Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Moon Part 2

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 3:13:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Well I think this is the best I can do with my current lenses. Tonight was
much clearer and I paid particular attention to focus. I also use the
mirror lockup to eliminate any camera shake.

This is what I got:
http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38986191

Comments/Suggestions please.

Thanks

--

Rob

More about : moon part

Anonymous
January 24, 2005 3:13:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Well I think this is the best I can do with my current lenses. Tonight
was
> much clearer and I paid particular attention to focus. I also use the
> mirror lockup to eliminate any camera shake.
>
> This is what I got:
> http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38986191
>
> Comments/Suggestions please.

It looks a whole lot better. : ) Where did you shoot it from? If it was
from a city, you'll probably see a bit more improvement by going up into the
mountains on a good, clear night.

steve
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 4:08:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Steve Wolfe" <unt@codon.com> wrote in message
news:35jgboF4o8mfuU1@individual.net...
>> Well I think this is the best I can do with my current lenses. Tonight
> was
>> much clearer and I paid particular attention to focus. I also use the
>> mirror lockup to eliminate any camera shake.
>>
>> This is what I got:
>> http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38986191
>>
>> Comments/Suggestions please.
>
> It looks a whole lot better. : ) Where did you shoot it from? If it was
> from a city, you'll probably see a bit more improvement by going up into
> the
> mountains on a good, clear night.
>

Thanks Steve,

Yes, I was thinking that could be an issue. Defiantly in a city from my
back yard with some surrounding lights that I can't turn off such as the
street light in the ally. I tried this when I was in the Blue Ridge last
weekend but started too late and by the time I got the camera and exposure
set right I lost the moon behind the trees. :-/

One big problem I have is that although the tripod is very sturdy and can
easily support the weight of the camera and lens, I get considerable camera
shake through the view finder when I try to focus making the process very
difficult. Of course I let the camera settle before I take the shot and use
a remote shutter release and as I said in my OP the mirror lockup to help
reduce any further camera shake. A better head on the tripod may help this
I guess.

--

Rob
Related resources
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 4:08:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Robert R Kircher, Jr. wrote:
> "Steve Wolfe" <unt@codon.com> wrote in message
> news:35jgboF4o8mfuU1@individual.net...
>>> Well I think this is the best I can do with my current lenses.
>>> Tonight was much clearer and I paid particular attention to focus. I
>>> also use the mirror lockup to eliminate any camera shake.
>>>
>>> This is what I got:
>>> http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38986191
>>>
>>> Comments/Suggestions please.
>>
>> It looks a whole lot better. : ) Where did you shoot it from? If
>> it was from a city, you'll probably see a bit more improvement by
>> going up into the
>> mountains on a good, clear night.
>>
>
> Thanks Steve,
>
> Yes, I was thinking that could be an issue. Defiantly in a city from
> my back yard with some surrounding lights that I can't turn off such
> as the street light in the ally. I tried this when I was in the Blue
> Ridge last weekend but started too late and by the time I got the
> camera and exposure set right I lost the moon behind the trees. :-/
>
> One big problem I have is that although the tripod is very sturdy and
> can easily support the weight of the camera and lens, I get
> considerable camera shake through the view finder when I try to focus
> making the process very difficult. Of course I let the camera settle
> before I take the shot and use a remote shutter release and as I said
> in my OP the mirror lockup to help reduce any further camera shake. A
> better head on the tripod may help this I guess.

Even a sturdy tripod will benefit from anchor weight: hang your camera
bag or some other mass to add substantial inertia and moment at a
distance from the head mount.

--
Frank ess

"Because of the Swiss Cheese nature of everyone's life experience and
education, the Whoosh Bird can drop a load on anyone's head, without
warning." —Albrecht Einstein
January 24, 2005 10:12:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Robert R Kircher, Jr. wrote:

> Well I think this is the best I can do with my current lenses. Tonight was
> much clearer and I paid particular attention to focus. I also use the
> mirror lockup to eliminate any camera shake.
>
> This is what I got:
> http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38986191

Did you sharpen it? Also with such a simple image you can afford to give
a considerably higher quality to the jpeg compresssion.

