How To Take Pictures Of BGS's?

[florida]

For evening and night BGS pictures, I like to use image stabilization and fill-in flash since it works pretty good.

[PAHighways]

With the new Canon XSI - I'm looking forward to using ISO's up to 1600 (which is recommended for hockey) - so I'm excited about trying that out tomorrow night for the first time.

Will it also be used for taking pictures during the tailgating?

[agentsteel53]

I tend to use aperture priority and let the camera decide the exposure time, with a -0.7 stop exposure compensation to not blow out clouds.  f/8 and ISO-200 are daylight staples (alas, my camera does not do ISO-100), and then as it gets closer to night, it's tripod time.

[Duke87]

Something else worth trying: if you've got a sunroof, open it and stick the camera up out of it. Probably best only done from the passenger seat, though.

Glare from the windshield can blemish photos quite readily depending on the lighting. Sooo many of my road photos from when my family went to Rocky Mountain National Park in 2006 have reflections of the defogger vents from the rental car and the Rand McNally atlas in my lap in them. Couple examples:

[froggie]

One thing that cuts down on the windshield glare is a black cloth or towel draped across the top of the dashboard.  Downside of this is it tends to highlight pockmarks or major nicks in your windshield, especially if you're driving into the sun.

[Ian]

For me, I hate using flash photography for signs/traffic signals at ANY time. I like getting shots to make it look real, as if I am looking at it in real life. I don't like it when signs light up like Christmas trees when you use flash photography, so I am always one for non-flash photography, even at night (well, sometimes). Like Chris, I like to "document" highways and get picture of any road sign and traffic signal intersection (if its an at-grade highway. I even get signal closeups   ). I don't get out of the car to get shots unless its something important or old, like a US cutout shield for example or an original interstate marker, etc. I also am going to mention Alex's idea of putting a black shirt on your dashboard to block out reflections because it DOES work very well for me. So, if you are taking pictures from inside the car, don't use flash. It comes out most of the time where any small spec of dust and blotches will light up like a Christmas tree. Oh, and when you take road photos, try and look out for any obstacles like your car antenna (if you have one), the hood of your car, the dashboard, etc.

Only my opinion.
i

[WillWeaverRVA]

One thing that cuts down on the windshield glare is a black cloth or towel draped across the top of the dashboard.  Downside of this is it tends to highlight pockmarks or major nicks in your windshield, especially if you're driving into the sun.

I have used this to great effect whenever I've had one available. This is very effective unless your windshield is dirty or damaged (as froggie mentioned), or you're driving directly into the sun.

Generally, shake reduction (image stabilization) helps immensely. If I am not driving, I can usually use shutter-priority mode at an appropriate ISO (200 seems to work best for me in most conditions, though if there's enough light 100 is fine) with the lens zoomed in past 35mm to cut down on barrel distortion (or I can use my Olympus E-420's telephoto zoomed out).

If I AM driving, then after I wonder just what I'm trying to accomplish by using a digital SLR while driving (though in this case I opt for a compact ), I'll just go with program mode at 200 ISO with the 18-55mm lens zoomed all the way in.

[r-dub]

The biggest thing I recommend is to get a camera that will allow you to set a zoom/focus point beyond the windshield. I can't tell you how discouraging it is to get home and realize that great roadgeek money shot you really wanted was wasted by the camera focusing on the pits and bug guts.

Otherwise, I tend to keep my camera (A Fuji FinePix E550) on a programmed auto mode. That way I force the focal point to be in the center of the image, not wherever the camera decides. When I'm in low lighting conditions, I tend to adjust the aperture settings a little higher. Seems to work for me.

Of course, the best tool to have is a good photo editor to fix up all the little glitches!

[CanesFan27]

Yes, the new camera will be used for taking photos of all the tailgating festivities, Jeff. :-p    You should have came down for the home opener.  Too bad we won't be able to tailgate at the game in Columbus in November.

What camera does everyone in here use now?

I am now using a Canon Rebel XSI.

[agentsteel53]

What camera does everyone in here use now?

I am now using a Canon Rebel XSI.

Nikon D50.  At some point when I have some spare cash I'll upgrade to a D90.  Gotta keep up with the Daniels. 

[Truvelo]

A digital SLR with a zoom lens is essentially just a jumped-up P&S.  In contradistinction, a 1960's 35-mm film camera with a 50-mm f/1.4 lens and macro ring offers a much broader range of artistic possibilities.  But zooms have become the standard now, and the modern equivalent of a 50-mm prime lens with an aperture opening that wide is mind-blowingly expensive.)

I found that out the hard way when I bought my first DSLR in 2004. I bought a D70 and a cheapo zoom lens with f/5.6 at the long end and it was completely useless in anything other than good light. When it went cloudy the shutter speed was too slow to prevent blur from showing. Soon afterwards I sold it on ebay and bought a 50mm f/1.8 and this is the lens I've used ever since for taking road pictures. F/1.4 would be no advantage as the band of focus would be so narrow on such a wide aperture, besides, I always use mine at around f/7.1 as this is a good compromise between a fast shutter speed and maintaning close and distant subjects in focus. The f/1.8 lens is also a damn sight cheaper than the f/1.4.

