How to take AWESOME night photos WITHOUT a tripod

This instructable will teach you how to use the normal digital camera you already own to take night photos that are not blurry, and without a tripod. Don't believe me? The photos on this page were shot just last week with my digital camera without a tripod. Read and learn, grasshopper! And press the "+" sign on this instructable so I can get closer to winning that dad-gum laser carver thingee.

(sample photo shot at ISO 400, 6/10 of a second, no tripod, of the downtown Omaha skyline)

Step 1 Get a digital camera that lets you control it's basic settings

By basic settings, I don't mean resolution, zoom lens, or movie mode. The only settings you will need to control are ISO, exposure time (shutter speed), aperture and shooting mode.

Relax, you don't have to run out and buy a new fancy-shmancy digital camera to do this. Most digital cameras that aren't the bottom-of-the-barrel or older than 3 years old will let you do this. Usually you just have to set the camera into "custom" or "manual" mode to accomplish this.

If you want to know how to set up these features on your digital camera, consult your owner's manual just like I had to do.

Also, while IS or VR (image stabilization or vibration reduction) can help, they are not necessary. All of the sample shots on this instructable were shot on a several-year old Canon A620 that lacks IS, and only goes up to ISO 400.

If you need to update your camera, and got some dough, I would recommend buying the Canon SD800 IS. If you don't got $300, but have $200, then I would get what I got, the Canon A620. If you only have $100, go on eBay and buy a used Canon A530. All 3 will enable you to do this instructable.

Here are a few guideline definitions that you can skip, but I am including them just so all the photographic "measurebators" don't have a hissy fit:

ISO = how sensitive your camera is to light. ISO 200 is twice as sensitive as ISO 100. ISO 400 is twice as sensitive to ISO 200. The more sensitive (higher ISO) the shorter the exposure needs to be for a similar image. So why not jump to ISO 1600? Because in digital cameras, that will make for a very grainy photo unless you got an electronically cooled CCD like they use for photographing astronomy. Most "normal" digital cameras only go up to ISO 400, anyways. And yes, there is a bit of noise in these photos, but the end results are more than passable when printed on a high-quality printer.

Exposure (shutter speed) = how long your shutter will stay open, allowing light to collect on the image sensor. 1:15 is 1/15 of a second. 1:4 is 1/4 of a second. Remember, in shutter speeds less than a second, the LARGER the bottom number, the SHORTER the exposure (provided that a 1 is the numerator) 6/10 is more than twice as long as 1/4. Also, camera shake can cause blurry photos at settings longer than 1/15.

Aperture: F-stops are different settings allowing different amounts of light to enter your camera. This is different from exposure, in that the aperture is that funky iris/anus looking thing that is a series of connected sheets that either open or contract to make a hole get bigger or smaller. Think of the opening to the old James Bond movies where that aperture starts as a small dot and opens up to get bigger. If you watch the LCD on your camera and adjust the aperture, you will see which setting opens up the iris to allow more light in by watching your LCD become brighter or dimmer.

(UPDATE: No, these definitions aren't taken from Standard Photographic Definitions 9th Edition or New England Journal of Expert Photographic Advice and Medicine. These are thumbnail definitions, and I am not an expert. I am just trying to explain what I think is correct to people that don't know any better. If you know something I don't know, I'm not surprised. Post it in a comment below and show the world how wrong I am.)

(sample photo shot at ISO 200, exposure 1/5 of a second)

Comments

[Tom Trottier]

Tripods are nice because you can point your camera anywhere. But you can stabilise the the camera many ways. A cable release or remote will avoid hand vibrations, but you can use the self-timer to do this too. Stabilisation helps at night, but it also helps during the day when you are taking telephoto shots.

Ways to stablilise:

• use any non-vibrating surface - car top (turn engine off), planter, fence, ...
• use a beanbag - any bag filled with seeds or granules. Put it down somewhere and put the camera on it. It gives you some aiming possibilities
• attach a 6' rope or chain to the tripod screw or camera. Step on the other end. Pull up on camera, aim & shoot.
• hiking staffs often have a tripod screw under the top knob.
• buy & carry a "pocket tripod" or ultrapod. Put these short tripods on the ground, or on other objects to choose your point of view, or strap them to a tree or post with velcro.
• get a 5"length of foam pipe insulation, the kind with the slit down one side. Put this over a partly-open car window and rest the camera on it.
  

