Do I need a new lens to stop blurry non-tripod night-time photos?

[Detection]

Why are you telling me this? I already know about this stuff.

You might have quote the wrong guy... I am not the original poster.

You said:

or you can take photos in the dark and add lighting presets in the photo editor such as lightroom...

which reminded me of that video

[TAZMINATOR]

Obviously he's not telling you, just quoting you to make the reference clear and show that his post is based on the post you made that inspired him.

Why get so defensive?

Glassed Silver:mac

No problem.. I understand.

Not defensive.. I was confused when he quoted me but I get it now.

You said:

or you can take photos in the dark and add lighting presets in the photo editor such as lightroom...

which reminded me of that video

Yeah I get it now..

[Glassed Silver]

No problem.. I understand.

Not defensive.. I was confused when he quoted me but I get it now.

Yeah I get it now..

Ah ok, my bad. Fair enough then! :)

Glassed Silver:mac

[123456789A]

That's not how street photography works, but nice trolling! :p ^^

I giggled.

Glassed Silver:mac

That's how I do it if I don't have ?2.0 lens with me.

Enron:univac

[HawkMan]

I do believe I told you to use either A or S and maybe M down the road when you get comfortable though.

As fora new lens, as I said before, lenses with very large aperture will give a very shallow depth of field.

But you probably need to bump past a 1600 ISP to get fast enough shots at night. I suggest you simply take the camera and have fun and play around at night a few days, and use the camera screen to check brightness and motion blur so you know what settings cause what.

And as I said I the other thread, if you shoot to dark, as long as you use raw, you can bump the exposure 2 levels without losing details. Lightroom can also remove a lot of the iso Boise at the cost of smoothing out details.

[Elliot B.]

I do believe I told you to use either A or S and maybe M down the road when you get comfortable though.

As fora new lens, as I said before, lenses with very large aperture will give a very shallow depth of field.

But you probably need to bump past a 1600 ISP to get fast enough shots at night. I suggest you simply take the camera and have fun and play around at night a few days, and use the camera screen to check brightness and motion blur so you know what settings cause what.

And as I said I the other thread, if you shoot to dark, as long as you use raw, you can bump the exposure 2 levels without losing details. Lightroom can also remove a lot of the iso Boise at the cost of smoothing out details.

I cba to shoot in RAW (NEF on my camera, I believe) because I upload my JPGs online a lot, and it's effort converting them. Also, I'll probably have to adjust the lighting etc. on every photo as the camera won't do it if I use NEF.

I'm willing to put effort in, hence this topic, but not that much every time I put photos onto my PC and wish to upload them.

[Glassed Silver]

I cba to shoot in RAW (NEF on my camera, I believe) because I upload my JPGs online a lot, and it's effort converting them. Also, I'll probably have to adjust the lighting etc. on every photo as the camera won't do it if I use NEF.

I'm willing to put effort in, hence this topic, but not that much every time I put photos onto my PC and wish to upload them.

Well, if you used a software like Lightroom it would all be automatic.

For example: I use Aperture, because I have a Mac so what I do is I import all my shots and then I could simply share them right from the program and the conversion happens on the fly.

Actually, the conversion happens on import/it uses the JPG miniatures created by the camera (most cameras will add a JPG version to the RAW file for previews).

So that's what I do, it's simple, fast and I saves me the trouble of having to use archaic ways of sorting photos (file system structure only, database pwns, even more so when you consider all edits are non-destructive)

As for the lighting, well, you have a point there that RAWs usually are darker than their JPG counterparts, but Lightroom lets you do automatic adjustments to photos on import.

(even lens correction if you want to go that far)

As far as I have heard Lightroom's auto applied (but if you want manually configured) adjustments on import are excellent.

Don't go with less, this could be ideal for you. :)

Glassed Silver:mac

[HawkMan]

I cba to shoot in RAW (NEF on my camera, I believe) because I upload my JPGs online a lot, and it's effort converting them. Also, I'll probably have to adjust the lighting etc. on every photo as the camera won't do it if I use NEF.

I'm willing to put effort in, hence this topic, but not that much every time I put photos onto my PC and wish to upload them.

Shoot in raw+high quality jpg. But you should use the raw (nef is the Nikon raw format) with something like lot room anyway. And no you won't have to adjust the lightning and stuff. The raw file is saved with the exposure settings so by default it will look almost identical to the jpeg once it loaded into a an app that reads raw files and it applies the exposure settings.

Basically if you shoot in only jpeg, you're throwing away 3/4ths of the picture.

And ifyou just need a quick upload, you simply upload the jpegs, Lightroom can convert in batches or even upload to many services directly from that though.

Also you can pre exposure adjust the photos in the camera with the +/-ev setting on the camera.

[Argote]

Even if you had a bright f/1.4 lens the light improvement would be about 2.5 steps of extra light, so you'd be shooting at 1/60 or something like that (which should be enough) but you'd lose IS in an in-lens IS system (such as Nikon). However IS helps with camera movement and not necessarily subject movement (which seems to be what's going on here) so you'd end up with clearer photos.

I guess the best thing to do here would be to bump the ISO and hope it's not too grainy...

[HawkMan]

at f/1.4 the depth of field would be so shallow he'd have trouble taking good pictures of the intended subject anyway, worst case only part of a face could be in focus, and he seems to want some background in the fairground pics to.