Help with options for low light night time street photography

[dbbowen2]

I am giving a second go at low light street photography where the area is illuminated by a few street lights and some flood lights. No other light sources available and no flash.

Last week I tried shooting Reflx Labs 800T at box speed and got somewhat decent results but had to shoot my lenses wide open, and at slower shutter speeds… which resulted in a lot of missed focus and shaky images.

The 35mm lens I actually want to use goes down to f2 and unless the conditions were perfect, the light didn’t allow for wide shots.

I have an 85/1.2 that I had to switch over to, but even then I had to shoot at 1.2 or 1.4 which didn’t give me the dof I was looking for. And I had to back up pretty far to get any usable shots


This weekend I am hoping to try one of these 3 options:

Portra 800 pushed to 1600
Portra 400 pushed to 1600
Portra 400 pushed to 3200


Does anyone have any experience with these? I’ve never pushed film before and could use some tips or guidance.

My thought process with pushing the film is I can get back a stop or two of aperture or ss to either allow the use of my 35mm lens or get better dof and more of the scene in focus and not blow focus so much. The downside is I think the shadows will be super grainy and won’t have much information in them?

Thanks in advance. I’ll be shooting at a protest at night time so I want as much info is as I can get

 

[joho]

just a tip the wide angle a 24mm on a 135mm camera at 1/15 s and if you are very steady you can hand hold at 1/4`s [1/20`s is normal for a 24mm lens as a guide 50mm=1/50`s _80mm =1/80`s ]
"35mm lens or get better dof and more of the scene in focus and not blow focus so much"...better a 24mm, and the Portra 800 at 3000asa just me 2 cents.
All this if you will not use a tripod.

 

[Agulliver]

I cannot imagine needing faster than 800ISO with f2 and larger. What shutter speeds were you having trouble with, and what shutter speeds do you aim for?

 

[koraks]

My thought process with pushing the film is I can get back a stop or two of aperture or ss to either allow the use of my 35mm lens or get better dof and more of the scene in focus and not blow focus so much. The downside is I think the shadows will be super grainy and won’t have much information in them?

I assume that you will scan the negatives and then go from there digitally, not optically print them on an enlarger - correct? In that case, push processing for 1-2 stops using color negative film is virtually useless. Pushing film effectively means underexposing and then overdeveloping to make the final curve end up occupying about the same contrast range so the negatives can still be printed easily. With scanning, this contrast adjustment through overdevelopment isn't really necessary anyway if you're going to underexpose by a stop or so; you can simply boost the contrast digitally (provided you make reasonably good scans).

Nothing will ever make up for the loss of shadow detail due to underexposure. Keep this in mind.

With night-time street photography, the main challenge is the large contrast between the illuminated areas and the shadows. The latter require generous exposures; generally a second or more even at large apertures, and often several (dozen) seconds depending on film speed. There's no way around this if you need information in those areas. Use a tripod, expose for the shadows and reel in the highlights digitally (when optically printing, through pre-flashing, local burning or masking). The alternative is accept that the poorly lit areas will be solid black and frame your compositions in such a way that this doesn't hurt and the focus is on the brighter areas.

The long & short of it is that push processing isn't going to help you much either way. The only real solutions are avoiding the problem by focusing on more brightly lit areas, or shoot digital on a system that allows clean output at very high ISO's. Film just wasn't made for this, sorry.

 

[gary mulder]

I second Koraks, You will be pushing beyond the limits. Contrast will be your enemy. This example was photographed with Delta 3200 & a 24mm/f1.4

 

[Saganich]

Agreed, pushing the film isn't going to help much in that situation. It's best to find a night street situation with more stray light sources, then the images will look like what you have in mind. In Brooklyn there is lots of stray light at night and I can shoot TriX f2 at 1/60 on the street, but the variation of the lighting is more like a stage, which results in the images looking shadowy and moody. The images look like film noir, but in reality the street seemed more evenly lit to the eye.

 

[Chan Tran]

Forget about high speed film. Just use ISO 100 film, use tripod and pick non moving subject. I gave up shooting low light with film hand held. Fast lenses give no depth of field. Fast film is terrible yet not that much fast.