Why f/11 this time instead of f/8 (possibly a bit sharper), surely DOF
isn't an issue.

It's possible overexposing could get more info then selectively dial it
down with a curve to increase contrast.

Is it B&W? Maybe including color would give a bit more life.

I wish I had a lens that could do that. Pretty cool.
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 3:05:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Robert R Kircher, Jr. wrote:

> Well I think this is the best I can do with my current lenses. Tonight was
> much clearer and I paid particular attention to focus. I also use the
> mirror lockup to eliminate any camera shake.
>
> This is what I got:
> http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38986191
>
> Comments/Suggestions please.

Looks good.

I don't think you can hope for much better. FWIW, the moon is almost full in
this shot. Because the sun is shining directly on it, there are no shadows
so the surface looks pretty plain.

If you try it when the moon is half illuminated you'll get much more detail...
Especially near the light/dark transition area.
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 6:23:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:13:36 -0500, "Robert R Kircher, Jr."
<rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Well I think this is the best I can do with my current lenses. Tonight was
>much clearer and I paid particular attention to focus. I also use the
>mirror lockup to eliminate any camera shake.
>
>This is what I got:
>http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38986191
>
>Comments/Suggestions please.

Looks like you have the technique worked out. But I'd do it again in a
week. A full moon is boring, because we can't see any crater shadows
right now, so it looks flat.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 7:32:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:5tSdnZbmM-7TjWjcRVn-2w@speakeasy.net...
> Robert R Kircher, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Well I think this is the best I can do with my current lenses. Tonight
>> was much clearer and I paid particular attention to focus. I also use
>> the mirror lockup to eliminate any camera shake.
>>
>> This is what I got:
>> http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38986191
>
> Did you sharpen it?

I did sharpen and work the contrast a little bit along with cropping using
Capture one.

> Why f/11 this time instead of f/8 (possibly a bit sharper), surely DOF
> isn't an issue.

I certainly can try that. I was just following others advice on how to set
the camera.

>
> It's possible overexposing could get more info then selectively dial it
> down with a curve to increase contrast.
>
> Is it B&W? Maybe including color would give a bit more life.


No, it's color.

>
> I wish I had a lens that could do that. Pretty cool.

As to the lens used. It's just a cheap Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=produ...

with a Quantary 2x Extender
http://www.ritzcamera.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Pro...

Not the greatest equipment but it works.

--

Rob
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 7:33:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:h5adnRbu5rqQB2ncRVn-1w@giganews.com...
> Robert R Kircher, Jr. wrote:
>> "Steve Wolfe" <unt@codon.com> wrote in message
>> news:35jgboF4o8mfuU1@individual.net...
>>>> Well I think this is the best I can do with my current lenses. Tonight
>>>> was much clearer and I paid particular attention to focus. I also use
>>>> the mirror lockup to eliminate any camera shake.
>>>>
>>>> This is what I got:
>>>> http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38986191
>>>>
>>>> Comments/Suggestions please.
>>>
>>> It looks a whole lot better. : ) Where did you shoot it from? If
>>> it was from a city, you'll probably see a bit more improvement by
>>> going up into the
>>> mountains on a good, clear night.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks Steve,
>>
>> Yes, I was thinking that could be an issue. Defiantly in a city from
>> my back yard with some surrounding lights that I can't turn off such
>> as the street light in the ally. I tried this when I was in the Blue
>> Ridge last weekend but started too late and by the time I got the
>> camera and exposure set right I lost the moon behind the trees. :-/
>>
>> One big problem I have is that although the tripod is very sturdy and
>> can easily support the weight of the camera and lens, I get
>> considerable camera shake through the view finder when I try to focus
>> making the process very difficult. Of course I let the camera settle
>> before I take the shot and use a remote shutter release and as I said
>> in my OP the mirror lockup to help reduce any further camera shake. A
>> better head on the tripod may help this I guess.
>
> Even a sturdy tripod will benefit from anchor weight: hang your camera bag
> or some other mass to add substantial inertia and moment at a distance
> from the head mount.