If you are holding the camera, you can minimise vibrations by taking a breath, letting it out & relaxing, then squeezing the shutter release. Don't stab at the release - use a gentle squeeze. Drink less coffee...

tOM Trottier

[vincent7520]

yep ! …
Drink less coffee is the best advice … I know many good pros, and I realize most of them a very quiet persons…

[rrrmanion]

maybe make an instructable so more people can benefit from your knowledege

[thesparine]

Hi, here is a quick follow up... I went to China and took a few night photos using this technique. The first two pictures are without a tripod, and the third one is with a tripod, and to me they look the same, especially when printed out.

[mareksokal]

advantages to tripod: you can leave your shutter open as long as you like... just sayin! 

[filmnuts]

I know this is an old instructable, but I fail to see what the aversion to using a tripod is.  There are some very small tripods these days (Gorillapod and the like), so I don't see size being an issue.  Nor do I see cost as an issue either; a usable tripod can be had for $30, which is nothing if you've already spent $200+ on a camera.

Frankly, if you want to take long exposure images, night or otherwise, the only correct way to do it is with a tripod or other camera stabilization.  Any other method is just a variation on "be snap-happy and hope you get lucky;" a method which marginalizes the skill and artistry that it takes to make a really great photograph, let alone to be able to do it consistently.

[nick222]

This is an old instructable, but very useful!! ... Most of us are used to just click and shoot and don't stop to understand all of what our cameras can do... great instructable, easy to follow and understand!

[robonav]

OMAHA 

[punkrockscienceguy]

 cool i live in omaha too

[swklee]

Thanks..this is great.I'm using a canon A400 for making reports,and since I'm having it all alone,might as well learn to make full use of it.There's so much setting and for me I can't understand much of it. This sure brightens up my day....oh...my nights haha..

[CalcProgrammer1]

Nice tutorial of the various tricks to use when shooting at night. At the beginning of the summer, I went to New York and Canada for my last year of High School Band Tour. We took tons of pictures, but out of all 400-some pics, my favorite is the one I took of Niagara Falls lit up at night. I had to stabilize the camera on the rail and use a second or more exposure, repeated the shot like 20 times, but sure enough, one of them came out quite clear. I have a PowerShot A520, and I'm definitely going to get a Canon for my next camera whenever I upgrade, as they have tons of features and great quality optics.

[Velotrash Industries]

excellent stuff.

[Tom Trottier]

Also, many image editing programs have a "sharpen" command, and an "undo". Try sharpening until it looks funny, then undo a notch or two. tOM Trottier

[rcalmeida]

Dude thank you so much for this Instructable! As photohontis said, the "real talk" just worked great. I hope you win that laser thing!

[fruitcake]

thank you... that really helped.....

[chesler]

"Take lots of pictures" isn't bad advice for those of us raised on film. I'd add "Use the self-timer!" I wish these digitals came with a cable release or remote, but on or off tripod (and what's so bad about a tripod? I've got minis that I bought for a dollar, a C-clamp style, and a light-weight full-size) I get a lot less jitter if I use the Custom drive mode to take one shot after one second. Any sort of bracing, especially nearer my hands, helps a lot.

[theLichKing]

This instructable is a waste of time. It is so full of text and all he really wanted to say is play with settings and take many pictures and choose the best one. if you jumped right to the comments, don't read this instructable, that's all it's saying.

[photohontis]

I enjoyed reading your "instructable". Thank you for using real talk so I could understand what you were talking about. I will put your advice to good use!!!

[moep]

I can't believe people actually give a + for this kind of shite. "Take lots of photos and you will get a good one in the lot!". Wow how genius ! LOL

[gw60199]

This afternoon I assisted in a class on this subject for beginning digital photographers. The class covered essentially the same material and suggestions. The submitter has provided good practical advice for night photography novices and that IS the purpose of this forum. I have been involved in photography for over thirty years to include having a complete darkroom. I found the article useful and informative. If you have an instructables article of practical and useful content please post it.

[Kelani]

fitzhugh: Perhaps you should consider finding that train-station idiot and borrowing some of his ganja. It might actually help that shaky hands problem. :) Just kidding (Sorta). Anyway, I must say the beanbag as stabilizer is an excellent idea. I have an old one I once used as a trackball wrist rest that's getting moved to photo duty today. Anyone who wants one, they sell them anywhere you can buy computer junk. I wonder which works better: beanbag or gel?

[bobparker]

The beanbag allows you to adjust the angle easier.