Agentsteel - get the D90 if you can, you'll love it. I have a D300 but the D90 is 90% the same and it has the same 12mp sensor as the D300. It also has the 3" LCD with 920,000 pixels and the detail is amazing.

[agentsteel53]

A digital SLR with a zoom lens is essentially just a jumped-up P&S.  In contradistinction, a 1960's 35-mm film camera with a 50-mm f/1.4 lens and macro ring offers a much broader range of artistic possibilities.  But zooms have become the standard now, and the modern equivalent of a 50-mm prime lens with an aperture opening that wide is mind-blowingly expensive.

I disagree with this assessment, but it may very well be true in several years.  The DSLR gives me a lot finer control over the manual settings - aperture, shutter speed, ISO - as opposed to a lot of point and shoots which you really need to finagle to get into long-exposure mode, if the option is available at all.  A lot of compact cameras only go up to 8s, while the DSLR goes up to 30.  More if you have the remote timer, which I have not ever felt the need to invest in: I just take repeated 30s exposures and overlay them as necessary.  (This allows me much finer control over the final exposure, as well as the possibility of using a non-linear combination curve that approximates film better in terms of not blowing out the highlights.)

Furthermore, the DSLR allows for filters, which not very many compacts to.  A lot of the time I use a polarizer, or sometimes an infrared filter, and if I were less lazy (read: had more money!), I would get a 6 or 8 stop ND filter to get better waterfall photos in visible light.  Right now I tend to use the IR filter as a 10-stop ND, and if I insist on visible light, I have to use the full moon, which is 17 stops darker than the sun. 

as for zoom lenses vs. prime: I've always thought the 50mm to be a bit too constrained in its field of view, but that is a function of the DSLR having the smaller sensor.  There is a new 35mm/1.8 lens out right now, which results in the same field of view on the DSLR as the 50mm does on the film camera, but for some reason it is $200 and frequently out of stock.  I got my 50/1.8 used, for $60 or something, and better bargains can be had if you know where to look.

I use the 18-200 as the workhorse lens because, despite its slow aperture (f/5.6 at the far end), it is great for switching quickly between various views of signs - entire context with road and sky, sign only, or even a close-up of a shield.  With the 50mm, sometimes it would be possible to take the requisite number of steps forward and back, but sometimes the interesting cloud cover is just too extensive in the sky, necessitating a wider field of view, and other times the sign is sufficiently far off the ground that 50mm yields too much of a tilted perspective, while 200 gives a much more square view.

(also, at 200mm, the 18-200 makes a surprisingly good macro lens, since it can focus to about 10cm in front of its front!  Great for shots of bees and flowers and grasshoppers and whatnot.)

[agentsteel53]

Agentsteel - get the D90 if you can, you'll love it. I have a D300 but the D90 is 90% the same and it has the same 12mp sensor as the D300. It also has the 3" LCD with 920,000 pixels and the detail is amazing.

the main reason I am looking to the D90 is much better ISO performance.  It is about a stop and a half less noisy than the D50, with ISO-1600 being perfectly usable and ISO-3200 workable in a pinch.  On the D50 I hesitate to use ISO-800, even.

This isn't too much of a difference on a sunny day, but for less blurry photos under overcast skies, it works wonders, and also at night, the difference between a 20 minute exposure and a 5 minute exposure becomes quite clear when it's -11 degrees outside!

[Truvelo]

Perhaps you should get a D700 if you use high ISO. I've taken ISO 2000 pictures in a dull room handheld at 1/30 second and the noise is virtually invisible.

[agentsteel53]

the D700 is nearly three times as expensive 

[Truvelo]

the D700 is nearly three times as expensive 

But it allows you to take pictures like this at a true 14mm with no crop factor

[agentsteel53]

the D700 is full frame?  I do not remember offhand which ones are full frame and which ones are DX.

Most of my lenses are DX, including the 18-200 that I mentioned.  My 50mm is the only full-frame lens I own.  I suppose I can always sell them down the line but for now they are an investment I am sticking with.

[Truvelo]

Yes, the D700 is full frame. I use it solely with the 14-24 lens. I like ultrawides at they give weird perspectives like this. The front of the blue car at the bottom right corner is about two car's lengths from the bridge I was standing on.

[BigMattFromTexas]

This is my only BGS picture so far, taken in Acuna

[agentsteel53]

I'd say go with a bit more road and a bit less sky - otherwise, looks good to me!

[PAHighways]

Yes, the new camera will be used for taking photos of all the tailgating festivities, Jeff. :-p    You should have came down for the home opener.

I would have if not for being the Pens' home opener and banner raising ceremony.

Too bad we won't be able to tailgate at the game in Columbus in November.

Yeah, a place worse than Mellon for tailgating.

[TheStranger]

As a Nikon D40 user...I find that manual focus lenses actually are a boon for road photography, simply because by setting them to infinity, you can generally avoid the "focus hunt" that autofocus lenses tend to have when faced with a windshield.  My favorites for this are probably my 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 100/2.8, and at night, the 50/1.4....

And 1/500 is probably the minimum shutter speed to use to guarantee stability, as noted earlier in the thread...

[MikeTheActuary]

Shortly after I got my new Sony α300, I realized how much more fun shooting BGS's could be with the addition of a longer-range lens (55-200mm):

[burgess87]

What does that blue panel on the bottom of the IH 69 exit sign say?

[Chris]

Casinos