DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> First try at a moon pic! [big pic]
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 76, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/09/2006 11:17:11 AM · #51
Originally posted by jfriesen:
Originally posted by zardoz:
Some super moon pics have been posted while I was in bed. Unfortunately it was overcast here. Iâm keeping my fingers crossed for tonight.


I think I was screwing up the exposure in RAW, so I shot the new set in JPG so that'd be set. Yea, f/8 was used and I was more careful with post processing. It was an ugly color so I converted to b/w with a little of all the rbgs as needed. And all the little misc. editing. But, it all couldn't have happend if I hadn't have started out with a good focused pic.

I have been using âsunnyâ white-balance and that seems to be about right. Though I have converted most of them to b&w as they seem to look better. As you say though, it all starts with perfect focus and a rock steady camera, no amount of PP will ever fix those things.
 09/09/2006 11:17:15 AM · #52
one more

09/09/2006 11:18:48 AM · #53
Here's my attempt from last night:



Sunny f16 +1/2 stop, contrast adjust in raw conversion
PS adjustments: High pass filter and very very slight curve adjustment

edit: this is a 100% crop from the image, not resized

Message edited by author 2006-09-09 11:19:45.
 09/09/2006 11:33:39 AM · #54
The full moon is not a good time to shoot as there are no shadows to show any detail in the craters. Around the quarter moon is better time to shoot.





09/09/2006 11:44:51 AM · #55
Great pics caba and cpanaioti!

Marbo seems to be setting the standard :-) Fantastic pic you have there. I see you are using a telescope, are the pics 1:1 or have they been reduced?

Originally posted by marbo:
The full moon is not a good time to shoot as there are no shadows to show any detail in the craters. Around the quarter moon is better time to shoot.

I was supprised just how low the contrast of the full moon is.
 09/09/2006 11:48:36 AM · #56
Originally posted by zardoz:
Great pics caba and cpanaioti!

Marbo seems to be setting the standard :-) Fantastic pic you have there. I see you are using a telescope, are the pics 1:1 or have they been reduced?

Originally posted by marbo:
The full moon is not a good time to shoot as there are no shadows to show any detail in the craters. Around the quarter moon is better time to shoot.

I was supprised just how low the contrast of the full moon is.


It`s a 1200mm telescope used at prime focus. The photos are cropped slightly.
 09/09/2006 01:45:44 PM · #57
Warning very large file:
BIG moon!
This is by the same chap, NoelC, that did the picture that jfriesen pointed us to.
09/09/2006 02:40:46 PM · #58
Originally posted by zardoz:

Thatâs great Pamelasue! I look forward to seeing more of your moon pics. As jfriesen said, itâs an interesting subject and takes lots of care and good technique to get a really great shot.
Mike.


Thanks Mike! It was fun to learn how to take that shot, never knew how to do it before and always ended up with a blurry white blob! It's been raining here all day long ... hopefully I'll get another shot tonight ...
 09/10/2006 12:11:51 AM · #59
Meh, the moon wasn't out tonight, the clouds covered it and are moving fast... but they just keep comming and comming..

Here's what I am talking about:

09/10/2006 12:20:45 AM · #60
Originally posted by zardoz:
Warning very large file:
BIG moon!
This is by the same chap, NoelC, that did the picture that jfriesen pointed us to.

Now THAT is a moon shot.
The shadows and detail are absolutely amazing! I don't think I have ever had a moon pic on my computer that was as good as that.
Sure makes mine look like crap.
 09/10/2006 12:30:07 AM · #61
Originally posted by BradP:
Originally posted by zardoz:
Warning very large file:
BIG moon!
This is by the same chap, NoelC, that did the picture that jfriesen pointed us to.

Now THAT is a moon shot.
The shadows and detail are absolutely amazing! I don't think I have ever had a moon pic on my computer that was as good as that.
Sure makes mine look like crap.


BAH, he probably lost his kids and wife spending 400,000 on camera/telescope gear. j/k

And your shot is pretty dang good for hanheld!

Message edited by author 2006-09-10 00:30:16.
 09/10/2006 12:46:35 AM · #62
Originally posted by jfriesen:

BAH, he probably lost his kids and wife spending 400,000 on camera/telescope gear. j/k

What a bargain!


Thanks btw.
Gonna' keep trying too, with tripod and mirror lockup this time.
If all else fails, Photoshop the hell out of it.
 09/10/2006 12:52:50 AM · #63
Originally posted by BradP:
Originally posted by jfriesen:

BAH, he probably lost his kids and wife spending 400,000 on camera/telescope gear. j/k

What a bargain!


Thanks btw.
Gonna' keep trying too, with tripod and mirror lockup this time.
If all else fails, Photoshop the hell out of it.


I used a tripod and Mirror Lock up to get this:



and I still had to do a lot of post processing. Mostly sharpen (two different methods), contrast, levels ect ect.