[hooaww555]

great instructable - I liked it better than the pictures. It definitely inspired me to grab my camera and run outside and take pictures, darnit it's daylight outside.

[jesusali]

This "instructable" is pretty poor and shamelessly padded.

It basically says, "set your camera to be as sensitive to light as possible, stand as still as possible, and take as many shots as possible, hoping that one is in focus."

Setting the ISO is the only thing presented here that is isn't utterly common knowledge. But the vast majority of consumer grade digital cameras don't have selectable ISO, which makes this tip even less useful.

[audiomind]

I have to agree here. This instructable(sic) is primarily common sense, even for an amateur.

[thesparine]

yet another piece of expert advice from someone that hasn't written a single (let alone "helpful") instructable.

[jesusali]

hey doof:

http://www.itunes.com/podcast?id=251659448

No, it's not an Instructable (it's an enhanced podcast), but it's hella helpful to fellow photographers; ask everyone I continually help at http://www.flickr.com/groups/strobist/discuss/

Aside from that, it's a complete non-sequitur (look it up) on your part to infer that just because I haven't posted an Instructable (and don't beg votes), that I can't spot garbage when I see it.

I know the hard work that goes into a decent how-to and Instructable. And you haven't displayed that hard work or utility here. So drop the attitude and quit fronting like I'm the bad guy.

[thesparine]

I have thick skin, don't worry, i am not bitter. It is just that instructables is such a great site with so many cool instructables that to take the time to write "this instructable is poor and padded" is pretty freaking lame. If you don't like an instructable, go read a different one! If you can make a better one with more "helpful" info, then by all means contribute to this great site. Didn't yo mama ever tell you that if you can't say anything nice... I wrote this instructable because I am not a pro photographer, and I thought these tips might help some people get some better night shots with their digital camera. Judging by the overwhelmingly positive feedback, I consider this a success.

[jesusali]

You are straight up pathological. Now you're insisting that only compliments should be left in the Comments field! Give me a break. If you had a "thick skin" you would have let my original comment stand, unacknowledged. But I think it must've hit a nerve...

[thesparine]

I am not insisting anything my friend... I am just suggesting that... ahh nevermind... if you keep posting negative comments time and time again when instructables clearly states they have a "be nice" policy, asking to post only positive and constructive comments, I don't think you will listen to anything more that I have to say. Take care dudes!

[Troubleshooter]

I can totally agree. Most camera don't have settings as advanced as that. And if you do... that mean's you've bought a camera with more than basic settings, meaning you probably know a bit about cameras, meaning this intructable is pointless... and padded... But I'm just referring to the majority.

[thesparine]

Padded? WTF does that mean? And yes, in USA, most consumer digital cameras DO have selectable ISO, shutter speed, & F-stop. Most consumers just don't know how to use them. Also, please tell me you are NOT one of those lurkers on here that only offer expert advice on other people's instructables, instead of creating your own...

[markuss5]

yeah it's true most cameras have iso settin and most people doesn't know about it. but those people does not care anyway. this is not helpful for a beginner who is serious about photoraphy.

[Troubleshooter]

You sound very bitter hearing negative criticism. You should be thankful you got on an email. The reason I haven't made an instructable yet is because I'd rather not make an instructable for the sake of it (I hate to say this, but I could have made this instructable), I'd rather make one that shares rare knowledge. Yeah, padded is what this article is. It is an antonym of concise.

[jesusali]

"Padded" means you stuffed it full of superfluous text to fill more pages. Which you did. You KNOW you did. I just summarized your entire Instructable in ONE SENTENCE. Have you ever heard of HYPER TEXT? Have you ever made a link? That's what the world wide web is for. You needlessly paraphrased/plagiarized information which you could have simply linked to, in order to fill space. That's what "padding" means. But I'm pretty sure you all ready knew that.

And what do you mean, "in the USA"?! Does my name make you think I'm not in the USA? Now you're a hack and a bigot.

And the fact is, you're wrong. Most consumer level cameras DO NOT have ISO settings. They are for consumers, at most they have "Night Mode" settings. (A fact to which your Instructable seems to be completely ignorant.) In fact, you go out of your way to suggest only TWO particular Canon brand cameras that people should use in order to follow your guide!!!

As far as lurking goes, you better be thankful for it. You'd have absolutely NO POINTS if it wasn't for uninformed lurkers not recognizing the uselessness of this tip.