 

[dbbowen2]

@koraks you are correct, scan negatives and then from there digital

I almost exclusively have to shoot handheld. All with moving subjects. Last weekend was my first go at it, and i can post some examples below. I tried using Reflx Labs 800T film because its supposed to have great exposure latitude, but i was unable to use my 35mm f2 lens i wanted and had to switch over to using my 85mm f1.2 which did not give me the wide focal length i was hoping to use or depth of field i wanted. I also dont like the light halations i was getting from the film.

I did get some okayish photos, but I missed focus a lot and some of the results werent great. There IS a good bit of light though but its still wavering between the very bottom of my light meter the whole time.

I have a digital camera that shoots 12,800 iso that im using as well, but i was really more interested in the film photos.


35mm f2 wide shot, not enough light

35mm not enough light

35mm too much motion for the SS

More light as you get closer to the street lights , but must run wide open aperture

Blown focus from wide open aperture

85mm 1.2, focus is limited because of the aperture

Portrait was okay, because of the single subject in focus, but you lose the background detail

mirrorless at 12,800 iso

I dont mind the additional grain and loss of shadows, I was just thinking i could get at least a stop more of aperture at 30 or 60th of a second SS to help out, but it seems like what im going to end up with is just underexposed images?

 

[dbbowen2]

just a tip the wide angle a 24mm on a 135mm camera at 1/15 s and if you are very steady you can hand hold at 1/4`s [1/20`s is normal for a 24mm lens as a guide 50mm=1/50`s _80mm =1/80`s ]
"35mm lens or get better dof and more of the scene in focus and not blow focus so much"...better a 24mm, and the Portra 800 at 3000asa just me 2 cents.
All this if you will not use a tripod.

Unfortunately, in this scenario tripod use is pretty limited. I do have a 28mm prime but thats as wide of lens as i have

I cannot imagine needing faster than 800ISO with f2 and larger. What shutter speeds were you having trouble with, and what shutter speeds do you aim for?

Ive been trying to stay at 1/60 or 1/30 if possible since its all handheld

 

[Chan Tran]

There are a number of film camera that has VR or IS and that would help.

 

[koraks]

I did get some okayish photos, but I missed focus a lot and some of the results werent great. There IS a good bit of light though but its still wavering between the very bottom of my light meter the whole time.

Some of your images suffer from fairly dramatic underexposure, probably because your light meter biased towards the light sources in the image frame. So part of this may be due to inappropriate metering for the kind of scene and result you're looking for. Once you fix that, you'll likely come to the conclusion that there's just not enough light to get what you want if you're looking to capture 'deep' scenes with lots of depth of field. Film doesn't allow this; sorry. Simple fact of life.

If you must use film for this, I'd rethink your framing. Start by using a wide angle lens, which inherently allows for a bit more leeway in terms of shutter speed before things go annoyingly blurry - assuming the subject is reasonably still. With moving subjects (e.g. the violinist), you'll have to luck out and have them in a well-lit spot so you can stick to 1/30 and faster. Otherwise don't bother, or make a photo that exploits/embraces the motion blur. IS/VR as @Chan Tran mentions will help for static subjects. If a tripod or monopod doesn't work, use street furniture, walls etc. as a makeshift support to lean into and help steady your camera.

Most of the gains I think you can make in selecting your scenes carefully and in framing/composition. Knowing that you'll likely be limited to a shallow depth of field and a wide angle view, use your feet to get to the spot where the image is right. Walk away from spots with horrible or no light; if you're looking to make images, you need good light. Be selective; don't waste time on scenes that just don't work. That would be my approach.

If your main intent is to capture the action and it's the end result that counts, then use the most suitable tool for the job. That would be something digital with good high-ISO performance and some form of stabilization (in-lens or in-camera).

Become aware of the choices and make them deliberately.

