Low Light Shooting

[thunderkyss]

Long story short, I have trouble taking good pictures in low light with a DSLR. It upsets me when I can get better pictures with my cell phone than I can with the SLR.

This was taken with my Galaxy S3 in auto.

I can't tell what settings were used as I can't find the information stored anywhere on the phone. However, I do know the highest ISO sensitivity listed in the settings menu is 800. Again, I took this photo using the auto setting (including auto flash).

This was taken with my daughter's D100 on P

The settings recorded by the camera were
P 1/60 f5.6 ISO 1250 WB auto Tone: Auto Sharpness: High Color Mode: 3 Flash Mode: D-TTL


Overall I'm pleased with the D100 image just as much as the Galaxy image. But I don't know why that D100 image looks as good as it does. I've got other pictures taken with similar lighting that doesn't look that good. But, let's save that for another day.


This was taken with the D3000 I just got for myself. Also on the P setting.

The settings on the camera were:
P 1/60 f5.6 ISO1600 WB auto 28mm


This is normally what my pictures look like even on the D100 in P indoors with ~warm lighting.

I decided to put the settings from the D100 into the D3000. They were pretty much the same anyway, except ISO. So I switched to the M mode. Adjusted the shutter speed to 1/60, the aperture to f5.6, the ISO sensitivity to 800 (I don't have 1250 option on the D3000)

No surprise, the image is darker than the P mode image since the only thing I did was reduce the sensor sensitivity. Basically, here's my question. What can I do with the D3000 to get an image as good, or at least close to that taken with my Cell Phone. The D100 will be leaving soon with my daughter.

 

[DannyLewis]

try tv with a slower shutter speed on a tripod. or av with open aperature in manual slower shutter speed would fix it and bring in the needed light

 

[thunderkyss]

try tv with a slower shutter speed on a tripod. or av with open aperature in manual slower shutter speed would fix it and bring in the needed light

That makes sense. But, why would the D3000 need more light than my cellphone or even the D100?

Now, tomorrow night is Christmas Eve. We're getting together at the sister-in-laws. I'd hate to have to set the camera on a tripod just to snap a few moments.

 

[keith foster]

Have you checked to see if someone has inadvertently set the exposure compensation to a minus setting?

 

[thunderkyss]

Have you checked to see if someone has inadvertently set the exposure compensation to a minus setting?

I made sure flash exposure & exposure were both set to 0 on both cameras & the phone.

Thanks.

 

[SCraig]

Now, tomorrow night is Christmas Eve. We're getting together at the sister-in-laws. I'd hate to have to set the camera on a tripod just to snap a few moments.

It does have a built-in flash, does it not?

 

[thunderkyss]

Now, tomorrow night is Christmas Eve. We're getting together at the sister-in-laws. I'd hate to have to set the camera on a tripod just to snap a few moments.

It does have a built-in flash, does it not?

The last two photos were taken with the speed flash.

 

[SCraig]

Now, tomorrow night is Christmas Eve. We're getting together at the sister-in-laws. I'd hate to have to set the camera on a tripod just to snap a few moments.

It does have a built-in flash, does it not?

The last two photos were taken with the speed flash.

According to the EXIF data in the last two photographs the flash did NOT fire, and it certainly does not look like it fired.

 

[thunderkyss]

How did you do that?

I was certain the flash fired.

 

[SCraig]

How did you do that?

I was certain the flash fired.

I use an EXIF reader for Firefox. Specifically FXIF which allows me to right-click an image and see part of the EXIF data that is embedded when it is shot showing the exposure information. As I said though, it certainly doesn't look like it fired either. There is no bloom of light to give any indication that a flash fired.

 

[thunderkyss]

How did you do that?

I was certain the flash fired.

I use an EXIF reader for Firefox. Specifically FXIF which allows me to right-click an image and see part of the EXIF data that is embedded when it is shot showing the exposure information. As I said though, it certainly doesn't look like it fired either. There is no bloom of light to give any indication that a flash fired.

Thanks for the info. I've installed it... pretty cool.

I'm going to try it again tonight. I could have sworn I tried to get the settings as close as possible. I can't imagine I allowed the flash to fire on one, & not the other.