Sound like a great idea. I will try that next time. I actually got the
same exact advice from a family member who is a pro photog.

Thanks

--

Rob
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 7:34:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rp4av0lvt7989k521vsppe890b1kgiog2k@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:13:36 -0500, "Robert R Kircher, Jr."
> <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Well I think this is the best I can do with my current lenses. Tonight
>>was
>>much clearer and I paid particular attention to focus. I also use the
>>mirror lockup to eliminate any camera shake.
>>
>>This is what I got:
>>http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38986191
>>
>>Comments/Suggestions please.
>
> Looks like you have the technique worked out. But I'd do it again in a
> week. A full moon is boring, because we can't see any crater shadows
> right now, so it looks flat.
>


Thanks, I'll try it next week. Here's hoping there will be clear skies.
;-)

--

Rob
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 7:35:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jim Townsend" <not@real.address> wrote in message
news:10vae6reicviufb@news.supernews.com...
> Robert R Kircher, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Well I think this is the best I can do with my current lenses. Tonight
>> was
>> much clearer and I paid particular attention to focus. I also use the
>> mirror lockup to eliminate any camera shake.
>>
>> This is what I got:
>> http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38986191
>>
>> Comments/Suggestions please.
>
> Looks good.
>
> I don't think you can hope for much better. FWIW, the moon is almost full
> in
> this shot. Because the sun is shining directly on it, there are no
> shadows
> so the surface looks pretty plain.
>
> If you try it when the moon is half illuminated you'll get much more
> detail...
> Especially near the light/dark transition area.


Thanks Jim. I'll try another one next week and see if I can get better
details.

--

Rob
January 24, 2005 8:27:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Robert R Kircher, Jr. wrote:

> Well I think this is the best I can do with my current lenses. Tonight was
> much clearer and I paid particular attention to focus. I also use the
> mirror lockup to eliminate any camera shake.
>
> This is what I got:
> http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38986191
>
> Comments/Suggestions please.
>
> Thanks
>

It´s great to me! Nothing wrong. You have a beautyfull photo.
If you want to get it more sharper, I suggest you to take a look in:

http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/astro/index-e.html
Canon BeBit EOS DIGITAL Astrophotography Guide

Good Luck and nice shoots!
January 25, 2005 1:37:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Robert R Kircher, Jr. wrote:

> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
> news:5tSdnZbmM-7TjWjcRVn-2w@speakeasy.net...
>
>>Robert R Kircher, Jr. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Well I think this is the best I can do with my current lenses. Tonight
>>>was much clearer and I paid particular attention to focus. I also use
>>>the mirror lockup to eliminate any camera shake.
>>>
>>>This is what I got:
>>>http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38986191


Heh, like I said, I wish I had a lens that could do that! This is the
best I can do (on a foggy/cloudy night in the big city):
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay...;
Sounds like you are doing great, I do still think it still looks too
soft for the size you presented though (not that I could do better, mine
would only pass as a thumbnail & it's already cropped severely... and
100% looked really worthless). And I saw major jpeg compression
artifacts, you really can afford to use 90% on that image.

This was from a tiny little P&S using digital zoom (in rural Arizona):
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Southwest/2004...;
It is equal quality to my D-70 200mm shots! Hmph.



>>
>>Did you sharpen it?
>
>
> I did sharpen and work the contrast a little bit along with cropping using
> Capture one.


Maybe reduce a bit more & sharpen at that size.


>
>>Why f/11 this time instead of f/8
>
> I certainly can try that.


I just learned f8 tends to be the sweet spot for sharpness (at least on
ordinary lenses) unless there is another need, that's the place to be
apparently.




>
>>Is it B&W? Maybe including color would give a bit more life.
>
> No, it's color.

Maybe try boosting the saturation carefully to make it noticeable.


>
>>I wish I had a lens that could do that. Pretty cool.
>
>
> As to the lens used. It's just a cheap Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=produ...
>
> with a Quantary 2x Extender
> http://www.ritzcamera.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Pro...
>
> Not the greatest equipment but it works.


