taking photos in low light

[woodyracing]

I just got my photos back from the Snetterton evening race and it was quite dark for the last race (Historics). Those photos came out with a light gray haze on them.

Camera is a Canon EOS 30 with 75-300mm (f4-5.6)lens.
ISO 200 film.

cant remember if i had it on Auto or else manual speed at 250.

any suggestions why they came out hazy, or how to stop this in the future ?

cheers.

[Aysedasi]

With 200 ISO film, I guess you just didn't have enough light. What was your camera telling you in terms of readings? (I've got the same (rather good) lens and I doubt that I'd have attempted too much in low light with 200 ISO).

[Aysedasi]

Sorry, didn't read the whole post before replying. If you were running at 1/250th in low light, I'm not surprised the pics are hazy. The developer has probably done their best to get you something at least....

With low light, if you want anything at all, you'd probably be better off panning at 1/50th or 1/125th, or even down to 1/25th - you can get some spectacular shots panning with slowish shutter speeds. (Needs to use a lot of firlm though.... )

[G_Ilott]

You haven't said whether you used print or slide film. If it is print, it could be the generally poor quality of high street processing. I used to get grey, washed out and hazy prints from various shops around here. I now use slides which gives you back exactly what you shot, not what some machine or salesman-technician thinks you want to be given.

What are the prints like from the earlier races?

It could also be poor quality 200asa film causing the problem, being not very well-saturated. Which film was it?

Using ISO200 film should cause more grain to be apparent rather than making the shots hazy. For instance, I shoot quite a lot of low light nature and often use ISO200 and 400 slide film which, while certainly poorer in image quality, are still colourful and true to life.

[paul-collins]

The problem to me sounds like not enough light got to the film (as Ayse guessed). Unfortunately, the best time to correct it after exposure is during the negative developing, not the printing. You'd need to figure out how many stops short of proper lighting you were, and ask the developer to push the film (although really you can't properly push film more than a couple of stops).

It's doubtful you had it in auto, as in lowish light you'd have heard a long shutter speed, and you'd have blurry (but vibrant!) pictures instead of foggy ones. Unless, of course, your panning is flawless...

edited to say, really, the best time to correct it is before exposure, but that option wasn't open to you. The second best is to correct during negative/film developing...

[woodyracing]

the film and processing was fine for the other photos on the film. I think its a low light thing.

Im getting confused about the shutter speed, higher value is longer exposure right?

[redshoes]

Other way around. 250 (i.e. 1/250th) is twice as long as 500 (i.e. 1/500th)

[woodyracing]

:S no wonder the camera wouldn't let me set a high value in low light then. cheers.

[vwpilot]

Sounds like just not enough light. Then when you had it processed the lab tried to lighten it up so that you could see something, but when they do that everything that would normally be black (which would be a lot on underexposed shots) will turn grey, leaving the whole print with a grey haze as everything that was underexposed is lightened up.

[Carrie]

I'd agree with what vxpilot has said. A lot is probably just not enough light when you took the photo, then that problem is made worse by the high street photo labs as they try to compensate by brightening things up during the developing. Can you scan a neg to see if you lose the grey and things are a purer dark? If that actually makes any sort of sense

[redshoes]

I doubt scanning the neg would make that much difference as it was very dark. I was shooting at 800 ISO equivilent and could have easily gone higher.

[woodyracing]

the reason I thought higher numbers meant higher exposure was because I thought the number was milliseconds, not fractions of a second.

It also explains why my shots were never very motion blurred which I wanted sometimes.

[vwpilot]

One thing to keep in mind if you do shoot night shots sometimes you might want to tell the lab NOT to try to compensate for the darkness.

Before I went digital I might take a roll of night shots in that had a shot like this on it:

http://www.motorsportsimaging.com/Pr...s/DSC_7853.jpg

or like this:

http://www.motorsportsimaging.com/Pr...s/DSC_7917.jpg

And would get it back all grey because they were trying to lighten it up. However, this is what I was going for and so this is how I wanted it.

So sometimes you have to tell them what you want. Especially if the shot is something where you exposed to not really see the car, but to get the light trails or the reflections.

[woodyracing]

ok thanks for the tip.
those night photos look good.

[Woolley]

If you've got a friendly lab or independent developer you could ask him about 'push' processing the film to gain more light while leaving the black parts black. The downside is more grain, but nowhere as bad as a higher ISO film. If they say they can do it, I'll guarantee they will also give you some tips on how to get the best from it.

[woodyracing]

I usually go to Max Spielmans, one of the women behind the desk didnt know what ISO 200 film was :P

[bella]

the only time i can ever shoot at iso 200 is when it's really bright sunlight in july and august so you're definitely well lucky to get anything from that! (damned lens again)