's done.

-PD

2134purduedoodmed.jpg


http://www.photographology.com/tfp/2134purduedoodmed.jpg (right-click, save as?)
 
agentzero9 said:
What you are asking for is impossible with the equipment you have.


The only REAL solution to getting the type of pictures you want would be to get a DSLR. 300D/D70 etc. and a $70 f1.8 lens. With such a setup you could get gorgeous indoor pictures with little noise, no blur, and pictures that aren't too dark.


A little less expensive option would be something like a used EOS D30 and the same type of lens.
Click to expand...

I mean....even having a dSLR and a fast lens isn't going to ensure that your shots will be tack sharp, noiseless, and bright if you don't use a flash ... you're still going to have to use a delayed shutter, but in SLRs, the flash is a lot more advanced and can adapt to certain situations, and is very good at preventing red eye (without having to resort to multiple fires).

Plus, compact point and shoots are amazingly good at autofocusing in low light, even without a focus assist light, whereas many SLRs are not. I almost always use flash when shooting snapshots, even with an SLR.

OP, I would just deal with the red eye or find a way to remove it. It seems preferred to blurry, noisy images.
 
mdude85 said:
Plus, compact point and shoots are amazingly good at autofocusing in low light, even without a focus assist light, whereas many SLRs are not.
Click to expand...

Point-and-shoots accomplish this by using a fixed focus/wide angle lens, like those found in disposable cameras. These cameras are set to focus on an area from ~3ft-Inf by default.

I have had a great deal of success with a 28mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.8 on a dSLR. These fast lenses are great, you just have to remember that with such a low fstop you will have a very shallow dept of field.

If you really want to shoot sharp, noiseless, low-light, non-flash pictures with a dSLR/midline PNS cam, look for a camera that uses software/hardware stabilization. I know that Nikon makes Nikkor lenses that can be handheld down to 1/8th of a second, assuming that you're good at handholding, and 1/20th of a sec if you're not.

-PD
 
agentzero9 said:
What you are asking for is impossible with the equipment you have.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I have taken good available light shots with a older 2.1mp sony cybershot. The trick to get rid of the noise is a LOW ISO setting (100 or less). with a little longer shutter duration. This will be difficult with people, because in order to get a sharp picture you would have to have the camera on a tripod, with no movement out of your subjects for probably 1-2 seconds.

It definately is possible!
 
Did you see the context of the picture at all? I don't think he is asking to carry around a tripod and for his subjects to be still for 1-2 seconds under those conditions. Also, a tripod is EXTRA equipment anyway. Thus, it is not possible with the equipment he has.
 
agentzero9 said:
Did you see the context of the picture at all? I don't think he is asking to carry around a tripod and for his subjects to be still for 1-2 seconds under those conditions. Also, a tripod is EXTRA equipment anyway. Thus, it is not possible with the equipment he has.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did. I was saying it WAS possible. One thing about this forum is that everyone thinks they know everything when really they are just passing on thier close minded opinion. How about telling someone how to make it possible instead of just saying it cannot be done and he has to spend $1000+ on different gear altogether...
 
mgw24 said:
Yes, I did. I was saying it WAS possible. One thing about this forum is that everyone thinks they know everything when really they are just passing on thier close minded opinion. How about telling someone how to make it possible instead of just saying it cannot be done and he has to spend $1000+ on different gear altogether...
Click to expand...
What are you arguing with agentzero9 about? He said that it wasn't possible to take sharp pictures at low ISO without a tripod, which he classified (rightly so!) as extra equipment. He didn't say it was completely and utterly impossible. He said it was not possible within the constraints he explicitly stated; constraints I assume he feels are more relevant to KevC's situation. Nobody here is going to say that you can't get sharp photos under poor lighting, it's just not possible without extra overhead, as you yourself admitted.

There's a difference between a "close minded opinion" and an explanation of the reality of the situation.
 
