Author | Thread |
|
02/21/2008 01:51:00 AM · #251 |
Did you go to that spot where you can see the city too? It was a beautiful night despite the cold for sure! |
|
|
02/21/2008 01:54:54 AM · #252 |
I had low clouds on the eastern horizon ...
So ... I waited around so that ... yes -- just before totality ends, the Moon looks like it will peek through a thin spot where it's only hazy, and this plane gets in the way ... :-(  |
|
|
02/21/2008 01:56:00 AM · #253 |
Originally posted by Katmystiry: Did you go to that spot where you can see the city too? It was a beautiful night despite the cold for sure! |
Nope. I was on a mission to capture the moon. After the eclipse, I was just cold, tired, and wanted to go home. I still haven't managed to do anything with my images other than take a quick look. |
|
|
02/21/2008 01:59:54 AM · #254 |
I'll look for your shots tomorrow. I'm sure you did well!
Originally posted by oscarthepig: Originally posted by Katmystiry: Did you go to that spot where you can see the city too? It was a beautiful night despite the cold for sure! |
Nope. I was on a mission to capture the moon. After the eclipse, I was just cold, tired, and wanted to go home. I still haven't managed to do anything with my images other than take a quick look. |
|
|
|
02/21/2008 07:20:10 AM · #255 |
I went out too, but haven't had the chance to look at many of my photos yet.
Here is one of the last ones I took. Sorry it's just the moon on black .
[thumb]649347[/thumb]
|
|
|
02/21/2008 07:33:22 AM · #256 |
five minutes prior .... clouds .. lots of heavy bulky clouds moved in .. I was so disappointed. Otherwise I could have taken photoes out my patio window ... whiuch still opened despite its being thirty below out still. |
|
|
02/21/2008 08:51:39 AM · #257 |
Question for any of you who have experience taking these kinds of shots...
[thumb]649497[/thumb]
[thumb]649496[/thumb]
Why in the second shot do the star/planets show up like big gas blobs and in different colors? For the record, I took these shots with my Fujifilm S9000. These are straight from the camera except for resize for web. |
|
|
02/21/2008 09:09:00 AM · #258 |
well one of the reasons is camera shake. other is your exposure time was a tad long. If you were not using a tripod I would say you did a pretty good job.
one other thing I know can cause that is fog on your lens or if you were shooting through a window or other glass that could have gotten steamed up
after looking at it again I would rule out camera shake, because the halo's are nice and round.
Originally posted by Kelli: Question for any of you who have experience taking these kinds of shots...
[thumb]649497[/thumb]
[thumb]649496[/thumb]
Why in the second shot do the star/planets show up like big gas blobs and in different colors? For the record, I took these shots with my Fujifilm S9000. These are straight from the camera except for resize for web. |
Message edited by author 2008-02-21 09:15:21. |
|
|
02/21/2008 09:58:56 AM · #259 |
Originally posted by Bugzeye: well one of the reasons is camera shake. other is your exposure time was a tad long. If you were not using a tripod I would say you did a pretty good job.
one other thing I know can cause that is fog on your lens or if you were shooting through a window or other glass that could have gotten steamed up
after looking at it again I would rule out camera shake, because the halo's are nice and round.
Originally posted by Kelli: Question for any of you who have experience taking these kinds of shots...
[thumb]649497[/thumb]
[thumb]649496[/thumb]
Why in the second shot do the star/planets show up like big gas blobs and in different colors? For the record, I took these shots with my Fujifilm S9000. These are straight from the camera except for resize for web. | |
I did use a tripod (though not the best), I was outside and I took off my UV filter, the settings were actually exactly the same for both shots, f/4.9, ISO 800, 3.700s. That's why I was confused. I also used the 2 second delay to avoid camera shake. I played around with settings for over an hour (different ISO's, shutter times, apertures) during this and took over 100 shots, most of which are complete trash. Well, I have 3 years to figure it out for next time and should have some lens for the dslr by then, lol. Thanks! |
|
|
02/21/2008 10:20:20 AM · #260 |
I was too lazy to do nice tripod shots. These are all hand-held from my driveway last night at the 400mm end of my 100-400.

|
|
|
02/21/2008 10:22:26 AM · #261 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Why in the second shot do the star/planets show up like big gas blobs and in different colors? |
They are out of focus.
ETA: I had to use manual focus all last night.
ETA Again: For me, sometimes AF will lock on the moon and sometimes it won't.