My little Sigma 300mm just trys its best...
 09/10/2006 03:30:34 AM · #64
That`s very good Josh, and some crater detail as the moon is less full.
I have this lens but have never tried the moon with it as i have a telescope. I guess it`s heavely cropped so not so good to print but looks fine on screen.
 09/11/2006 12:48:49 AM · #65
zardoz, tryed the star streak tonight but failed miserably.. I had the f stops wrong, it was too dark one pic and too light the next, bad thing is, they had different exposure times so I don't know where to make another trial f/stop... I was also using the wrong lens, I was at 70mm which was too much to get a great view of the sky. I need to use my 18-55mm lens and get more of the sky.

f/22 at 15.8 mins was too dark
f/9 at 2.8 mins was alright (bit dark), but the streaks weren't long enough
f/8 at 12 mins was too bright

(I think that's how it went)

I was shooting blindly in the dark (pardon the pun).

So, if I want to do a true 30 min exposure, I have to run better trials, using the same variables but one in each experiement. Eg, same f/stop , same ISO, same focal range: different exposure times.

BUT, this was fun and I will enjoy trying hard and getting the results.

PS. Here is the same moon shot from 2 days ago along with a moon shot from tongight:



I know the right one looks a little off, I did this real quick for a comparison. Will clean up later.
 09/11/2006 03:45:07 PM · #66
jfriesen I like the one on the right, the shadows really help bring out the details and give it more texture... was it done with the 70mm...

Do you really think the smaller lense would bring out the details better?

I will have to play with that one since I got a new to me, used lense from the old camera shop....


09/11/2006 03:56:24 PM · #67
Originally posted by tolovemoon:
jfriesen I like the one on the right, the shadows really help bring out the details and give it more texture... was it done with the 70mm...

Do you really think the smaller lense would bring out the details better?

I will have to play with that one since I got a new to me, used lense from the old camera shop....


Oh I think I confused you. If you read earlier in the thread, I was talking with zardoz and we agreed that we were going to pick up the challenge of 30 min star exposures. I was just giving him more info about my trial. The need for something less than 70mm was for the star streak pictures, not the moon pictures. Sorry for throwing you off.

The moon pic was taken last night at 300mm

Message edited by author 2006-09-11 15:57:10.
 09/11/2006 04:06:36 PM · #68
Yet another Astronomy Picture of the Day today that is relevant to the "big moon" shot. This is exactly the type of pic that I like to attempt - very long focal length lens to give a very exaggerated sense of moon size.

Here's one of my own attempts:

09/11/2006 04:20:36 PM · #69
shot this almost 2 years ago
must try again
09/17/2006 09:58:05 AM · #70
Originally posted by jfriesen:
zardoz, tryed the star streak tonight but failed miserably.. I had the f stops wrong, it was too dark one pic and too light the next, bad thing is, they had different exposure times so I don't know where to make another trial f/stop... I was also using the wrong lens, I was at 70mm which was too much to get a great view of the sky. I need to use my 18-55mm lens and get more of the sky.

f/22 at 15.8 mins was too dark
f/9 at 2.8 mins was alright (bit dark), but the streaks weren't long enough
f/8 at 12 mins was too bright

Hi Jfriesen, Sorry about the delay in replying, Iâve havenât had chance to get on dpc for a few days.
Looks like you have got those moon shots pinned down now. Thanks for all the info on your star trail experiments â very interesting. The skies have been overcast here just about every night :-( The forecast is for clear skies tonight so Iâm going to try star trails. Iâll use the settings you posted as a guide â thanks :-) Were those exposures at 100 ISO? Iâm going to try at 18mm on my 18â70mm lens.

Message edited by author 2006-09-17 09:58:54.
 09/17/2006 10:01:37 AM · #71
Thatâs a great shot Gauti.
Very cool effect there strangeghost..
 09/29/2006 01:22:53 AM · #72
Did you get any results yet zardoz?
 09/29/2006 01:28:16 AM · #73
Originally posted by jfriesen:
I wanted to throw in my first attempt at the moon!!! Its such a lovely night out..

Taken with Sigma 70-300mm @ 300mm
ISO 100
Converted from RAW
USM
Contrast/Brightness
Temperature
Green Level


So, with your camera, you're really looking at a focal length of 480mm. Good shot.
 09/29/2006 10:02:48 AM · #74
Originally posted by lesgainous:
Originally posted by jfriesen:
I wanted to throw in my first attempt at the moon!!! Its such a lovely night out..

Taken with Sigma 70-300mm @ 300mm
ISO 100
Converted from RAW
USM
Contrast/Brightness
Temperature
Green Level


So, with your camera, you're really looking at a focal length of 480mm. Good shot.


What's the math behind that? I have always want to know how people were like "It's actually 480mm on my camera!" Something about the sensor crop or something.
 09/29/2006 11:22:55 AM · #75
Originally posted by jfriesen:

What's the math behind that? I have always want to know how people were like "It's actually 480mm on my camera!" Something about the sensor crop or something.


Your camera has a "crop factor" of 1.6x... This means that the size of your sensor is smaller than the nominal 35mm full frame size, and your image is essentially cropped from the center of the image circle the lens throws.

"Crop factor" means that on a FF camera you'd have to mount a 480mm lens to get the same, narrower angle of view that you have got with the 300mm lens on the smaller sensor. Every lens you use, compared to the "nominal" full-frame standard, is either more telephoto or less wide (take your pick) by a factor of 1.6...

In other words, my 10mm lens covers the same angle on my 20D as a 16mm lens would on Kirbic's FF 5D sensor.

R.

Message edited by author 2006-09-29 11:24:37.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/18/2025 05:21:30 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/18/2025 05:21:30 AM EDT.