 

[MattKing]

In some of your subjects, the poorly illuminated shadows just don't have enough light hitting them to give you useful images on film unless you can employ very long exposures, in which case you won't be able to obtain usable detail in the resulting heavily over-exposed fully illuminated highlights.
With those subjects, you will run into the same problems even if you employ high ISO digital sensors, although the shorter exposures may be sharper.

 

[Chan Tran]

Most of the scene the subjects didn't move very much so if a tripod can be used it would work.

 

[Vaughn]

A thought...Find and compose scenes that work best with your equipment and the light, rather than try to push your equipment to fit the scene.

PS -- I did not mean for that to sound like an either or.

 

[dbbowen2]

Some of your images suffer from fairly dramatic underexposure, probably because your light meter biased towards the light sources in the image frame. So part of this may be due to inappropriate metering for the kind of scene and result you're looking for. Once you fix that, you'll likely come to the conclusion that there's just not enough light to get what you want if you're looking to capture 'deep' scenes with lots of depth of field. Film doesn't allow this; sorry. Simple fact of life.

If you must use film for this, I'd rethink your framing. Start by using a wide angle lens, which inherently allows for a bit more leeway in terms of shutter speed before things go annoyingly blurry - assuming the subject is reasonably still. With moving subjects (e.g. the violinist), you'll have to luck out and have them in a well-lit spot so you can stick to 1/30 and faster. Otherwise don't bother, or make a photo that exploits/embraces the motion blur. IS/VR as @Chan Tran mentions will help for static subjects. If a tripod or monopod doesn't work, use street furniture, walls etc. as a makeshift support to lean into and help steady your camera.

Most of the gains I think you can make in selecting your scenes carefully and in framing/composition. Knowing that you'll likely be limited to a shallow depth of field and a wide angle view, use your feet to get to the spot where the image is right. Walk away from spots with horrible or no light; if you're looking to make images, you need good light. Be selective; don't waste time on scenes that just don't work. That would be my approach.

If your main intent is to capture the action and it's the end result that counts, then use the most suitable tool for the job. That would be something digital with good high-ISO performance and some form of stabilization (in-lens or in-camera).

Become aware of the choices and make them deliberately.

wow thank you for the thorough advice! Ill take that into the process this week when I go back to pick and choose shots better. I think you are right that where the light is at the scene, magic film isnt going to do anything and the biggest impacts will be from better shot selection and composition! There is a ton of street furniture and things i can lean on out there too. Ill be sure to make use of that as well

In some of your subjects, the poorly illuminated shadows just don't have enough light hitting them to give you useful images on film unless you can employ very long exposures, in which case you won't be able to obtain usable detail in the resulting heavily over-exposed fully illuminated highlights.
With those subjects, you will run into the same problems even if you employ high ISO digital sensors, although the shorter exposures may be sharper.

I think the sharp cut off between whats illuminated and whats not is adding a layer of complexity here that i didnt really account for the first time.

Most of the scene the subjects didn't move very much so if a tripod can be used it would work.

i just worry the tripod will be in the way out there but for the wider shots it should be just fine. There is a lot of empty space outside of the group of people

 

[dbbowen2]

A thought...Find and compose scenes that work best with your equipment and the light, rather than try to push your equipment to fit the scene.

PS -- I did not mean for that to sound like an either or.

that seems to be the general consensus so far. Im admittedly still a relative beginner and very much so a hobbyist so im still learning. I think better composition is the big one here

 

[BrianShaw]

Consider a monopod.

 

[koraks]

wow thank you for the thorough advice!

You're welcome; I'm glad you find it useful - keep in mind, anyone will approach this differently, so that was really just my take on it. But give it a try, see what you like about it and go with that; discard the rest.

I think the sharp cut off between whats illuminated and whats not is adding a layer of complexity here that i didnt really account for the first time.

Absolutely, that's one of main pitfalls I think. IDK about you, but I have always been thoroughly conditioned by Hollywood showing us night scenes where everything is nicely lit, even the shadows. When you start photographing such scenes in the real world and analyze the work of others, you start to realize how many light sources are used in a scene like that in a big $$$ production. And that many of the successful night scenes are photographed under conditions where sufficient fill light is available due to time of day (dusk/dawn), atmosphere (fog, smoke) or simply a lot of bouncing around of light from shop windows, signs etc.