 

[dewey]

Forget the P setting... go to the M and work it until you're satisfied. You either need more light (flash etc) the shutter needs to stay open longer, or it needs to be open wider. Assuming you're using the kit lens a longer shutter or more light are the best option.

With the manual mode set the aperture as wide as possible and start playing with the shutter speed. In a garage like that you might be talking 1 second for a nice, crisp photo and no flash with that lens.

 

[thunderkyss]

Forget the P setting... go to the M and work it until you're satisfied. You either need more light (flash etc) the shutter needs to stay open longer, or it needs to be open wider. Assuming you're using the kit lens a longer shutter or more light are the best option.

With the manual mode set the aperture as wide as possible and start playing with the shutter speed. In a garage like that you might be talking 1 second for a nice, crisp photo and no flash with that lens.

Good idea. I've actually tried that, and never got there. So I put the camera in P mode to find out what the camera liked. I found that the major difference came in adjusting the iso value.

So what I'm trying to do now, is get all that worked out in my head.

 

[thunderkyss]

Something else I didn't mention, but thought might be the key, was the lense I was using. The D100 has a 28-200mm lense in the above photo. The D3000 has a 28-90mm lense. Neither have the built in focus motor, so on the D3000 I'm having to do it manually. Thankfully it has that little green "in focus" light.... found out what it was by reading the manual.

So anyway, today I decided to try both lenses on my D3000 & see what a difference that makes. I'm a little confused, because these pictures also came out pretty decent & I've done nothing "different" from what I've done in the past. These pictures came out better than what I was getting last night. The sun is up now, so maybe the ambient light is better, but since it's cloudy I wouldn't have thought so.

Anyway, this is my cell phone, no flash.

This is the D3000 with the 90mm lense

This is the D3000 with the 200mm lense

To me, it looks like the 200mm lets in more light & that may account for the differences in the three photos in the OP. It may also be the reason the cell phone gets such a good picture as it's design simply allows more light.

The lenses were set at 50mm & because of that, it was difficult to keep it in focus (that's my story & I'm sticking to it) as there was a little jitter going on. I think the colors look best on the 90mm lens, worse on the cell. But the 90mm is definitely the darkest (& maybe that's why the color looks richer).

These two pictures were taken in P mode, I didn't record the settings since I have FxIF now, I figured I'd get it later.

 

[SCraig]

Forget the P setting... go to the M and work it until you're satisfied. You either need more light (flash etc) the shutter needs to stay open longer, or it needs to be open wider. Assuming you're using the kit lens a longer shutter or more light are the best option.

With the manual mode set the aperture as wide as possible and start playing with the shutter speed. In a garage like that you might be talking 1 second for a nice, crisp photo and no flash with that lens.

Good idea. I've actually tried that, and never got there. So I put the camera in P mode to find out what the camera liked. I found that the major difference came in adjusting the iso value.

So what I'm trying to do now, is get all that worked out in my head.

Adjusting the ISO will make no more or no less difference than adjusting the aperture or the shutter speed, it will make an exactly identical difference. The ISO, aperture, and shutter speed form what is commonly referred to as the "Exposure Triangle" (Google it, there are thousands of examples). Doubling or halving the ISO makes one full stop of change in the exposure. Doubling or halving the shutter speed also makes one full stop of change in the exposure. Doubling or halving the aperture also makes one
full stop of change however the numbers are not linear. For a list of how the f/stop numbers align check This Page.

As to a complete beginner using manual mode to get started I disagree with that method although millions of photographers managed to start out that way, myself included. Cameras did not always have automatic modes or even built-in light meters so we had no choice but to learn by picking our exposures, having the film processed, and then wondering why everything was completely blank with no internet to ask for assistance. My recommendation is a combination of both. Pick the values that you would have used in manual mode, but shoot in Programmed Auto ("P") mode and compare numbers. The camera is going to be pretty close so then decide why it was so much closer to being right than you were. This way you don't miss the shots that you wanted to get but you still get the learning experience of practicing learning the exposures.

Keep in mind that any given EV (Exposure Value) can be expressed with many combinations of aperture, shutter speed, and ISO as long as the total exposure (the combination of aperture, shutter speed, and ISO) is equal. For example, f/8, 1/400 second, and ISO 3200 can be replace by f/4, 1/800 second, and ISO 1600 since they provide an equal exposure (if I added things right).