In article ,
"BubblyBabs" wrote:

No, I held the camera in my hand but I do have a monopod... I plan to get a
tripod in the future... I dont' know if my camera would take good moon pix,
I've got a FinePix s5000... I am able to fiddle with shutter speed, etc so
I'll play with it and see what I get...

Babs

The monopod would help, particularly if you can wedge it in somewhere so
it will stand by itself. A tripod would most likely make it possible to
see the features of the moon, but that also depends on the lens.

Even a cheap tripod is a big help. You can use the timer function of
the camera, so any residual camera movement from pushing the button,
etc., will have died down by the time the pic is taken.

"Dave Moorman" wrote in message
]...
In article ,
"BubblyBabs" wrote:

No, I held the camera in my hand but I do have a monopod... I plan to
get a
tripod in the future... I dont' know if my camera would take good moon
pix,
I've got a FinePix s5000... I am able to fiddle with shutter speed, etc
so
I'll play with it and see what I get...

Babs

The monopod would help, particularly if you can wedge it in somewhere so
it will stand by itself. A tripod would most likely make it possible to
see the features of the moon, but that also depends on the lens.

Even a cheap tripod is a big help. You can use the timer function of
the camera, so any residual camera movement from pushing the button,
etc., will have died down by the time the pic is taken.

Ooo, good idea! That'll give me one more feature to play with on this
camera!
:-)

Babs

Edward Erbeck wrote:
"Grumpy AuContraire" wrote:


Actually, the best results would still be obtained by using a low
contrast film, camera with superb optics and the "dodge 'n burn"
techniques in the lab.



I don't believe I said anything that would contradict that. I used to
like TechPan. Great Film with a wide range given your Processing Choice.
Never got into Color Processing. For Color I used Slide Film.


For quie a few years, I used Kodachrome 25, (long gone now), and a fine
grain negative film. Kodak used to make a color negative film also with
an ASA of 25. More than once, I produced 30x40 prints from these
negatives. Of course, you have to be meticulous with cleanliness both in
the camera and lab.


For example, I can shoot backlit subjects with my Leica and still get
good shadow detail without a lot of fuss. Whenever I want to shoot high
quality photos, out it comes as it's capability with high resolution
film is near the digital equivalent of 45 megapixles.



The fact remains that most Pictures today are shared electronically and
that limits the useful resolution. Except for the occasional "Coffee Table"
Book I really can't think of a Distributed Media that still requires Film
Original Images.


Oh, I agree. I hardly ever use the Leica anymore... Only for the artsy
fartsy stuff!



Photoshop is good but not yet equivalent to film/lab with regards to
highlight vs. shadow detail.



Again no argument. Compared to a Darkroom, PhotoShop is a Hammer compared
to Surgical Equipment. Sadly I see the day when the only time anyone talks
about Film will be in reference to what's on their Teeth in the
Morning...........


As I stated above, Kodachrome 25 went the way of the Dodo boid several
years ago. I'm not even sure that there is anything as good by other
manufacturers that is as good. The great thing about Kodachrome is it's
bullet proof archival quality. I have slides that are nearly fifty
years old and they are still perfect.

I fear that digital stuff will have gone through severa generational
changes to include format etc.

Oh well...

JT

"Grumpy AuContraire" wrote:


For quie a few years, I used Kodachrome 25, (long gone now), and a fine
grain negative film. Kodak used to make a color negative film also with
an ASA of 25. More than once, I produced 30x40 prints from these
negatives. Of course, you have to be meticulous with cleanliness both in
the camera and lab.


Too bad more folks didn't realize what the slower Films had to offer. For
a while I enjoyed taking 4X5's with TechPan. I have no idea what the
Enlargement Limit was for those!? Never even considered trying an 8X10, even
with the Ansel Adams influence (my preference for Black and White). At least
with the Garflex Press Camera I had a degree of mobility ;-)

The fact remains that most Pictures today are shared electronically and
that limits the useful resolution. Except for the occasional "Coffee Table"
Book I really can't think of a Distributed Media that still requires Film
Original Images.


Oh, I agree. I hardly ever use the Leica anymore... Only for the artsy
fartsy stuff!