[thesparine]

In USA was simply clarifying that I am speaking from my experiences in the USA. I was at Best Buy yesterday and it is hard to find a digital camera that does NOT let you choose the ISO. My friend, your contention that I would have no points if blah blah blah... is wrong. I would have no points if: A) I made a crappy instructable ( which this is not) or B) made NO instructable... remind you of anyone? : -)

[jesusali]

Go to Target or Walmart and find ISO settings.

Troubleshooter made the point best. It is better to make nothing than to make useless junk only for the sake of making junk (or for the sake of a laser cutter, in this case).

Wow. This could have been two negative, yet thoughtful comments, but now you made it a whole long flame war. It seems you do have useful skills to share! You should post an instructable on how to flame honest critics like whiney baby!

[acidus]

dear jesusanus, please leave. this was helpful to me. there are plenty of "pro" photo sites where people like you can go jack each other off or smell each others farts or whatever. this article is for the rest of us who don't feel like wading through all the self-righteous jargon to learn something that should, by all rights, be a simple task. you really should try and find something better to do. i've never voted for anything on there, but i'm voting for this article just because you're such an anus. love, acidus

[dunlopm]

My simplistic approach to the f/stop is as follows: Lets assume a 44mm lens is on my camera- if you are at f/2 the aperature is 22mm, or half the diameter of your lens; if you are at f/4 the aperature is 11mm, or one quarter the diameter of your lens; if you are at f/11 the aperature is 4mm, or one eleventh of the diameter of your lens. You can think of it as a fraction of the diameter of the lens. 1/4th, 1/8th, 1/16th etc.

[fitzhugh]

I own a 620, same camera used here. My only real argument with this what you consider "awesome" will be "great considering the circumstances" for others. You can get surprisingly steady shots, but they won't hold up under close scrutiny, as you readily admit (you mention viewing from a reasonable distance etc.) and for me there is way too much noise over the lowest iso 100 setting, though I use 200 at times for just this approach. I never bother with 400 unless it is a "I want to remember this" photo and not a "wow, I hope this turns out well enough to hang on my wall". I have shaky hands so the 1 in 300 good shot would be more like 1 in a full 1 gig card, but regardless, I find carrying a small bean bag is a better compromise. Just a counter suggestion. The a620 has been a great camera for me, much better than I expected, and has received generally great reviews. However, there are better cameras, of course. I prefer canon's interface and many of the features of this camera over the other options out when I got it. The arguments over camera manufacturer in the end boil down to preference, with clear leaders in different areas and plenty of outright losers everyone should avoid, but I would buy this camera again if I had reason to. To me finding something to stick the beanbag on, then camera on beanbag, then use low iso, long exposure and timer works much better and is simpler and faster (convenient) than taking a great many shots. I still end up taking a fair number to bracket my exposure and make up for my lack of brilliant knowledge. This camera is large enough that I carry it in a waist pouch or my ever-present backpack anyhow - not really a pocket camera unless you are wearing a large coat - so tossing in a beanbag is no real problem. I also have some lenses, lens cleaner, etc. The one thing this does not allow for is the freedom to compose your shot as easily, but that is less of a problem with this kind of long distance shot where exact angle is usually less critical. I might lean the other way if my hands were steadier, but doubt it. Hell, some people can win a gold medal shooting a rifle between heartbeats after flopping down in the middle of a ski race... not me. I can't ski and am lacking the rifle, but I know my hands shake too much sitting at my desk. It is all personal preference and the statements of absolutes are quite silly. When taking photos of bugs I often take an insane amount since "It is humanly impossible to stick a camera up a bee's ass and get a good shot before it flies away (and returns to sting you)" is pretty much true, but I could show you some good shots of bees taken before I got a macro lens and still had to have the camera within a wing's body length to get the shot. Try it 200 times and you get a few interesting and often quite good shots. Same goes for night shots w/ long exposure: sure, you will happen to get a few decent shots out of many since you just hold the shutter button down and let it go... some will be between heartbeats and breaths. This belongs in the point and shoot photographer's repertoire, but I would not expect "awesome" shots due to iso 400 noise (post processing can help, but can't solve that, in my experience. Why do people get so worked up over photo topic stuff? Really, it is supposed to be fun, and I promise there are lots out there that are better and know more than each of you (and you likely know more than me). As I stated first, I think the problem here is the title. It should be something like "How to get surprisingly decent shots without investing in equipment [like a camera with less noisy high iso results] and a sherpa to lug it for you."