Low Light Trouble

Olthaus · Apr 23, 2013

Hello!

Okay so I feel like a dumby for asking this question buuuut here it is... Whenever I shoot in lower light conditions and I have to have a higher ISO, my photos come out super grainy (like this: Little Miss Luna - Imgur) I also have my aperture pretty low. I can't have higher settings because then the images come out too dark and I hate the look of my flash soooo what can I do?

Thanks!

KmH · Apr 23, 2013

It's called 'noise'. At some point using flash becomes mandatory.

Digital Camera Image Noise: Concept and Types

TCampbell · Apr 23, 2013

You didn't mention which camera you have nor anything about your settings so it'll be difficult to offer specific advice.

Some camera are pretty good at dealing with low light and yet keeping the "noise" to a minimum. These tend to better and more expensive cameras, but they do exist. My first DSLR (which was vastly better than any point & shoot I'd ever owned) could only shoot at about ISO 800 and have a chance of looking ok... above that and I'd have the noise you describe here (I'd have about this much noise at ISO 3200 on that camera). My current camera can shoot at ISO 12800 and still have less noise than this (but it's not a cheap camera.)

The lenses can also have a lot to do with it. Most cameras with a built-in zoom lens or a "kit" zoom lens are probably using f/5.6. Each "full" f-stop lower allows the lens to gather double of the amount of light. The next "full" stop down is f/4, the next stop below that is f/2.8, and below that is f/2 (you may be wondering why they aren't standard numbers, but they are based on powers of the square root of 2 (which we round to simply 1.4). That means an f/2.8 lens is collecting literally FOUR times as much light as compared to an f/5.6 lens. An f/2 lens is collecting literally EIGHT times as much light as compared to an f/5.6 lens. That's a HUGE difference.

Supplemental lighting can help. But as I noticed you have a lot of horse shots I'd be hesitant to use a flash near a horse unless I knew the horse could handle it without being spooked. In any case, if you only have a built-in flash, then it's understandable why you wouldn't like the look. Off camera flash with a nice broad source is a thing of beauty and can create stunning images.

Leave us some specs... let us know what camera you used and what ISO you were using. Also if this camera is a DSLR, some info on your lens, f-stop, and shutter speed would be very helpful. We can offer specific advice if we know what you have and what settings you're using.

bratkinson · Apr 23, 2013

I can only tell you from my own experience...the quest for good quality, low light photography without using a flash gets very expensive.

Starting with the exposure triangle: aperture size, shutter speed, and ISO, each has to be increased towards the maximum 'limits' of what you have.

Maximum aperture (lowest f-number) in the f2.8 area or lower. This will allow the maximum amount of light through the lens. Having the lens wide open, however, has other issues, such as narrow depth of field, or, as I think of it: plane of focus. Also, most lenses aren't their sharpest when wide open. Note, too, that f2.8 lenses and those down to the f1.2 range quickly become rather expensive. Name brand, fixed focal length (aka 'prime') lenses that are f2.8 and 'faster' (lower f stop number) start in the $400-ish range and go up from there. Zoom lenses that are f2.8 are correspondingly more expensive than primes.

Maximum shutter time, eg, slow shutter speeds. Dealing with living creatures, shutter speeds longer than about 1/125th of a second may cause a blur due to subject movement, even very minor movement. Even people 'standing still' may sometimes move just enough in that 1/125th of a second to cause a blur. Photographer hand movement is also an issue, so many lenses now have stabilizers to somewhat neutralize the effect of hand/camera movement. A tripod is best to prevent camera movement during longer exposures. As a tripod is frequently too inconvenient under some circumstances, I've managed to 'get away with' using a monopod while leaning against a wall or seated. Although I've done a fair amount of people pictures at 1/40th, 1/30th and even 1/20th of a second, the keeper rate is in the 'dismal' range with subjects due to movement. Think 1 in 20 or thereabouts.

Lastly is ISO, the 'speed' at which the camera records the image. As you have noted in your own pictures, the faster the ISO, the more multi-color 'speckling' occurs. This is referred to as 'noise'. Depending on what camera you are using, ISO 800 may be the practical limit before noise becomes too noticable. Other cameras, ISO 1600 or even 3200 produces relatively little noise. Most recently, cameras can shoot at ISO 5000 or 6000 with little noticable noise. As can be expected, the better-performing cameras don't come cheaply. However...most post processing programs available have some 'noise reducing' capability in them. They can correct some level of noise without causing additional problems of their own. So it isn't always necessary to buy a $3500 camera to get the top ISO speeds when a $1000 camera will suffice when noise correcting software can sufficiently clean up the image.

The obvious and probably the least expensive solution is to get an external flash and learn to bounce and diffuse the light produced effectively. Photography is all about light, regardless of what 'kind' of light it is. Learning to use that light effectively is what photography is all about.