I haven't pulled out my Asahi Pentax Spotmatic II in many Years and
there's also a Nikon F-4 sitting next to it sharing a Dusty Shelf. Heck you
can't even get Batteries for the Pentax any more I don't think.


As I stated above, Kodachrome 25 went the way of the Dodo boid several
years ago. I'm not even sure that there is anything as good by other
manufacturers that is as good. The great thing about Kodachrome is it's
bullet proof archival quality. I have slides that are nearly fifty
years old and they are still perfect.


Folks like Fuji and another "Whoever they were/are" Brand of Film
never seemed to get it "Just Right". Oh it worked and made images, but.....

I fear that digital stuff will have gone through several generational
changes to include format etc.

Oh well...


Hopefully Digital will Catch Up. I had a Computer in the late 70's with
a Screaming 1 Mhz Processor. Today for less than it cost I can get one with
Dual or Quad Processors running at over a Gig. So who knows what Imaging
will be like given the leaps in Storage, Processing and Chip Development. I
like a half Full Glass.

Crazy Ed

Edward Erbeck wrote:
"Grumpy AuContraire" wrote:


For quie a few years, I used Kodachrome 25, (long gone now), and a fine
grain negative film. Kodak used to make a color negative film also with
an ASA of 25. More than once, I produced 30x40 prints from these
negatives. Of course, you have to be meticulous with cleanliness both in
the camera and lab.



Too bad more folks didn't realize what the slower Films had to offer. For
a while I enjoyed taking 4X5's with TechPan. I have no idea what the
Enlargement Limit was for those!? Never even considered trying an 8X10, even
with the Ansel Adams influence (my preference for Black and White). At least
with the Garflex Press Camera I had a degree of mobility ;-)


I had a Speed Graphic or two and a 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 (Crown I believe) for
better portability along with a 5/7 view, 4x5 view. The view cameral
were great in that they could compensate for distortion when shooting
square (like buildings) from a disadvantaged shooting point. Hey! I
just used the word "disadvantage" without infering that politically
correct crap!! Yeehawwww!!!


The fact remains that most Pictures today are shared electronically and
that limits the useful resolution. Except for the occasional "Coffee Table"
Book I really can't think of a Distributed Media that still requires Film
Original Images.


Oh, I agree. I hardly ever use the Leica anymore... Only for the artsy
fartsy stuff!



I haven't pulled out my Asahi Pentax Spotmatic II in many Years and
there's also a Nikon F-4 sitting next to it sharing a Dusty Shelf. Heck you
can't even get Batteries for the Pentax any more I don't think.


That's why I like the M2 Leica. No freakin' batteries required. I
could use the (very) old Leica meter as well as that didn't require a
battery either. But I simply use the F16 rule, lick my finger and stick
it in the air to check wind direction. G



As I stated above, Kodachrome 25 went the way of the Dodo boid several
years ago. I'm not even sure that there is anything as good by other
manufacturers that is as good. The great thing about Kodachrome is it's
bullet proof archival quality. I have slides that are nearly fifty
years old and they are still perfect.



Folks like Fuji and another "Whoever they were/are" Brand of Film
never seemed to get it "Just Right". Oh it worked and made images, but.....


It's the Kodachrome process which is very complex as the dyes are added
during the process rather than being incorporated into the film.
Extremely stable.



I fear that digital stuff will have gone through several generational
changes to include format etc.

Oh well...



Hopefully Digital will Catch Up. I had a Computer in the late 70's with
a Screaming 1 Mhz Processor. Today for less than it cost I can get one with
Dual or Quad Processors running at over a Gig. So who knows what Imaging
will be like given the leaps in Storage, Processing and Chip Development. I
like a half Full Glass.




Oh, it will and probably within the next ten years. But by then, I'll
probably be in bed screaming for a diaper change...

JT

"Grumpy AuContraire" wrote:


I had a Speed Graphic or two and a 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 (Crown I believe) for
better portability along with a 5/7 view, 4x5 view. The view cameras
were great in that they could compensate for distortion when shooting
square (like buildings) from a disadvantaged shooting point. Hey! I
just used the word "disadvantage" without infering that politically
correct crap!! Yeehawwww!!!


