Yet Another Cycling Forum
Random Musings => Gallery => Phototalk => Topic started by: MikeFromLFE on 09 February, 2018, 10:04:34 pm
-
I'm going on a 'Northern Lights' cruise shortly (Mrs M's bucket list) and will be taking one or more of my analogue 35mm film cameras - probably a bridge camera, possibly my Olympus AZ300 or Chinon Genesis (but there's lots of other options).
As I'm a snapper, not a photographer I'd like some advice on how best to capture the auroras (assuming we actually see anything)
I'll be using ISO200 bog standard colour film. What f stop and length of exposure would the gallery suggest? And if it's otherwise pitch black does the exposure time really matter?
(Please don't say 'digital' - that's not the question!)
Sent from my P01W using Tapatalk
-
I should imagine you'll want to minimise exposure time if you're on a moving boat.
-
Never done it myself but this site (https://petapixel.com/2014/04/18/beginning-photographers-guide-photographing-northern-lights/) recommends this:
Set your ISO between 800 and 3200, your aperture between f/2.8 and f/5.6, and your shutter speed at between 15 seconds and 30 seconds. Note that shutter speeds of above 15 seconds will result in slight star movement. You’re ready. Lock you mirror up, compose, and shoot. If you end up with a slightly overexposed or underexposed image, play with a combinations of these settings until you get the exposure to where you want it.
This is aimed at digital users but the principles are the same. So at 200ASA you're going to need the lens set at max aperture with suitably long exposures. Bracket if you can afford the film.
This place seems quite comprehensive. (https://www.davemorrowphotography.com/2014/10/how-to-photograph-northern-lights.html)
-
The main thing you will need is a tripod and if possible a remote shutter release of some kind as your going to be taking exposures multiple seconds long and you cant hand hold steady for that long.
-
Thanks all - that's the sort of info I wanted :thumbsup:
I've read (somewhere) that bracing the camera against the hardware of the ship (handrail / bulkhead) is more effective than using a tripod - there was a comment that this can result in a more stable camera as the tripod has potential to slip. I have however ordered a tripod.
I'm still debating with myself which camera to take, and this info hasn't helped! My instinct is to take the most modern camera in my collection, but the info given makes me wonder whether one of my proven 1960s German lumps. I'm torn between my Praktica MTL5 (which is untested, and scares me) and the Olympus IS200 (which I know works, has a very adjustable shutter speed, but when using the manual shutter speed locks to f8)
-
I know you said not to say digital, but, wait a sec.....
If you have a digital camera and took it with you then you could take some pictures with it to establish whether the exposure settings that you're going to use are in the right ballpark. The either use those settings with some confidence that you are going to get something usable or make some adjustments to suit.
-
I know you said not to say digital, but, wait a sec.....
If you have a digital camera and took it with you then you could take some pictures with it to establish whether the exposure settings that you're going to use are in the right ballpark. The either use those settings with some confidence that you are going to get something usable or make some adjustments to suit.
Hmmm Good point! :thumbsup: The only digital camera I've got is an Aldi / Medion camera with a screen rather than a viewfinder - this will indeed serve the purpose that you describe. I can set the ISO & the f stop on the digital (I've ordered some ISO800 film based on the advice above) and get a 'good clue' as to where I'm heading. In effect using it as a sort-of-kind-of-lightmeter-thingy.
Thanks
-
I am no photographer!
I can't see how you can get a sharp image from a LONG exposure on a boat, whether you use a tripod or brace the camera onto fixtures and fittings.
Maybe I'm just a (seasick) pessimist!
-
Why bother?
Seriously.
Why not just enjoy the Aurora? You won't do it justice on film. We all basically know what it looks like, so why not just enjoy the experience?
My Wife was in Finland for the biggest Solar-Flare Aurora in decades but her photos, by her own admission, don't do it justice.
Don't bother (unless you can convince me of a reason to take substandard photos of something you really won't do justice to).
It will be much better in your memory and nobody really wants to see your photos of it (because we know what photos of it look like).
Too brutal?*
* I just don't see the point in competing with the professionals on this. It's just soooooo specialised. What are you hoping to achieve? You'll miss the moment messing with camera settings.
-
Lots of people do lots of things that professionals do better.
-
Lots of people do lots of things that professionals do better.
True but many of those things I'd probably rather have done by a professional*
* Heart Transplant. Aeroplane wing rivets..etc.