Olthaus · Apr 23, 2013

Ahh I suppose a little info may help, huh?

I have a Nikon d50 with a 28-80mm lens, my ISO was at 1600, shutter speed was around 70, and aperture was set at f5.

Derrel · Apr 23, 2013

Well... the numbers are allll against you. First off....f/5. Ugggg...does not let in much light. And the D + 50 in D50....Ummm, not very good sensor performance on that camera at elevated ISO setting like.... 1600... and the shutter speed of 1/70....that's a fairly brisk speed for indoor or other low-light work...speeds like 1/8 second is more the speed range you should be using, using a tripod, or a table, or couch back, or "some" kind of camera steadying or support. 1/70 second at f/5 is not a "generous" exposure combo...the users of slower lenses like the 28-80 D-series Nikkor (which I actually own and have shot quite a bit) are basically going to have to 1) drop the shutter speed to an appropriate level and 2) deal with the blur from subject movement or 3) ask people to hold really still or 4) use bounce flash or diffused flash.

Flash-in-the-hotshoe-and-fired-straight-ahead...yeah...that does not look very good...but BOUNCED flash can look quite good!

You really would be helped by a "fast" lens, like a 35mm f/1.8 G-series, or maybe a 35/2 AF-D...both would let in a LOT more light, and would allow you to shoot at slightly better shutter speeds for preventing shake and blur, like say, indoors low light, f/2.5 or so at 1/20 to 1/40 second, and in better,daylight indoors in well-lighted rooms, even better exposures. Un til you get a "fast" lens, I would become best friends with 1/8 second....or meet your new BFF, Bouncey D. Flashey.

vintagesnaps · Apr 23, 2013

You shouldn't feel like a dummy asking your question, taking photos in existing low light is challenging. If you'll be taking photos a lot in horse barns you might need to think about a better option for a lens. With a shorter lens, light would not have as far to travel nto your camera as when using a longer lens. I don't know if using a flash is a good option to use around horses or not but if so that could obviously give you better lighting.

It looks like you did get the subject with light hitting it using what existed in the barn which is good, but I think our eyes can perceive existing room (or barn!) light as brighter than a camera records it.

To use existing low light you'd need to use a larger aperture setting. The aperture is given in fractions with for example f8 being a lens opening with a width the size of 1/8 the focal length - f2 would be a larger opening at 1/2 the focal length; f16 would be a much smaller lens opening at 1/16 etc. So with lower light you want your lens more open - I'd use something like 50mm at f1.8 or f2 or f2.8 depending on the lens and the meter reading showing when there was the necessary amount of light for a proper exposure.

I usually don't like to go slower than around 1/125 of a second as my shutter speed handheld. If in lower light and with a shorter lens I will use 1/60 as my slowest speed and stand so I'm supporting the camera enough. (A tripod could be an option if the horse is going to wait for you to set up! I've done sports/events and usually am moving around too much to carry around and set up a tripod.) I've braced my elbow against a wall, leaned on a ledge, etc. and developed a stance that would be easier to show than to describe but basically have my feet apart and my toes slightly in and shift my weight over my hips so my arms/elbows are in toward my chest/midriff area (if that makes any sense...)

You had a fairly high ISO too which can cause the noise so probably it will take trying different settings to find a good balance of ISO, shutter speed, and aperture that will work. If at some point you're considering a different lens you could consider buying used from a reputable dealer like KEH. Looks like it could be a lot of fun taking pictures at horse events.

im2c0ol · Apr 23, 2013

Faster prime lens plus a hot shoe flash bounce to the walls like sugested above will fix your problem. Indoor you dont want to go higher than f/2.8 aperture. Unless you're taking picture of still object you can use a tripod or leave your camera on a table or something still. F/5 is too high for indoor handheld. I find it difficult myself with 5D MkII with 70-200mm f/4L. If you want a fast zoom lens it ain't cheap and most are widest aperture is 2.8 which you may still need a decent hot shoe flash bounce off the wall. So for prime lens are cheaper wider aperture and better for portraits and landscapes you just need to figure out which focal length you mostly shoot.

KmH · Apr 23, 2013

What if the photographer wants a deeper DoF indoor than f/5 can provide, particularly using a normal focal length lens at a close focus point distance?
Using flash, the short duration of the flash of light stops camera shake and subject movement making it less likely a tripod would be needed, and using flash allows the use of smaller lens apertures.
Being a fraction, f/5 is a smaller number, a smaller lens aperture, and lets in less light than f/2.8.

Olthaus · Apr 23, 2013

Thanks for the replies everyone! It helped a lot and I think I've gotten the clarity I needed!

cynicaster · Apr 23, 2013

One of the biggest "eureka" moments I've had in learning about photography was the first time I put an external flash in the hot-shoe, and bounced it off a white ceiling in my basement--an environment that had up to that point been a photographic dead zone due to the low light and my utter hatred for pop up flash.