The only "Large Format" Roll Film Camera I had was a Top View Kodak
someone gave me way back when.
Enjoyed the View Cameras except for the "Support" Equipment. Once you had
enough Film Packs for a Days shooting, 2 extra Lens', Light Meter, Bulb
Blower and Camel Hair Brush, a 4 week Backpacking Trip was a light load ;-).


That's why I like the M2 Leica. No freakin' batteries required. I
could use the (very) old Leica meter as well as that didn't require a
battery either. But I simply use the F16 rule, lick my finger and stick
it in the air to check wind direction. G


Oh the Pentax only uses a Battery for the Meter. But how many shots can
you take at 1/125 F-16 with out loosing the flexibility that a properly
exposed image can give. That'd be like only having a 55mm Lens for your
35mm.


Oh, it will and probably within the next ten years. But by then, I'll
probably be in bed screaming for a diaper change...


And getting the same response you get now when asking someone else to get
you something ;-)

Crazy Ed

Edward Erbeck wrote:
"Grumpy AuContraire" wrote:


I had a Speed Graphic or two and a 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 (Crown I believe) for
better portability along with a 5/7 view, 4x5 view. The view cameras
were great in that they could compensate for distortion when shooting
square (like buildings) from a disadvantaged shooting point. Hey! I
just used the word "disadvantage" without infering that politically
correct crap!! Yeehawwww!!!



The only "Large Format" Roll Film Camera I had was a Top View Kodak
someone gave me way back when.
Enjoyed the View Cameras except for the "Support" Equipment. Once you had
enough Film Packs for a Days shooting, 2 extra Lens', Light Meter, Bulb
Blower and Camel Hair Brush, a 4 week Backpacking Trip was a light load ;-).


That's why I like the M2 Leica. No freakin' batteries required. I
could use the (very) old Leica meter as well as that didn't require a
battery either. But I simply use the F16 rule, lick my finger and stick
it in the air to check wind direction. G




The F16 rule is ASA speed equal shutter speed @ F16 in bright daylight.
Experience dictates variables from that point. Cloud cuts off the sun,
drop to F8 etc.

When I was shooting a lot, I carried an old Sekonic incident meter that
I used a lot when shooting
Oh the Pentax only uses a Battery for the Meter. But how many shots can
you take at 1/125 F-16 with out loosing the flexibility that a properly
exposed image can give. That'd be like only having a 55mm Lens for your
35mm.



Oh, it will and probably within the next ten years. But by then, I'll
probably be in bed screaming for a diaper change...



And getting the same response you get now when asking someone else to get
you something ;-)



Hard to say since I have to do everything myself anyway. The cat ain't
any help except to be a general PIA.

Somehow, I think they'll medicate me heavily when the time comes...

JT

In article
,
Grumpy AuContraire wrote:


The F16 rule is ASA speed equal shutter speed @ F16 in bright daylight.
Experience dictates variables from that point. Cloud cuts off the sun,
drop to F8 etc.

Is the other part of that rule of thumb that you set the exposure time
for 1/the lens length? I.e., if you're using a 75mm lens, set the
exposure time 1/75 (or as close as you can get).

Oh, it will and probably within the next ten years. But by then, I'll
probably be in bed screaming for a diaper change...

JT

Very informative email response but I must say that this really caught my
attention!

Babs

"Grumpy AuContraire" wrote in message
...


The F16 rule is ASA speed equal shutter speed @ F16 in bright daylight.
Experience dictates variables from that point. Cloud cuts off the sun,
drop to F8 etc.

JT

Shutter speed= 1/ASA at F16 (bright sun) or any combination which gives same
exposure. Open up one stop for side lighting and 2 stops for
backlighting-according to a Brooks Institute grad I worked with.
My usual K64 exposure on a sunny day was 1/250 at F8 and that goes back over
35 years.
"Museum Shelf"-Pentax LX, ESII, SP500, Mamiya TLR, 5X7 field, Bolex Reg 8
movie (same body as 16mm also used k-chrome)
First camera-roll film box camera $1.25 and 2 cereal boxtops-1958. Yes I
still have the prints.
jim