I'm just wondering why there's a need for more sub-standard** photos of the Northern Lights. Why not just experience the majesty of them without the distraction of faffing with a camera?
** You really won't do them justice
-
So, once a great photo of the Aurora has been taken, everyone else go home without taking a photo. For ever?
-
LEE poses an interesting and valid question, not unlike one I've asked myself on occasions. You only need to look at any TdF stage and you'll see a mass of phones (and a few cameras) but very few faces!How much of the race do they see or experience? The snaps they will get (and I've had) are rubbish. There is a modern school of thought that seems to say 'if it's not on my phone it didn't happen'.
So why do I want to try to photograph the Northern Lights on this holiday?
It's the same reason we photograph anything - a record of our passing through time, trying to preserve a memory, and man vs machine.
Since I've started collecting cheap film cameras I've always tried to use them - as with bikes - I don't one that doesn't work! Apart from the oddness of attempting to control the light reaching the emulsion, there's a sense of not knowing what memories the camera had captured in the past - what weddings and holidays it had been to.
So while I still maintain I'm not a photographer, I have an interest in the process and the challenge of making an acceptable image with limited (& maybe challenging) resources - this trip to Norway is a once in a lifetime opportunity to try a different challenge, with a different type of light and environment.
I do hope I will also stand back and wonder too.
Sent from my P01W using Tapatalk
-
I have consulted my resident astrophotographer.
He agrees film is not sensitive enough.
You either need a tripod on terra firma or digital.
Sorry!
I fully understand your need for an 'I was there' photo you take yourself but boats and long exposures don't make a sharp or stable image.
[ETA] We had similar discussions around the 2006 Solar Eclipse, when some friends were observing from cruise ships. This eclipse was fairly close to midday and so short exposures were possible, but boats rock...
-
Thanks Helly - we have a couple of nightime trips where we will be on solid earth, so I'll reserve my follies for those trips.
(I've found an archived web site which gives advice on film photography of auroras in Alaska using iso800 film: the link is on the computer at home)
Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using Tapatalk
-
Cruise ship would seem better suited to timelapse photography than long exposures. I suppose that means digital, unless you're going full hipster 8mm.
As for taking photos of things that other people with far more skill and better cameras have done already: To have a go and maybe learn something from the challenge; to make a personal record of an experience; to illustrate your writings or social media ramblings with authenticity and avoiding copyright issues; because you happen to like playing with photography toys. Probably plenty of other reasons I haven't thought of. It's like climbing a mountain, writing a cryptography library, building a model railway or peering through a telescope.
-
I know you said not to say digital, but, wait a sec.....
If you have a digital camera and took it with you then you could take some pictures with it to establish whether the exposure settings that you're going to use are in the right ballpark. The either use those settings with some confidence that you are going to get something usable or make some adjustments to suit.
Hmmm Good point! :thumbsup: The only digital camera I've got is an Aldi / Medion camera with a screen rather than a viewfinder - this will indeed serve the purpose that you describe. I can set the ISO & the f stop on the digital (I've ordered some ISO800 film based on the advice above) and get a 'good clue' as to where I'm heading. In effect using it as a sort-of-kind-of-lightmeter-thingy.
Thanks
you can get quite good lightmeter apps for a smartphone - I use mylightmeterpro, its four quid.
-
Cousin and family are at Tromsø and just posted this on Facebook...
(https://scontent.flhr2-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/27858901_10155401031491295_5653387364084494577_n.jpg?oh=9ccb35511fbacbfbcc9d966afb6024f1&oe=5AD88E8D)
I think photo was taken by Mrs Cousin.
Mr Cousin is Photography graduate from London College of Printing.
-
So, once a great photo of the Aurora has been taken, everyone else go home without taking a photo. For ever?
No, but don't miss the actual experience by messing with tripods and camera dials.
I have some photos of Marcel Kittel crossing the line in a frantic Tour de France sprint last year but I actually didn't witness it. I saw an interrupted version of it as my camera mirror flipped out of the way.
Admittedly the Kittel moment lasted about a tenth of a second and, if you're lucky, you get hours of Aurora. Just make sure you take the photos of it AFTER you've had enough of actually staring in awe at it.
-
Having said that, the photographer for the shot above posted that the photo was more impressive than the sight.
I suppose that's the effect of a long exposure.
-
Having said that, the photographer for the shot above posted that the photo was more impressive than the sight.