Yah, many times better than my nikon 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 (without a tele
adaptor) I'm still way jealous.
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 10:21:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I used basically the same equipment you used on the same night and came up
with this:

http://www.pbase.com/dondunlap/image/39016615

I find it very hard to manually focus the 75-300 because the focus ring is
very loose. The lens is about 10 years old and I am going to replace it
when I get some cash to spare. I didn't use mirror lock-up and also didn't
have remote shutter control.

I tried more shots last night when the moon was full and extremely bright.
It was cold and dry, so it was ideal, but nothing I did came out right. I
think my major problem is focus - the focus ring is too loose.

Don Dunlap

"Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CaGdndf837Uj9GjcRVn-hg@giganews.com...
>
> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
> news:h5adnRbu5rqQB2ncRVn-1w@giganews.com...
>> Robert R Kircher, Jr. wrote:
>>> "Steve Wolfe" <unt@codon.com> wrote in message
>>> news:35jgboF4o8mfuU1@individual.net...
>>>>> Well I think this is the best I can do with my current lenses. Tonight
>>>>> was much clearer and I paid particular attention to focus. I also use
>>>>> the mirror lockup to eliminate any camera shake.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is what I got:
>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38986191
>>>>>
>>>>> Comments/Suggestions please.
>>>>
>>>> It looks a whole lot better. : ) Where did you shoot it from? If
>>>> it was from a city, you'll probably see a bit more improvement by
>>>> going up into the
>>>> mountains on a good, clear night.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks Steve,
>>>
>>> Yes, I was thinking that could be an issue. Defiantly in a city from
>>> my back yard with some surrounding lights that I can't turn off such
>>> as the street light in the ally. I tried this when I was in the Blue
>>> Ridge last weekend but started too late and by the time I got the
>>> camera and exposure set right I lost the moon behind the trees. :-/
>>>
>>> One big problem I have is that although the tripod is very sturdy and
>>> can easily support the weight of the camera and lens, I get
>>> considerable camera shake through the view finder when I try to focus
>>> making the process very difficult. Of course I let the camera settle
>>> before I take the shot and use a remote shutter release and as I said
>>> in my OP the mirror lockup to help reduce any further camera shake. A
>>> better head on the tripod may help this I guess.
>>
>> Even a sturdy tripod will benefit from anchor weight: hang your camera
>> bag or some other mass to add substantial inertia and moment at a
>> distance from the head mount.
>
> Sound like a great idea. I will try that next time. I actually got the
> same exact advice from a family member who is a pro photog.
>
> Thanks
>
> --
>
> Rob
>
>
>
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 2:39:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Don Dunlap" <dondunlap@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:b457e$41f639d6$45234b3d$31123@allthenewsgroups.com...
>I used basically the same equipment you used on the same night and came up
>with this:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/dondunlap/image/39016615
>
> I find it very hard to manually focus the 75-300 because the focus ring is
> very loose. The lens is about 10 years old and I am going to replace it
> when I get some cash to spare. I didn't use mirror lock-up and also
> didn't have remote shutter control.


I have to agree with you regarding the focus ring. The slightest touch
sends the image from almost focused to way out. I focused the best I could,
took a serious of shots, and then focused again. I figured I'd get the
focus right for at least one of the cycles. I also set the camera and
tripod up so that I could sit underneath the camera. I basically set the
tripod up so that two legs were somewhat straddling the chair I was sitting
on. Sitting helped out a lot compared to trying to squat or kneel under the
camera. Maybe I should go get a 90deg viewer. ;-)

Lastly, I was fighting the COLD. It was in the teens when I was out
shooting and there was snow on the ground so I spent about an hour out side
shooting with short breaks in between to pull the CF Card and check out the
shots.

--

Rob
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 4:16:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 07:21:29 -0500, "Don Dunlap"
<dondunlap@direcway.com> wrote:

>I used basically the same equipment you used on the same night and came up
>with this:
>
>http://www.pbase.com/dondunlap/image/39016615

The moon is spherical, try to crop with that in mind. You just cut off
the dark bit of the moon, so it looks odd.

>I find it very hard to manually focus the 75-300 because the focus ring is
>very loose.

