[Fj]

I fancy trying to take some low light/night bouldering piccys, but dont really know where to start.
Anyone got any advice?
no flash / flash?
Colour / B+W?
How high ISO is high enough?
Also anyone know of a good compact digi camera which would be up to the job?
cheers.

[dave]

if you don't use flash or any other source of artificial light then you're going to need either long exposures or a very high ISO speed. long exposures won't work for climbing in a conventional sense unless your mates can hang a position motionless for ten seconds. High ISOs will invariably look shit, grainy and noisy if you're used to seeing daytime photos. of course you can do some noise reduction afterwards which may or may not be any good, but you may loose detail.

I would imagine that flash or some other light source is the way to go. still going to be hard to not look shit though. you could try putting camera on a tripod, go for a slow shutter speed with flash on the rear curtain, so you can get ambient light for the background, otherwise owt not in the flash will just be black.

[SA Chris]

 

What Dave said basically. Just go for big aperture to keep shutter speed down whenever you have the choice.

If you are going to do some shopping, a DSLR is probably your best choice for tricky light situations, as you are going to need good control. A decent flash is a good idea, especially one you can use off the camera or direct, to avoid harsh lighting.

Why is the light low? Time of day? Cave? Indoors?

[Houdini]

FJ's a fuckin' vampire that why!

[Fj]

awesome not everyday you get called a vampire. although i do work with numbers. 1 ah ah ah 2 ah ah ah 3 ah ah ah . . .  just fancied a bit of summer grit and nights about the only time cool enough. plus seen some awesome skate/riding pics shot with low light and thought i'd try something similar with bouldering.

[Jim]

Sorry, but Dave already has the 'count' title
Get yourself off the bbg south on a day like this, I recon the conditions will be right good. I'll let you know when I get back this evening

[toofatto boulder]

1- Keep the ISO as low as possible
2- If you need flash use rear curtain sync where possible so any blur is frozen at the end of the exposure
3- If you go for a compact Fuji get some awesome reviews for low light photography
4- Stick with colour and you can always switch to B+W

other than that I'd say Dave is spot on as well


good luck

don't forget to post the results

[toofatto boulder]

Here's the link i was looking for:


http://www.fujifilm.co.uk/digital/cameras/f10/?lpage=/digital/cameras/range.php

[Johnny Brown]

Timing is probably the crucial factor. You need to shoot when the sky still has some light in it, and preferably some colour and interest. Without additional light you're pretty much limited to sillhouettes.
If you're bouldering with a lantern the light from that can work well, otherwise use flash.
Either just use it to fill-in some detail to your sillhouette, or use it as the main light.
For main lighting on-camera flash usually looks shit, get a proper flash, and as a general rule the further away from the lens the better. A long extension cord or wireless control would be handy here.

[Fj]

cheers for the advice.
I ended up going for a low ISO colour film as suggested and got a small slave flash.
I've got a gas lamp but on my last experiment it threw all the background into darkness, so to keep the setting sun light and colours will need further experimentation.
Maybe its time to go digital.

[Johnny Brown]

I've got a gas lamp but on my last experiment it threw all the background into darkness, so to keep the setting sun light and colours will need further experimentation.

As I said - timing is the key to balance the two. Sounds like you waited too late - if it's that dark you'll probably find flash will only work in conjunction with a lonq exposure, tripod etc, in which case the climbers won't be able to see what they're doing without leaving torchlight trails everywhere...

[SA Chris]

I've got a gas lamp 

You could try taking photos of this? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036814/

[Jim]

2 drums and a cymbal just fell off a cliff....

[Fj]

Just scanned the results from my first night film.
They're not scanned or saved at a great res so excuse the quality.
We've been getting out too late to get sunsets like JB's but I'm fairly happy with the results.

and this one which isnt great but i like it.

[Johnny Brown]

Latest effort with the new digi and wireless flash...

[SA Chris]

nice! Time to add that to my xmas list. I have a nice beefy flash I never use.

It was a full moon the other night, so I walked down to the coast behind our house and had a play around, came up with this;



Not the best of results, but something to work on now that I know its feasible. Shot at ISO 200 and F3.5 for 30 secs. Need to sort out focussing I think, and get a shutter release so I can take longer exposures (30 sec is the max I can set to on manual).