I suppose that's the effect of a long exposure.
Ah yes. I'll add "allowing you to appreciate details you wouldn't have at the time". Usually that's just because a photograph freezes a moment in time, but sometimes the camera is actually better than the eye.
-
As above, on land, with a tripod and cable release. Also use the widest lens you've got, manual focus on infinity. Using a digital to take some tests and get the exposure right is a good idea as a light meter will be a poor guide in these conditions. In the film days people used to swap the camera back for a polaroid back.
With a wider lens you will get away with a longer exposure, something like 18mm on 35mm film would be fine at 30s; if you've only got a 50mm lens hopefully it goes to f/1.4 or so as you'll need less than 10s exposure to avoid blurring the stars.
Oh, and like Helly's cousin's photo, make sure you have some land in shot for scale.
-
Having said that, the photographer for the shot above posted that the photo was more impressive than the sight.
I suppose that's the effect of a long exposure.
Ah yes. I'll add "allowing you to appreciate details you wouldn't have at the time". Usually that's just because a photograph freezes a moment in time, but sometimes the camera is actually better than the eye.
Hmm. Mebbee.
I've been to Iceland a couple of times, and seen the real thing and appreciated it.
I think most Aurora photos you see on the Internet are photoshopped to hell.
I agree with the general point that sometimes you need to focus on the event, and not the fiddling about recording of it with devices.
-
Take photos of people taking photos of the Aurora (don't use flash). Sit back and enjoy the Aurora.
-
I think I'm with Lee on this one. There are a few special life experiences, that a DIY recording of just can't do justice, so just rely on the wonderful memory. For me, it was hearing the organ played at St Sulpice in Paris, my Tascam recorder and Sony or Rode mics couldn't have done justice to the sound and feel of that organ, and the atmosphere of the cathedral, so I just treasure the memory instead. Unless you have the skill and equipment to reliably get top quality photos or video of the aurora, I think I'd just concentrate on enjoying the experience.
Each to their own, however!
-
Take photos of people taking photos of the Aurora (don't use flash). Sit back and enjoy the Aurora.
The analogue photos should be back with me on Monday - the digital ones were rather 'meh'! If you hear no more then the analogue ones were rubbish too.....
I had this advice at the back of my mind all the time were these words of advice. The aurora we saw were present for extended periods, so there was no real problem in doing both - taking a few snaps and at the same time enjoying the spectacle. In taking the photos I did learn about a whole new level of cold-inflicted pain in my hands.
I got talking to a professional photographer who was on the cruise and he did manage to produce some spectacular digital shots - but on the other hand there were quite a lot of folk with expensive cameras set to 'auto' who were complaining that they couldn't get the lights on their cameras - even after a tutorial talk on the ship prior to the land based evening trip!
-
I don't envy your hands! Metal is very good at drawing heat away and even gloves with ¾ fingers wouldn't really help. I've given David my knitted 'fingerless + mitten hat' gloves but I doubt they would have been enough for you!
-
Well the pictures weren't as dire as predicted - maybe not great, but not embarrassing!
Attached are a sample of the 30+ I got back.
Three of these were on land, one from the ship.
The land based ones were with much longer exposure on a tripod - counted 5 - 15 seconds*, whereas the ship one was 'flash' (1/30?) No tripod, (but camera held rigid with string to my foot with string). All with ISO 800 film. No post processing at my end. The camera was a Praktica MTL5.
As a snapper - I'm pretty pleased with what I got.
*I had a remote shutter release, but my hands were too cold to screw it in. (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180318/e4a45260a9c1b3f15f6ca177d306a366.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180318/616d2a65d7a67405c4d11569047d903c.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180318/7423b152280e33e2815482b4d1f337ac.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180318/6d076be3138aad4512039231764c829a.jpg)
Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using Tapatalk
-
To put things in perspective my Wife took this in 2012, in Finland, hand-held, on my cast-off (and totally unsuitable) Canon A495 (£49 new in 2011).
1600 ISO (2 sec exposure) which was the very maximum on that fully-Auto camera, hence the dreadful noise.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/800/40168443784_29051322ac_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/24cxLTA)
It serves as a memory that she was there but nothing else. It's such a combination of luck and the right equipment that you're on a hiding to nothing unless you have both.
The best Aurora images are so spectacular that almost everything else looks totally "meh". I'm impressed that she managed to get this with that old "snapper".
You have souvenirs that you were there which is always nice.