I've got a cheap lens too - a Sigma that will de-zoom itself if
pointed more than about 120deg upwards.

>The lens is about 10 years old and I am going to replace it
>when I get some cash to spare. I didn't use mirror lock-up and also didn't
>have remote shutter control.

You can use the timer for moon shots, remote is not a requirement.

>I tried more shots last night when the moon was full and extremely bright.
>It was cold and dry, so it was ideal,

A full moon is fairly boring (unless you put something in front of
it). Your example at least shows some crater shadows - and this only
happens when the moon isn't full.

>but nothing I did came out right. I
>think my major problem is focus - the focus ring is too loose.

Have you tried setting it and then taping the focus ring into a fixed
position ?

The other problem you may suffer, is the moon moving fairly quickly
across the sky. One trick is to try several shorter under-exposures
and then layer them in photoshop. A better way is to get a fancy
telescope mount that can track objects.

...I say 'track', they can't see anything, instead they are calibrated
on a couple of bright stars and then programmed to move set number of
degrees up and across by a small computer to track a specific object
the program knows about. Strap the camera to that thing, and you can
do longer exposures of the moon (or more interestingly, star fields.)

Check out autostar, available on meade's telescopes.

http://www.meade.com/autostar/autostars.html

There are a few telescope models that come with autostar for under
$300.

350mm for $300
1000mm for $350
1900mm for $850
2119mm for $900

Add $15 for a T-Mount adapter, and $35 for the Meade SLR adapter, and
you've got yourself one big self-tracking lens.

I would have got one of these years ago, except where I live in
Florida, the humidity screws up the sky for about 10 months of the
year.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 4:16:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46gcv05t7a36324nnht9jbod09jp4g6il5@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 07:21:29 -0500, "Don Dunlap"
> <dondunlap@direcway.com> wrote:
>
>>I used basically the same equipment you used on the same night and came up
>>with this:
>>
>>http://www.pbase.com/dondunlap/image/39016615
>
> The moon is spherical, try to crop with that in mind. You just cut off
> the dark bit of the moon, so it looks odd.
>

I didn't cut off any of the visible part of the moon, but you are probably
right that I should have centered it better.


>>I find it very hard to manually focus the 75-300 because the focus ring is
>>very loose.
>
> I've got a cheap lens too - a Sigma that will de-zoom itself if
> pointed more than about 120deg upwards.
>
>>The lens is about 10 years old and I am going to replace it
>>when I get some cash to spare. I didn't use mirror lock-up and also
>>didn't
>>have remote shutter control.
>
> You can use the timer for moon shots, remote is not a requirement.
>

To tell the truth, I totally forgot about using the timer. Can you use the
timer in conjunction with Mirror Lock-up?

>>I tried more shots last night when the moon was full and extremely bright.
>>It was cold and dry, so it was ideal,
>
> A full moon is fairly boring (unless you put something in front of
> it). Your example at least shows some crater shadows - and this only
> happens when the moon isn't full.
>
>>but nothing I did came out right. I
>>think my major problem is focus - the focus ring is too loose.
>
> Have you tried setting it and then taping the focus ring into a fixed
> position ?

Didn't think of that either. I am pretty old and my hands aren't as steady
as they could be. I really want to get a better lens. Would the Canon
100-400 L be easier to focus?

>
> The other problem you may suffer, is the moon moving fairly quickly
> across the sky. One trick is to try several shorter under-exposures
> and then layer them in photoshop. A better way is to get a fancy
> telescope mount that can track objects.
>
> ..I say 'track', they can't see anything, instead they are calibrated
> on a couple of bright stars and then programmed to move set number of
> degrees up and across by a small computer to track a specific object
> the program knows about. Strap the camera to that thing, and you can
> do longer exposures of the moon (or more interestingly, star fields.)
>
> Check out autostar, available on meade's telescopes.
>
> http://www.meade.com/autostar/autostars.html
>
> There are a few telescope models that come with autostar for under
> $300.
>
> 350mm for $300
> 1000mm for $350
> 1900mm for $850
> 2119mm for $900
>
> Add $15 for a T-Mount adapter, and $35 for the Meade SLR adapter, and
> you've got yourself one big self-tracking lens.
>
> I would have got one of these years ago, except where I live in
> Florida, the humidity screws up the sky for about 10 months of the
> year.
>
> --
> Owamanga!