The spot you made those photos you posted is pretty unforgiving; you've got a couple of streetlights and some floodlights; it's all pretty harsh, not much in terms of light walls etc. to bounce some light around, no shop windows, traffic etc. to create some fill. Really the only thing going on there is that (too) brightly lit hallway next to the building.

It's super cliche, but photography is writing with light, so if you find some good light, the writing gets easier. Awful light makes for difficult writing.

 

[MattKing]

More likely than not, the parts of the scene that you consider to be most interesting photographically are the ones you can actually see clearly - i.e. the ones that do have light hitting them. So employ metering techniques that expose them properly, and accept that the more shadowed parts will be dark and have little visible detail in them. To do this, make sure that your meter isn't fooled by any light sources that happen to be in the frame.
Also, there are often things available on scene to aid with longer exposures.
For example, railings or ledges to brace the camera against. If you have a camera bag, it can often serve as a "cradle" for your camera when you take a picture.
Look for walls or street lamps to brace yourself or your camera against when you take the photos.
In addition, learn the techniques involving holding the camera, relaxing the body, controlling one's breathing and releasing the shutter that lead to less camera movement. There are information lots of resources out there - including the ones that sharpshooters (guns) use.

 

[dbbowen2]

Consider a monopod.

good point, that would be considerably less intrusive in the crowded enviroment!

You're welcome; I'm glad you find it useful - keep in mind, anyone will approach this differently, so that was really just my take on it. But give it a try, see what you like about it and go with that; discard the rest.


Absolutely, that's one of main pitfalls I think. IDK about you, but I have always been thoroughly conditioned by Hollywood showing us night scenes where everything is nicely lit, even the shadows. When you start photographing such scenes in the real world and analyze the work of others, you start to realize how many light sources are used in a scene like that in a big $$$ production. And that many of the successful night scenes are photographed under conditions where sufficient fill light is available due to time of day (dusk/dawn), atmosphere (fog, smoke) or simply a lot of bouncing around of light from shop windows, signs etc.

The spot you made those photos you posted is pretty unforgiving; you've got a couple of streetlights and some floodlights; it's all pretty harsh, not much in terms of light walls etc. to bounce some light around, no shop windows, traffic etc. to create some fill. Really the only thing going on there is that (too) brightly lit hallway next to the building.

It's super cliche, but photography is writing with light, so if you find some good light, the writing gets easier. Awful light makes for difficult writing.

Oh yeah i know what you mean, or in cinematography whats dark is really just kinda dark blue colored haha! I think focusing more on the subjects within the scene instead of the entire scene in general might be the best move next time, as they are all pretty well illuminated, and to be honest, the people in the scene being every day people is kind of what i am trying to convey in the first place!

More likely than not, the parts of the scene that you consider to be most interesting photographically are the ones you can actually see clearly - i.e. the ones that do have light hitting them. So employ metering techniques that expose them properly, and accept that the more shadowed parts will be dark and have little visible detail in them. To do this, make sure that your meter isn't fooled by any light sources that happen to be in the frame.
Also, there are often things available on scene to aid with longer exposures.
For example, railings or ledges to brace the camera against. If you have a camera bag, it can often serve as a "cradle" for your camera when you take a picture.
Look for walls or street lamps to brace yourself or your camera against when you take the photos.
In addition, learn the techniques involving holding the camera, relaxing the body, controlling one's breathing and releasing the shutter that lead to less camera movement. There are information lots of resources out there - including the ones that sharpshooters (guns) use.

thanks for the tips, there is a brick ledge in front of the people that I really wanted totry to use to stabilize the camera but i was just a little nervous to use, as im still pretty new to this type of photography. I mostly shoot my toddler and landscapes so this is all new territory for me. I think next time ill try to make use of it and the light pole and get in the illumination of the street light to help out a bit. seems like pushing portra 800/ isnt being recommended haha so ill try just 800 box speed!