[Paul B]

Really nice pic!....Maybe that dirty hole looks better at night 

[dave]

do nikon sell anything to remove the Evolvs from shot?

nice shit. is that flash the 600 or 800?

[Johnny Brown]

SB-600. The advantage of the SB-800 is a bit more power, strobe and it can act as the commander unit for wireless; the SB-600 can only do slave. On the D-200 and D-70 the built-in works as the commander unit though.

Over-priced though, my olympus unit is smaller, with the same output, easier controls, a lot cheaper but no wireless. I may well ditch Nikon quicksmart if the next E- pro body looks good.

NB - there is actually no need for wireless to achieve this shot. A 3m+ long cable would work just as well, in fact it would give more flexibility as the remote flash has to 'see' the commander in wireless - i.e. it has to be well in front of the camera without appearing in shot. As long as you have a digital to take a few shots first to get it looking right, you're away. The main advantage I see of wireless is that your club-footed mates can't trip over the wires and bring down a months wages quicker than you can say 'you clumsy twat'

[dave]

On the plus side, you didn't have to buy and carry a 3m cable up there. if you had 2 flashes on the go would that still be possible with cable or a ballache?

I can't say that a 600 doesn't tempt me. it seems a no-brainer over the 800.

[Johnny Brown]

It does the job, but I'm not impressed with the size, price or control interface. If I was you I might go for a 2nd hand last generation flash and a cable.

2 or more flashes are fine as long as you have the cables - in fact in the venn diagram of multi-flash, what you can do wireless is definitely a sub-set of what you can do with cables.

[dave]

It does the job, but I'm not impressed with the size, price or control interface. If I was you I might go for a 2nd hand last generation flash and a cable.

Aye, i've heard thought that the old d-ttl system was shite with digital cos it was setup to work off the film idea of measuring light reflecting off the film, which don't work with digital reet well cos a sensor don't reflect the same as film. hence the new system uses preflashes instead. these new flashes (600, 800, presumably 400) are supposed to be a lot better than say and old flash with a D100. not to mention the post-D70 i-ttl cameras can only use the old flashes in manual mode or some shit like that anyway. I for one don't want to be stood there with a tapemeasure and a pen and paper everytime i wanna fill some shaddows.

Of course, if you wanna ditch your 600 in favour of a last gen flash, or even a tray full of gunpowder, then I'll happily give you twenty magic beans for it.

[Johnny Brown]

not to mention the post-D70 i-ttl cameras can only use the old flashes in manual mode or some shit like that anyway.

My god you're right. What a crock of shit - so much for Nikon's backward compatability.

Whilst I'm on it, worst feature of the D200? The little blind you are supposed to swap for the eyecup in the unlikely event that you might want to take a picture without it squashed aginst your face. Even my first ever SLR, an OM20, was designed not to need such drivel, and all my subsequent cameras either don't need it or at least have the blind built in with a switch. Not my state of the art D200, it would be easier to wedge my johnson against the viewfinder.

[dave]

i've got one of those viewfinder cover things anall. needless to say its never left the box. if i did take it anywhere I would certainly lose it. lucky I tend to carry my hand most places i go, which can be pressed into service for the same effect.

whats the viewfinder size like on the d200, decent?

[cofe]

it would be easier to wedge my johnson against the viewfinder.

you'd probably need to use something else as well though to cover the whole thing up.

the digi/film flash thing is the same with canon. you see millions of the old top end flash knocking around 2nd hand cos everyone has opted for the 111001101111001001010000101111 way of life. ttl. e-ttl. e-ttl2... etc etc. there's even a slight difference with how the consistency of the 550ex and the 580ex on digi cos of how they work (which ultimately escapes me).

it seems no manufacturer can get it right. when will canon build a master unit into their cameras? not in the near future when you can sell a transmitter for £200 or a capable flash for £300.

i'm personally pretty pleased with the results i get with the off camera cord, which can easily stretch to 2m or just over. and if you don't have a tripod just get someone else to hold the flash.