[skyline889]

I have a question for all you hardcore photographers out there. I have to shoot a "low key" (Black subject/Black background) photo for my photo class, so I was going to shoot my charcoal grey Odyssey at about midnight in a empty parking lot however, I'm going to need to use a shutter speed longer than 1 sec so the built in light meter won't work. At an aperture of F/16 how long of a shutter speed should I use? There are a few streetlamps around but there isn't much of a moon so please take that into account as well. Would it be better if I just use an F/1.4 and a faster shutter speed? I would rather not do that since the depth of field would be really shallow but I can only use a maximum of a ten second exposure since I don't have a shutter release cable to keep vibration down while pushing and releasing the button.

Thanks, David

 

[Arainach]

Measure the light for F/1.4 (or another F value) and just move along an exposure value table. Here's a few examples:

http://www.chem.helsinki.fi/~toomas/photo/ev.html
http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm

 

[skyline889]

Unfortunately my F2, won't allow you to take meter readings when it is set to "Bulb" which you need to use if you want an exposure longer than 1 second. Do you know if there is some way to roughly judge how long of a shutter speed you need without a light meter given the conditions?

Thanks

 

[Arainach]

Then Meter for some shorter shutter time, look at the Aperture it reccomends, look up those settings on the chart and then follow the line to F/16.

 

[Whorehay]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyline889 Unfortunately my F2, won't allow you to take meter readings when it is set to "Bulb" which you need to use if you want an exposure longer than 1 second. Do you know if there is some way to roughly judge how long of a shutter speed you need without a light meter given the conditions? Thanks

Don't set it to bulb. Use aperture priority. Set the aperture at whatever you want, probably F/2.8 or something. Then see what it meters in aperture priority.

Let's say it meters 1/2 second. Then calculate what you would need at F/16 or whatever aperture you choose. At F/16, it should be around 15"...

 

[majid]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyline889 Unfortunately my F2, won't allow you to take meter readings when it is set to "Bulb" which you need to use if you want an exposure longer than 1 second. Do you know if there is some way to roughly judge how long of a shutter speed you need without a light meter given the conditions?

If you are using a Nikon F2, you probably don't have aperture-priority exposure. Meter at f/1.4, then multiply the exposure time by (16/1.4)^2=128 to get the exposure at f/16. That's because at f/16 the aperture diameter is 1/16 of the focal length, and its area is proportional to the square of that, and the amount of light entering as well.

You may need f/16 for depth of field, but that's the point where diffraction is starting to reduce sharpness. Consider going for f/8 or f/5.6 as well.

Finally, depending on what film you are using, you may need to apply a corrective factor for reciprocity failure. Color films can also take a weird color shift. Velvia 50 would take a green shift at the kinds of exposures you are talking about.

Normally, this is the kind of situation that calls for an incident light meter, although you might want to overexpose and underdevelop to bring out the shadows.

 

[skyline889]

Quote:

Originally Posted by majid If you are using a Nikon F2, you probably don't have aperture-priority exposure. Meter at f/1.4, then multiply the exposure time by (16/1.4)^2=128 to get the exposure at f/16. That's because at f/16 the aperture diameter is 1/16 of the focal length, and its area is proportional to the square of that, and the amount of light entering as well. You may need f/16 for depth of field, but that's the point where diffraction is starting to reduce sharpness. Consider going for f/8 or f/5.6 as well. Finally, depending on what film you are using, you may need to apply a corrective factor for reciprocity failure. Color films can also take a weird color shift. Velvia 50 would take a green shift at the kinds of exposures you are talking about. Normally, this is the kind of situation that calls for an incident light meter, although you might want to overexpose and underdevelop to bring out the shadows.

Right now I'm actually shooting black and white with Ilford XP2 Super 400 (400 A.S.A/I.S.O.)

Thanks you guys for all your advice, I ended up actually shooting it before I got to read all most of it so I just kind of guessed and did some bracketing exposures. I shot it at F/8 and used a 4/6/7/10 second exposure time. It was parked right underneath an orange streetlamp and was surrounded by a few more as well, so hopefully one of these will come out, what do you guys think? Do you think it'll come out? BTW it's cloudy right now and about ten pm here so the sky in the back was pretty dark, decent lighting from the lamps though.

