Twilight

[TheRed1]

I would be interested to see different approaches to twilight photography. I don't usually make a habit of taking shots without some sort of direct or reflected sunlight since my camera doesn't have very good low-light performance. This evening, however, I decided to try some hand-held shots down at the battlefield. I'm enjoying the film-like quality I've been getting with wide open aperture and moderately high ISO.

To me it seems like the B&W film emulation setting allows me to bump up the shutter speed a stop or two. Is that really the case?

 

[mhainz]

They look pretty good. I guess the increased levels of noise which you get with the higher ISO settings would just look like film grain with the black and white setting. What camera are you using?

 

[TheRed1]

Fuji HS30EXR. I like just about every thing about this camera except for its low-light performance. Perhaps shooting at a lower resolution would help - I haven't tried that yet.

 

[onepixel]

Shooting at twilight is tricky even with a good low-light camera. The sky is still relatively bright compared to the surrounding landscape. The camera will meter the average light and often the sky will be washed out and or the foreground will be to dark.

If the image doesn't include the sky, then it works out better and it would be good to have a faster lens or tripod for longer exposures.

 

[TheRed1]

Did some proper experimentation this evening - first with hand-held at a medium resolution. My thinking is there should be more sensors per pixel at the lower resolution. Not sure it looks any better than yesterday's attempts. I also tried varying the ISO while leaving the other settings alone.

8:04 PM ISO 200; f/2.8; 1/25s; 3264x1836

8:05 PM ISO 400; f/2.8; 1/25s; 3264x1836

8:05 PM ISO 800; f/2.8; 1/25s; 3264x1836

ISO 1600 is quite grainy but still usable.

8:06 PM; ISO 1600; f/2.8; 1/25s; 3264x1836

Also took along a tripod to try some longer exposures using ISO 100. For this experiment I varied the resolution to see if I could tell the difference. Can you?

8:26 PM; ISO 100; f/2.8; 1/2s; 3264x1836

8:27 PM; ISO 100; f/2.8; 1/2s; 4608x2592

The shot that was most evocative of twilight turned out to be a somewhat long exposure as the light level was really starting to drop. I also took much longer exposures with the aperture stopped down but those were among the worst.

8:47 PM; ISO 100; f/2.8; 5s; 4608x2592

 

[old_tv_nut]

IMG_6523cr by old_tv_nut, on Flickr

Exif data


Camera
Canon EOS 50D

Exposure
0.008 sec (1/125)

Aperture
f/5.6

Focal Length
85 mm

ISO Speed
200

Exposure Bias
0 EV

Flash
Off, Did not fire

 

[TheRed1]

What was the local time when that image was taken, OTN? Your Flickr EXIF data shows 11:56 PDT but I'm guessing you weren't in Illinois when this was taken, (or at least I'm not recognizing that particular Lake Michigan shoreline.) Looks like the sun is just clipping the tops of those clouds.

After doing a little reading about the many different flavors of twilight, (civil, nautical & astronomical,) I realize some clarification might be in order. The series of four shots above from the 25th of July on the path in the woods were all taken well before sunset. While not officially twilight, the trees probably blocked enough skylight to approximate its effects. The next two of the Stone Bridge were shot almost exactly at sunset. Only the very last shot - taken at 8:47 - was twilight, (technically civil twilight).

Here is a series shot under partly cloudy skies after a rainstorm as ground mists began to rise. These were all shot on the 12th of September after sunset which occurred at 7:21 locally. To clarify: on this day civil twilight (or dusk) would have ended at 7:48; followed by nautical twilight (nightfall) ending at 8:19 and finally astronomical twilight ending at 8:52. These were taken with a different camera than my previous efforts - a Fuji X100S - which has much better low-light capabilities.

7:23 - just after sunset; ISO 3200; f/2.8; 1/85 s.; -2/3 EV; 35mm (equivalent)


7:35 - civil twilight; ISO 3200; f/2.8; 1/7 s.; -2/3 EV; 35mm


7:38 - civil twilight; ISO 3200; f/2.8; 1/8 s.; -1⅓ EV; 35mm; slow-sync flash


It would be interesting to shoot a sequence showing the same view - the horizon with some interesting clouds, perhaps - in each phase of twilight.

 

[old_tv_nut]

What was the local time when that image was taken, OTN? Your Flickr EXIF data shows 11:56 PDT but I'm guessing you weren't in Illinois when this was taken, (or at least I'm not recognizing that particular Lake Michigan shoreline.) Looks like the sun is just clipping the tops of those clouds...

This was taken on Maui and I didn't have the time set properly on the camera.
I believe the camera was set to Central Daylight Saving time, so Maui would be 5 hours earlier, 6:56 am. The ephemeris indicates sunrise at 7:03.

