Jump to content
Guest

Indoor Photo Advice Required

Recommended Posts

Posted

I'm thinking about the cases where people might be trying to take photographs of people in their room, often at night.

 

Are there any tips for getting good quality results?

I notice all the photography books tend to recommend solutions which may involve carrying bulky lighting equipment, which isn't really desirable for the tourist.

 

So how to get the best results, with a good quality compact camera at night? I might just carry about 500g of extra lighting equipment, if the results would be better.

Right now, I just use a flash on the red eye setting.

Guest lvdkeyes
Posted

You can always edit your photos on Photoshop if they are too dark.

Posted

Lighting is one of the hardest things to get right in photography and most photo students spend a good deal of time perfecting it. New technology sure does improve the chances of having fewer problems.

 

What kind of camera do you have? What are you options for flash?

Posted

I use a Panasonic TZ3, which is a decent compact. I'm not prepared to go to an SLR, as these are too bulky to carry around.

NEXT year, I might consider changing to a newer compact, if there is a good option which will give better photos.

 

I'm very pleased with the photos the TZ takes in daylight.

The night time indoor photos are sometimes OK, but can be inconsistent. So I'm wondering about camera settings or any compact lighting options.

Posted

I like the use of a SLR. I find they take better pictures. I have a new Sony Camera and I love it but the photos that are taken inside and in the dark suck. I have it set to face recognition and the ones I take are blurry. It is nice to have the compact but I have the same issue as you and there are so many settings in the menu that I have yet to find a nice balance. With the SLR and my own flash, I can control this easily.

Posted

You can change the ISO setting in the menu of any digital camera. This changes the sensitivity of the chip, but as a trade off, you get more noise in the image. Digital compacts are limited here - the smaller the chip is for a given number of pixels, the worse the noise will be at any given ISO setting. Try ISO 400, and see if the results are acceptable to you.

 

If you want to put a camera on a faster ISO setting like ISO 800 then a digital SLR with a large area chip is needed. There is another advantage to digital SLR's - the lenses are bigger too, and pull in more light.

 

The other thing to look at indoors is colour temperature. Most of the time the Automatic White Balance will work fine. If you are indoors, in artificial light, try setting it to somewhere between 2800 (relatively dim tungsten light) and 2900 (bright tungsten light). Switch back to Automatic White Balalnce when you have finished - if you forget and use these settings in direct sunlight the next day, you will get terrible pictures.

 

Auto face recognition may not be the best idea. In low light, low contrast environments, it may never "lock onto" a face properly. It may still be "seeking" while you are taking a picture.

 

Actually, I often don't bother with a lot of this stuff. I'm there primarily to experience things, rather than photograph them. More than once, I have put the camera away because I felt it was coming between me and the moment. Rather a mediocre photo and a good memory, tham a night spent fiddling with the controls on a camera while the world passes me by.

Posted

Most digital cameras allow you to alter the flash settings (more or less) and, presuming you intend to take multiple photos in one particular room, play with that setting until the result is what you want. You can also alter the exposure setting (more or less) and, as long as you're taking flash photos within 15 feet or so (beyond that, it's generally worthless), you ought to be able to adjust the settings to get a fair result.

Posted

Thanks for the advice. I should do some experimenting with White Balance, ISO & exposure settings.

Guest AKAHagrid
Posted

You might also consider getting a second stand-alone flash unit. They are fairly cheap (20 bucks or so), and they are triggered by your on-camera flash; there is no set-up or configuration.

 

Having the second flash adds more light; it "freezes" the action, reducing blur; and it gives you more creative opportunities. One big thing that separates the pros from the rest of us is the fact that in professionally-shot pictures, the flash is rarely set to hit head-on, creating that deer-in-the-headlights look. Pros usually place their flashes to the side.

 

Whilst you can increase the ISO (speed) of your film in a digital camera, the sensor in a point-and-shoot camera is so small to begin with that a high ISO can add a lot of noise (speckling) to the shot. Using a second flash lets you keep the ISO low, increasing the quality of the shot. Also, don't take pictures of hairy arses, unless you're into that sort of thing.

Posted

A stand alone flash sounds like a nice step forward.

ie Still have a compact camera for when out & about during the day, but have the improved lighting as an option for night time photos.

 

However, after looking into this, it seems digital cameras often use pre-flashes to set the white balance, so I would need a slave flash that is smart enough to fire at the right time (s).

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...