Focusing in the dark for lightning shots

[Dan Robinson]

What I mean is that on the older lenses, you just turn the focus ring all the way to the stop at infinity, and it's on infinity. No guesswork or visual verification needed. I had a 28mm lens once that was at infinity a little bit before the ring stop, so I marked the ring with a paint pen where it needed to be. But there again, I didn't need to actually verify through the viewfinder that it was in focus.

Leveling the horizon is the harder thing in my experience.

 

[John Diel]

I see! Said the blind man to his deaf mute brother.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

I usually stop down to f/11 - f/22 so that I don't have to worry about the focus so much. The bigger the f/ number, the wider your depth of field or area that is in focus. Your lens.. and all lenses can stop down that low.. the range on your lens is the widest you len's ap. can open, not the lowest it can be stopped down. The reason it's a range is because your lens has a different ap. "wide open" when you are zoomed in than when it's zoomed out.

F/22 for lightning? Are you trying to shoot bolts that hit your car or something?

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

Yeah most nicer lenses will have the same infinity displays. My 17-40L has an "area" for infinity that I guess can change depending on the temperture. Maybe it is something else, I don't know. A person can certainly put it on the line and be close, without ever looking through the lens, but I prefer an autofocus findings...at least with that lens. With the 50mm 1.8 you can do it by hand by going back all the way, and then backing it off a hair(similar to what you did with the line). With either, you can be close enough to not matter much, but if you want the perfect focus then it can take a bit more farting around and at least on the 17-40L it's not always that same spot on the manual focus indicator. If I can't find anything to use to focus on(like a street light) and I don't have time to shoot many to check, then I'll just use that line for infinity.

 

[Jim Hunt]

You can get a focusing screens as John mentioned for most cameras. Canon makes them for the professional series of EOS cameras or you can get 3rd party ones for the prosumer line of cameras.

http://www.katzeyeoptics.com

I also would not stop down a lens more than f11. The sharpness is not as good and it is even more pronounced on digital SLR cameras. If you need slower shutter speeds, I would add a neutral density filter instead.

To help focusing in the dark, you need more light through the lens. F2.8 or better is preferred. That is what makes prime lenses like the Canon 35mm f1.4 and Canon 28mm f1.8 or the Sigma 30mm f1.4 great lenses for low light. Even if you stop them down to f8, the focusing (manual or AF) is done wide open.

My last tip is one I use everyday as a sports photographer. Has anyone moved the focus from the shutter button to an alternate location? On Canon, you can move the focusing to back “*â€￾ button. This allows you to focus and remove your thumb from the “*â€￾ and slightly reposition the camera. It might be something to try.

 

[Jeremy Ludin]

As far as leveling goes, I don't fret too much about that. I use the horizontal focus point line to gauge, but if it's a tad off I just edit in post-processing. I usually allow plenty of room for a straighten/crop.

 

[Dan Robinson]

F8 is the upper limit for most lightning. F5.6 tends to be a good multi-purpose aperture. Anything above F8 could result in underexposed (thin) lightning channels. Close lightning is the exception, you might be able to get away with F11 with CGs under 1/2 mile. F22 you'd need for lightning hitting a tree 20 feet away. Distant lightning may need F4 or even lower. Sometimes it's a guessing game, as not all strikes are exactly alike in terms of luminosity. Strikes with multiple return strokes have a higher risk of overexposing.

 

[Susan Strom]

F8 is the upper limit for most lightning. F5.6 tends to be a good multi-purpose aperture. Anything above F8 could result in underexposed (thin) lightning channels. Close lightning is the exception, you might be able to get away with F11 with CGs under 1/2 mile. F22 you'd need for lightning hitting a tree 20 feet away. Distant lightning may need F4 or even lower. Sometimes it's a guessing game, as not all strikes are exactly alike in terms of luminosity. Strikes with multiple return strokes have a higher risk of overexposing.

Just joined this thread. Yep, this is my experience too. Even on close ones I end up at F5.6. My film is slow (less light sensitive), 50-100 ISO. Any faster (more light sensitive) and the lightning channel gets too thick. I agree Dan, F8 and up and the lightning comes out too dimly, so I never shoot on that setting. I'm always around F4 and 5.6, maybe opened up a bit more on wildfires dep on how close I am. I try to shoot it so it appears as natural as possible, being that lightning is as thick as a pencil but also very bright.

http://www.lightninglady.com/gallery.htm

PS - one time I had 800 ISO in one of my cameras w/o knowing it, and went shooting off in into the Superstition mtns. The desert plants ended up looking cartoony and the lightning looked hilarious, like it was made in Maya or something So I don't recommend anything faster than 100 ISO

 

[Susan Strom]

Oh yeah, and one more important thing, bracket your exposures like crazy. Take multiple shots at slightly different settings, and use more than one camera. Have fun

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

I agree most times ISO 100 is all that is needed/desired. I did have one chase last year that the storm and lightning needed 800 ISO even at F1.8.

http://www.extremeinstability.com/stormpics/2006/06-7-25-7230.jpg
That is 800 ISO at F1.8.

 

[Greg Campbell]

What I mean is that on the older lenses, you just turn the focus ring all the way to the stop at infinity, and it's on infinity. No guesswork or visual verification needed. I had a 28mm lens once that was at infinity a little bit before the ring stop, so I marked the ring with a paint pen where it needed to be. But there again, I didn't need to actually verify through the viewfinder that it was in focus.

There's a catch. I've tried one or two mounts that adapt manual lenses to fit on AF bodies. Neither gave me an exact infinity focus. With most camera systems, the MF and AF back-focus distances are not matched, and the adaptor will need to be well designed / manufactured to precisely correct for this offset.

Shooting at F16+ to maximise the DOF is entirely viable, so long as you crank the ISO/ASA up a few stops to compensate for the light loss. (ASA100 at 5.6 equals ASA 800 at f16.) Don't get carried away; at slower f values you may, depending on the lens, lose more detail to diffraction than you gain from extended DOF.

Given that many DSLR cameras have dim viewfinders that make fine focus difficult (Ah, yes! Gimme more of that progress! ), stopping down a little to increase the DOF just might be a good idea.

-Greg

 

[John Hudson]

Oh yeah, and one more important thing, bracket your exposures like crazy. Take multiple shots at slightly different settings, and use more than one camera. Have fun

That's a great idea to point out, Susan. Especially with new DSLR's bracketing exposures is effortless. With digital, it's not going to cost you anything more.

Just pick up a real fat memory card and shoot away.

John

 

[Greg Campbell]

Has anyone tried a L.A.S.E.R.?

An attenuated laser pointer makes a good source of collimated (infinite distance) light. Just shine it into the lens and focus on the red spot. Playing with the DSLR at work for a few minutes has given me consistent focusing right at the lens' infinity distance.

If you place a few neutral density filters in front of the laser, you can knock the light intensity down to produce small red dot on the focusing screeen. If the laser is too bright, flare, flash blindness, etc. will make fine focus impossible...

You can also reduce the laser's power by bouncing it off a thick, smooth piece of glass. (If the glass is too thin, and the two surfaces parallel, the front and back reflections will blurr together, foiling your focusing efforts.) This should reflect with about 4% of the incident light. This will probably be a little too bright, but the reduction lets you use fewer ND filters.

-Greg