I live in Fort Pierce and also have a problem with finding a clear night
without 99 percent humidity in the air. I do live a little away from the
city with few lights, but it is still difficult finding a night like last
night. I don't know if I am interested enough in astronomical photography
to get that deeply involved. I am going to be doing some computer work for
a guy soon that will yeild several thousand. Maybe I'll invest some of
that. I just bought an EF-S 10-22 lens with some of his money and it should
be here tomorrow. Looking forward to that.

Don
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 4:16:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Don Dunlap" <dondunlap@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:8c43a$41f65d54$45234365$12614@allthenewsgroups.com...
>
> "Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:46gcv05t7a36324nnht9jbod09jp4g6il5@4ax.com...

>>
>> You can use the timer for moon shots, remote is not a requirement.
>>
>
> To tell the truth, I totally forgot about using the timer. Can you use
> the timer in conjunction with Mirror Lock-up?

I don't know about the 20D but my Rebel/300D w/ hacked firmware does allow
you to combine the mirror lockup and timer. Took several shots this way of
the wifes xmas village under the tree in low light. It worked well.


--

Don
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 6:36:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:52:57 -0500, "Don Dunlap"
<dondunlap@direcway.com> wrote:

>"Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:46gcv05t7a36324nnht9jbod09jp4g6il5@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 07:21:29 -0500, "Don Dunlap"
>> <dondunlap@direcway.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I used basically the same equipment you used on the same night and came up
>>>with this:
>>>
>>>http://www.pbase.com/dondunlap/image/39016615
>>
>> The moon is spherical, try to crop with that in mind. You just cut off
>> the dark bit of the moon, so it looks odd.
>>
>
>I didn't cut off any of the visible part of the moon, but you are probably
>right that I should have centered it better.

That's my point, try to ignore the visible part, and crop based on the
whole circle. It'll look more natural.

>>>I find it very hard to manually focus the 75-300 because the focus ring is
>>>very loose.
>>
>> I've got a cheap lens too - a Sigma that will de-zoom itself if
>> pointed more than about 120deg upwards.
>>
>>>The lens is about 10 years old and I am going to replace it
>>>when I get some cash to spare. I didn't use mirror lock-up and also
>>>didn't
>>>have remote shutter control.
>>
>> You can use the timer for moon shots, remote is not a requirement.
>>
>
>To tell the truth, I totally forgot about using the timer. Can you use the
>timer in conjunction with Mirror Lock-up?

Depends on equipment I suppose, but I doubt any maker is so dumb that
they would give you mirror lockup function and then prevent you from
using the timer. Both features help with reducing shake, it makes
sense that you'd want to use them together.

The other consideration with longer exposures is to blank-off the
eyepiece to prevent stray light coming in from that side of the
camera. Most SLRs come with a little rubber cap that you loose about 6
minutes after opening the box if you don't attach it to the strap
immediately.

>>>I tried more shots last night when the moon was full and extremely bright.
>>>It was cold and dry, so it was ideal,
>>
>> A full moon is fairly boring (unless you put something in front of
>> it). Your example at least shows some crater shadows - and this only
>> happens when the moon isn't full.
>>
>>>but nothing I did came out right. I
>>>think my major problem is focus - the focus ring is too loose.
>>
>> Have you tried setting it and then taping the focus ring into a fixed
>> position ?
>
>Didn't think of that either. I am pretty old and my hands aren't as steady
>as they could be. I really want to get a better lens. Would the Canon
>100-400 L be easier to focus?

You definitely don't want to be touching the camera or tripod for any
reason during the shot. Age aside, we all shake.

Can't comment on Canon lenses, as I have no experience of these.