HorsePunchKid said:
What are you arguing with agentzero9 about? He said that it wasn't possible to take sharp pictures at low ISO without a tripod, which he classified (rightly so!) as extra equipment. He didn't say it was completely and utterly impossible. He said it was not possible within the constraints he explicitly stated; constraints I assume he feels are more relevant to KevC's situation. Nobody here is going to say that you can't get sharp photos under poor lighting, it's just not possible without extra overhead, as you yourself admitted.

There's a difference between a "close minded opinion" and an explanation of the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...

whatever dude...
 
Hey PD, that looks great! Could ya teach me how to do that?
 
I will compose a quick and dirty guide within the next few days. You'll get the first copy. :)

-PD
 
Awesome, awesome. Thanks a lot! My email's in the sig (kj DOT chen AT utoronto DOT ca)
 
mdude - Your image isn't loading for me (but my ISP has been known to be a pain for some personal IP addresses)

I'm not sure what I'm adding to the table, but I tried to get rid of the flourecent lighting in the upper right along with the removal of what I thought was excessive warmness... I ran this through NeatImage to remove noise, but the original was pretty good to begin with. Also, I nudged the levels because this was under-exposed by about 2/3 of a stop. I also desaturated the image a bit to make it seem cooler, but it took on some new dreaminess...

photochop_kevc_img2134_res.jpg



On thing you should be aware of is color balance. You may not notice color temperature with your eyes when you are there, but a camera is really sensitive to it. Color balance is based on color temp.

Anways, incadecent light is usually orange and warm. Daylight is blue and cooler. Flourecent light is usually green. And some gas sports lighting has really eratic color temperatures.

To "see" it with your camera, go indoors and set the color-balance to "daylight". But don't take important pictures with the wrong color balance set, because a lot of information is lost when you have to change it through a JPEG file.

Because of how the sensors on a digital camera are laid out, when there is a warm / orange color to everything (more red light), the blue and green sensors see less light, and they need to be amplified and make more noise to "balance" the final image. When color balances are cooler and/or more well distributed, more sensors see the light and the exposure comes out much better and less noisey. Something to keep in mind when you are shooting.
 
Sorry, the power went out sometime during the nite, rendering my server DOWN until I turned it back on. Image should load now.
 
mdude85 said:
Sorry, the power went out sometime during the nite, rendering my server DOWN until I turned it back on. Image should load now.
Click to expand...

wow, good job with the image... how'd you do it?
 
wow that looks good...

Maybe my server should go down now that yours is up...nice job! :p :)
 
To smooth out the noise I used a program called NeatImage. you may have heard of it ... I think it does a good job of reducing a lot of noise in images. Do a google search to download it -- you can download a "demo" copy that has basically the same capabilities as the full program except that you can't copy filtered images to the clipboard, you can only save them as files. Not a big deal to me.You can download Noise Profiles created just for your camera. The program can use your camera's profile to maximize noise reduction. But it works pretty well even on a D30 profile, which is what I was using.

As for the coloration, I tried to make it more natural by adjusting first the Curves in photoshop (Image > Adjust > Curves). Try to create a slight "S" shape with the curve... this helps lighten lights and darken darks, creating a more saturated image in your photos. Play around with curves to get the effect you want. Another thing to consider is the use of Level adjustments (Image > Adjust > Levels) . The Levels command works with the histogram to selectively cut parts from the extremes of the histogram, also creating a more or less saturated image. Do some research on histograms. For your image, I just moved the two outer level adjustments in some to creat a more saturated image.
 
Filtered image is very good.
As for equipment, get a monopod and set the ISO as low as it will go, and go for a slower shutter, could try using the fill-flash in the camera and see if that will help.
Another way is to make your own mini-diffuser for the flash, basically a piece of white paper or something and tone down the flash's effect.
 
I'm not a pro or anything, but if you need lighting and want to use a flash without a lot of glare, I find stepping back some distance and using the camera's zoom helps keep the flash from being a problem.
 
Well Kev try adjusting your white balance to, whatever light is present. And I like to use an ISO of 200 on my P&S. But Lethal is more correct on moving back and, using the flash. Also I use electrical tape on my pop-up flash and, using thin strips, I work from the center out. You can adjust the brightness before you go out. It really does work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top