NZFF

Hi there I have just bought a Canon EOS 60D SLR and I went out to Nelson Airport last night and took some - I had the camera on Manual ans slowed the shutter speed to get the cool night light effect and panning effect these are two photos the same the lighter one is edited by photoshop, but the seem to be quite grainy does anyone have any ideas I mean its a good camera

should I be using a different mode?

I can't help here , but i'm about to post a couple of photo using an old SONY Mavica .. I expanded using CS5.5 , sure you will correct advice from the pro's here .

Looking good, considering the circumstances -- trying to photograph something quick in low light is a bit of a challenge, and you've done well.
The grain is a combination of the ISO -- set at 2500, compounded by brightening. Not a lot you can do about the ISO in that sort of light, back in 'my' day we could just dream about ISO 2500...
I'd use RAW here, this let's you adjust the image without losing any detail, and a good RAW tool can tweak the grain to some extent. (Easy to over-do, though.)

Shooting RAW or JPEG or even editing isn't going to make a massive difference when you're trying to shoot an incredibly fast moving target in a very dark scenario.

If you are shooting on manual, you have the option to vary the ISO as required. However, a lower ISO will require to you use a longer shutter speed to obtain the desired exposure or 'brightness.'

No camera is automatically going to make this type (night and fast objects) of photography easy. I'd recommend trying out your camera during the daytime or even early evening, and I think you will be much happier with the results.

You can improve on this by using tools such as Topaz Denoise or similar but these will work better with the original sized RAW file. However, you can't get a perfect picture using these techniques you can only get some slight improvements. I've made some quick adjustments as shown below to give you an idea as to what's possible though if you look in the mid-tone areas there is still some noticeable noise. These techniques are always a compromise and it is much much better to get a better photo to start with - ie in better light conditions so you don't have to use such a high ISO setting.

Another, very expensive, alternative is to get a f2.8 lens but that will only allow you to reduce the ISO to around 1200 so the image will still be noisy (though not quite as bad as this one) and you will have spent a few thousand dollars for only a small improvement! Better light is the best option - twilight can be made to look darker by manual exposure control.

Extremely impressive adjustment Greg ...photo pro

Ian Warren wrote:

QUOTE (Ian Warren @ Feb 15 2013,7:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Extremely impressive adjustment Greg ...photo pro

:-) thanks

Photography is all about capturing light... In low light situations like that, you either have to capture more light (longer shutter opening time) and bump up the ISO (the sensitivity of the sensor), or create light (i.e. flash - but that wont go down well at an airport!). Another way is to drop you the aperture to a lower number (f2.8, f4 etc) or whatever your lens can handle. This lets more light into the lens, but has the draw back of decreasing field of view, which can make it much harder to focus.

The quality of any shot can often be determined by the lens itself, not the camera body (although this is of course important too) but you wont get good shots with an awesome body and a less-than-par lens.
It may sound like a $1000+ f2.8 lens sounds expensive, but its the best investment you can make!

hmmm... thanks for the great advice guys - I cant really see me buying another lens right now as I'v only just got the camera but I'll think onit anyhow

Just wondering about this pic taken by Tim Ward - would this have been achieved with a tripod? as the shutter speed would have had to have been quite slow and would be very hard to achieve it if it was hand held?

Dash8captain wrote:

QUOTE (Dash8captain @ Feb 16 2013,6:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just wondering about this pic taken by Tim Ward - would this have been achieved with a tripod? as the shutter speed would have had to have been quite slow and would be very hard to achieve it if it was hand held?

Certainly 100 times easier with a static subject, as you can just leave the shutter open for as long as you need and the subject isn't going to move. But yeah, you couldn't hand-hold that.

Definitely taken with a tripod. Would have used a relatively high f-stop to get the shining effect from the lights too, meaning a longer shutter speed.