>> The other problem you may suffer, is the moon moving fairly quickly
>> across the sky. One trick is to try several shorter under-exposures
>> and then layer them in photoshop. A better way is to get a fancy
>> telescope mount that can track objects.
>>
>> ..I say 'track', they can't see anything, instead they are calibrated
>> on a couple of bright stars and then programmed to move set number of
>> degrees up and across by a small computer to track a specific object
>> the program knows about. Strap the camera to that thing, and you can
>> do longer exposures of the moon (or more interestingly, star fields.)
>>
>> Check out autostar, available on meade's telescopes.
>>
>> http://www.meade.com/autostar/autostars.html
>>
>> There are a few telescope models that come with autostar for under
>> $300.
>>
>> 350mm for $300
>> 1000mm for $350
>> 1900mm for $850
>> 2119mm for $900
>>
>> Add $15 for a T-Mount adapter, and $35 for the Meade SLR adapter, and
>> you've got yourself one big self-tracking lens.
>>
>> I would have got one of these years ago, except where I live in
>> Florida, the humidity screws up the sky for about 10 months of the
>> year.
>>
>
>I live in Fort Pierce and also have a problem with finding a clear night
>without 99 percent humidity in the air. I do live a little away from the
>city with few lights, but it is still difficult finding a night like last
>night.

Yep, the FL weather for the last week or so has been excellent, I
expect the same for another few days. The nice thing about this state
is that 5-10 miles drive (west in our case) and you are in the dark,
the lousy thing is the humidity.

> I don't know if I am interested enough in astronomical photography
>to get that deeply involved. I am going to be doing some computer work for
>a guy soon that will yeild several thousand. Maybe I'll invest some of
>that.

You are obviously using the word 'Invest' in a way I am not previously
familiar with. :-)

>I just bought an EF-S 10-22 lens with some of his money and it should
>be here tomorrow. Looking forward to that.

Sounds fun. Remember that astro-photography doesn't have to involve
long lenses. Your 10-22 would be perfect for some wide shots:

Example from the web:
http://skychasers.net/YAQSQ.jpg

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 6:36:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: Moon Part 2


> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:52:57 -0500, "Don Dunlap"
> <dondunlap@direcway.com> wrote:

SNIP a lot

>>> I don't know if I am interested enough in astronomical photography
>>to get that deeply involved. I am going to be doing some computer work
>>for
>>a guy soon that will yeild several thousand. Maybe I'll invest some of
>>that.
>
> You are obviously using the word 'Invest' in a way I am not previously
> familiar with. :-)
>

When I invest in the stock market, it ends up being "buy high - sell low".
Buying a lens for the camera would be following that same line.


>>I just bought an EF-S 10-22 lens with some of his money and it should
>>be here tomorrow. Looking forward to that.
>
> Sounds fun. Remember that astro-photography doesn't have to involve
> long lenses. Your 10-22 would be perfect for some wide shots:
>
> Example from the web:
> http://skychasers.net/YAQSQ.jpg
>

Interesting shot. I wonder how long it took?

Thanks for all your comments.
Don
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 8:05:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:41:24 -0500, "Don Dunlap"
<dondunlap@direcway.com> wrote:

>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com>
>Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
>Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 10:36 AM
>Subject: Re: Moon Part 2
>
>
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:52:57 -0500, "Don Dunlap"
>> <dondunlap@direcway.com> wrote:
>
>SNIP a lot
>
>>>> I don't know if I am interested enough in astronomical photography
>>>to get that deeply involved. I am going to be doing some computer work
>>>for
>>>a guy soon that will yeild several thousand. Maybe I'll invest some of
>>>that.
>>
>> You are obviously using the word 'Invest' in a way I am not previously
>> familiar with. :-)
>>
>
>When I invest in the stock market, it ends up being "buy high - sell low".
>Buying a lens for the camera would be following that same line.
>
>
>>>I just bought an EF-S 10-22 lens with some of his money and it should
>>>be here tomorrow. Looking forward to that.
>>
>> Sounds fun. Remember that astro-photography doesn't have to involve
>> long lenses. Your 10-22 would be perfect for some wide shots:
>>
>> Example from the web:
>> http://skychasers.net/YAQSQ.jpg
>>
>
>Interesting shot. I wonder how long it took?