 

[Pepsione1]

Hey guys I think I found a really good site for lens review. I don't see much lens review sites out there and this is probably the best one or one of the best.


I also found this lens to go with the rebel xt if I decide to get a SLR. Wow it's damn expensive. What do you think? It's supposed to be a well built L series lense. Is there any other you would suggest?

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/143/cat/11

 

[beerguy0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pepsione1 Hey guys I think I found a really good site for lens review. I don't see much lens review sites out there and this is probably the best one or one of the best. I also found this lens to go with the rebel xt if I decide to get a SLR. Wow it's damn expensive. What do you think? It's supposed to be a well built L series lense. Is there any other you would suggest? http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/143/cat/11

The 24-70 is an excellent lens for a film or FF body, but for the Rebel XT you will likely find it to be not wide enough at 24mm. The 17-40 f/4L is a nice lens as well, and with the crop factor, covers the same nearly range as the 24-70. (27-64mm) It's one f/stop slower, but unless you plan to shoot w/o flash in marginal lighting, it should do well for you. I use the 17-40 on my 20D, and have been quite pleased with the results. You can pick one up for around $650 or so. Canon also sometimes offers rebates on this lens. Check the Canon website for current rebate offers.

 

[enzoferrari650]

Yeah, 24 might not be wide enough on the rebel xt. The widest I have right now is 28mm and I am in desperate need of a wider lens. Yes the 17-40F4L is a great lens (I used to own it) you won't be disappointed with it. But if you think you might want to go wider, you can always get the 10-22 for a little more than the 17-40L.

 

[beerguy0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by enzoferrari650 Yeah, 24 might not be wide enough on the rebel xt. The widest I have right now is 28mm and I am in desperate need of a wider lens. Yes the 17-40F4L is a great lens (I used to own it) you won't be disappointed with it. But if you think you might want to go wider, you can always get the 10-22 for a little more than the 17-40L.

Yeah, the 10-22 is a great lens. I've used it several times, and finally got my own just the other day. I've always been a fan of ultra-WA lenses, and it's hard to get really WA lenses for the APS-C sensors. I mentioned the 17-40 because it's close in FL range to what pepsione1 was looking at. Most of Canon's WA zooms are really made for film or FF digital, so many of them don't make sense for the Rebel XT, 20D, etc.

 

[Pepsione1]

I don't want to own too many lenses and certainly don't want to carry a lot when I travel. Two would be my maximum when travelling and one lense on the body when I am carrying the camera (don't want to lug extra lenses when I am touring a city during the day/night).


17-40mm seems very interesting but I wonder if I can still take some nice night shots without IS and the sweet spot for this lense starts at f/5.6 to f/8 (according to slrgear's lense review).


I am sure there are many other lense out there that isn't listed by slrgear.com

Can someone recommand another site?

 

[Pepsione1]

What about the lense that bundles with the Rebel XT?

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM


That seems like a very decent lense doesn't it?

 

[seeberg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pepsione1 What about the lense that bundles with the Rebel XT? Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM That seems like a very decent lense doesn't it?

They don't bundle that lens, it's a standalone product. The XT kit lens is an 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 EF-S "II". I would be a proud owner of an XT if it came with the 17-85mm IS right off the bat, as I probably wouldn't require another lens

,
Abe

 

[warpdriver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pepsione1 What about the lense that bundles with the Rebel XT? Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM That seems like a very decent lense doesn't it?

It's "ok". It's been a bit criticized for softness....if you want a good quality lens, the 17-40L will give you sharper pictures. The IS feature of the 17-85 *is* nice though. It's really too bad Canon still doesn't have a good quality mid priced mid range zoom like the 18-70mm Nikon has. There are a lot of dealers that do bundle the lens with the XT body and give you a bit of a price break, but there isn't a 17-85 "kit" per se.