Message edited by author 2008-02-21 10:26:13. |
|
|
02/21/2008 10:38:15 AM · #262 |
reviewing pics from last night
... i think i got a meteor??!! .. |
|
|
02/21/2008 10:43:13 AM · #263 |
|
|
02/21/2008 10:47:57 AM · #264 |
Originally posted by ralph: reviewing pics from last night
... i think i got a meteor??!! .. |
You photoshopped that didn't you.
He-he. J/K!
Nice catch! My first thought was it's part of the destroyed satellite also, but they (military folks) say the largest pieces are no bigger than a football. Hmmm... |
|
|
02/21/2008 10:55:19 AM · #265 |
Originally posted by glad2badad: Originally posted by ralph: reviewing pics from last night
... i think i got a meteor??!! .. |
You photoshopped that didn't you.
He-he. J/K!
Nice catch! My first thought was it's part of the destroyed satellite also, but they (military folks) say the largest pieces are no bigger than a football. Hmmm... |
and the fact that the trail is east-west'ish ;)
i didn't see it i only have the picture .. 10sec exposure
|
|
|
02/21/2008 11:05:31 AM · #266 |
yeah the sat was going west to east they said it would be visible as it passed over here lastnight. this prior to it getting blowin to bits. but I didn't see it. they did say it was going to be a small dot and would travel from west to east in the north sky in about 3 minutes. I don't think the sat would have left a trail that long on a 10 second exposure. what ever it was it was definately moving, too bad the tree is there. You could take a million more photos before you capture that again.
Message edited by author 2008-02-21 11:06:21. |
|
|
02/21/2008 11:28:34 AM · #267 |
[thumb]649523[/thumb]
A little artistic license employed |
|
|
02/21/2008 11:40:39 AM · #268 |
Originally posted by glad2badad: My first thought was it's part of the destroyed satellite also, but they (military folks) say the largest pieces are no bigger than a football. |
Most meteors are no bigger than a grain of sand. |
|
|
02/21/2008 11:42:54 AM · #269 |
Originally posted by scalvert: Originally posted by glad2badad: My first thought was it's part of the destroyed satellite also, but they (military folks) say the largest pieces are no bigger than a football. |
Most meteors are no bigger than a grain of sand. |
And leave a streak THAT size? Hmmm. Guess I better grab one of the kids' science books and check it out. :-) |
|
|
02/21/2008 11:50:50 AM · #270 |
NASA says most meteors are the size of a pebble. Still, a football-sized meteor would be pretty darn spectacular. "A meteor tail caused by a grain-sized meteoroid is a few feet wide (about a meter) but, because of the high speed of the debris, may be many miles long." |
|
|
02/21/2008 11:56:41 AM · #271 |
Originally posted by scalvert: NASA says most meteors are the size of a pebble. Still, a football-sized meteor would be pretty darn spectacular. "A meteor tail caused by a grain-sized meteoroid is a few feet wide (about a meter) but, because of the high speed of the debris, may be many miles long." |
Cool. Thanks! I guess it's hard to tell how wide the tail is because there's no easy way to determine distance of the meteor from earth? In the case of the meteor displayed in Ralph's photo, the tail could be a meter wide or 10 meters wide (meaning a much larger object). |
|
|
02/21/2008 11:59:25 AM · #272 |
Kind of off topic, but meteoriods are usually grain of sand to pebble sized as said. They travel into the atmosphere at about 44 miles per second so even if it takes half a second for the debris to vaporize, the trail is still 22 miles long. Also, when dealing with something that size it's not the heat and pressure that you see as a trail (because it's so small, it doesn't create much ram pressure), it's something like the collision of vaporized meteor particles with atmosphere particles that you see as a bright trail.
I'm still putting my eclipse shots together to get a good collage...
|
|
|
02/21/2008 12:12:10 PM · #273 |
Eclipse.wmv
here is all 138 images in 15sec
(520K file ..)
Message edited by author 2008-02-21 12:12:51.
|
|
|
02/21/2008 12:18:43 PM · #274 |
Very cool time-lapse, ralph!
Ironically, all of our local Pittsburgh TV stations were giving their forecasts prior to the eclipse, and they all agreed that it was simply going to be too cloudy to see any of it.
Naturally, I poked my head out the window around the peak last night, and it was as clear as can be. It's amazing how infrequently forecasters can get anything right. |
|
|
02/21/2008 12:33:15 PM · #275 |
We did have a beautifully clear night, and the eclipse was outstanding. We got to watch it from the warmth of our office, which faces East. I did not venture out in the -3 degree F (-19C) temperatures to photograph it! |
|