My guess from looking at a few of these, it was only about 15-20
minutes. (One full star rotation would be 24hrs I presume)

It's from this page:
http://skychasers.net/joeklein.htm

...they don't always tell you the exposure details.

And he used the flash at some point to illuminate the tree, but as it
was fired from a few inches off to the right (a good choice, the
shadows give depth to the tree), I presume his camera was mounted in
portrait-mode with the external flash attached.

That method of mounting I wouldn't personally attempt for this length
of exposure unless you have a decent tripod. I would also have tried
to illuminate the tree with something warmer - emulating a camp-fire
with a yellow & red filtered flashlight for example, rather than use
an unfiltered flash.

>Thanks for all your comments.

That's what usenet is for..

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 12:23:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:B-KdnXbZCdiv62vcRVn-uw@giganews.com...
>
> "Don Dunlap" <dondunlap@direcway.com> wrote in message
> news:b457e$41f639d6$45234b3d$31123@allthenewsgroups.com...
>>I used basically the same equipment you used on the same night and came up
>>with this:
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/dondunlap/image/39016615
>>
>> I find it very hard to manually focus the 75-300 because the focus ring
>> is very loose. The lens is about 10 years old and I am going to replace
>> it when I get some cash to spare. I didn't use mirror lock-up and also
>> didn't have remote shutter control.
>
>
> I have to agree with you regarding the focus ring. The slightest touch
> sends the image from almost focused to way out. I focused the best I
> could, took a serious of shots, and then focused again. I figured I'd get
> the focus right for at least one of the cycles. I also set the camera
> and tripod up so that I could sit underneath the camera. I basically set
> the tripod up so that two legs were somewhat straddling the chair I was
> sitting on. Sitting helped out a lot compared to trying to squat or kneel
> under the camera. Maybe I should go get a 90deg viewer. ;-)
>
> Lastly, I was fighting the COLD. It was in the teens when I was out
> shooting and there was snow on the ground so I spent about an hour out
> side shooting with short breaks in between to pull the CF Card and check
> out the shots.
>
> --
>
> Rob
>

I didn't have a chair but I will the next time. Bending over while
adjusting the focus only added to the difficulty. I don't know what to do
about the loose focus ring though. I guess I got what I paid for in the
cheap lens. I don't remember what I paid for it 10 years ago, but it wasn't
much.

Don
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 1:45:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Robert R Kircher, Jr. wrote:

> "Jim Townsend" <not@real.address> wrote in message
> news:10vae6reicviufb@news.supernews.com...
>
>>Robert R Kircher, Jr. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Well I think this is the best I can do with my current lenses. Tonight
>>>was
>>>much clearer and I paid particular attention to focus. I also use the
>>>mirror lockup to eliminate any camera shake.
>>>
>>>This is what I got:
>>>http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38986191
>>>
>>>Comments/Suggestions please.
>>
>>Looks good.
>>
>>I don't think you can hope for much better. FWIW, the moon is almost full
>>in
>>this shot. Because the sun is shining directly on it, there are no
>>shadows
>>so the surface looks pretty plain.
>>
>>If you try it when the moon is half illuminated you'll get much more
>>detail...
>>Especially near the light/dark transition area.

Bob,
Your moon image is pretty good, especially for the short focal
length. The full moon has its own interesting aspect,
so while people say do the shadows, the subtle contrasts
of the full moon should be done too. At full, you can
see colors in the maria over the whole disk.
--Just my opinion.

Roger
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 12:55:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:
>
> The other consideration with longer exposures is to blank-off the
> eyepiece to prevent stray light coming in from that side of the
> camera. Most SLRs come with a little rubber cap that you loose about 6
> minutes after opening the box if you don't attach it to the strap
> immediately.
>
With time exposure, manual exposure - or any exposure that is not
controlled by the camera's meter, blanking the viewfinder will do
nothing. Stray light entering the viewfinder will affect the meter
reading, but can't affect the image, since the mirror is up, sealing the
camera interior from any light. The light can get to the meter sensor,
but no further.

Colin
!