Edit: since I hadn't checked for a long time, there is no guarantee the minutes figure is accurate.

 

[old_tv_nut]

Here's one I've posted on AK before, taken within 15 minutes or so of sunset. The Ferris wheel had a line, so I tried to time entering to be on board 10 minutes or so after sunset.

09140337 by old_tv_nut, on Flickr

 

[TheRed1]

OTN, that is an incredible photo. I must have missed that one before since I'm certain I would have remembered it. Shot with a Casio QV-3000EX point-and-shoot, I see. That really drives home the point that it's not the gear, it's the photographer.

 

[old_tv_nut]

Thank you.

It received a comment about removing the porta-potties. I couldn't do a good job of that at the time, but maybe I will try again now that I have more experience with photoshop. I did try various cropped versions, but didn't like the composition as much as this one.

 

[old_tv_nut]

Porta-potties removed.

09140337edit by old_tv_nut, on Flickr

 

[addylo]

I love to catch that last fiery glow of sunset. It works best when you can silhouette an object in the foreground.

You can see Venus in the upper left corner of this shot.

Some clouds made an this a bit of visual interest.

And a crescent moon always add to the scene.

And mammatus clouds really make it pop.

 

[TheRed1]

It received a comment about removing the porta-potties. I couldn't do a good job of that at the time, but maybe I will try again now that I have more experience with photoshop. I did try various cropped versions, but didn't like the composition as much as this one.

What's a fair without porta-potties? I think it's fine as it is - especially since I know they were there and my eyes are drawn to the empty space where they were.

I love to catch that last fiery glow of sunset. It works best when you can silhouette an object in the foreground.

Those are beautiful images, Neal. The subtle gradation of colors and shades is especially nice. I agree it's a good idea to give the eye something in sharp focus to get a handle on and provide contrast with the wash of colors that is the twilight sky.

 

[old_tv_nut]

I checked the info on the last one (mammatus clouds) and see white balance was set to auto. Did you undo that in processing? A lot of cameras mistakenly try to take the orange out of sunsets if you don't set WB to daylight (or a special sunset mode). I also see you used manual settings and ISO 100, with a 1.3 second exposure if I read it correctly (must be on a tripod).

Very nice, all.

 

[addylo]

I wish I could tell you the PP steps in that last image. It was shot in 2009 and I was using a Nikon Capture NX software at the time (rather than my current Lightroom). I shoot in RAW so the NX changes were not saved with the image.

I pulled the image into Lightroom and the temperature "as-shot" in the untouched image reports 3950K. I can almost simulate the image PP in LR by bumping "Clarity" to +50, "Vibrance" to +50, and "Saturation" to +20. I assume I had made roughly the equivalent changes in NX.

BTW, I almost always shoot at ISO 100 since the Nikon D80 is notoriously noisy at higher ISO settings. I notice graininess even at 200.

 

[old_tv_nut]

I pulled the image into Lightroom and the temperature "as-shot" in the untouched image reports 3950K. I can almost simulate the image PP in LR by bumping "Clarity" to +50, "Vibrance" to +50, and "Saturation" to +20. I assume I had made roughly the equivalent changes in NX.

I wonder what result you would get if you set white balance to daylight first before adjusting saturation. Would you lose too much of the bluer areas?

Regarding ISO, if I'm not just accepting the program settings on the Canon 50d, I tend to choose ISO200, as I've seen results at ISO100 where I couldn't recover highlights in camera raw that I really wanted to after the fact. For example, some shots in the canyons at Starved Rock state park, where the canyon walls were mostly shaded but had some areas of direct sun. Seems like the chip saturates before the A/D at ISO100. The Canon also has a highlight priority mode that I should have tried for those canyon shots to see if it helps. I have not experimented with it, but I think what it does is basically dial down the light exposure by one stop and increase the gain by less than one stop, so the in-camera jpgs keep the highlights. Maybe it plays with the S-curve too. I have no idea what it does to the raw files. My usual way to handle highlights (if I have my wits about me) is by setting the exposure compensation so nothing important is blinking in the display. It is then always possible to recover things from the raw file.

 

[old_tv_nut]

What's a fair without porta-potties? I think it's fine as it is - especially since I know they were there and my eyes are drawn to the empty space where they were.

Well, now I'm sorry you saw the original - it's like, you never tell guests that you dropped the roast on the kitchen floor and cleaned it off.

 

[Zeromancer]

Nikon D3200 ISO-1600 18-55mm lens

RiverWalk Love by Solarity_1138, on Flickr

 

[Zeromancer]

Nikon D3200 ISO 1600 3 pic stitch

RiverPlace Night Panoramic by Solarity_1138, on Flickr