Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Taken tonight...
Question, how do I get the moon to be more than a blurry blob? I like some of the colors in the clouds in these images... Some are pretty big in size... Babs |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Babs
|
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Babs
|
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Babs
|
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Babs
Liked the Pictures. #1 is my favorite of the series. Moon and Cloud shots are always a compromise. If you set the exposure for the Moon the Clouds suffer. If (as in your shots) you go for detail in the Clouds the Moon will be overexposed. The sad reality short of "stacking images to combine 2 exposures where each is set for the best of one or the other is until the folks that make the Chips for Digital Cameras (I've long given up on any more advances in Film Technology) can make Chips that have the Dynamic Range of the Human Eye what you got is about as good as it gets. Crazy Ed |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 05:39:41 -0700, Edward Erbeck
wrote: Babs Liked the Pictures. #1 is my favorite of the series. Moon and Cloud shots are always a compromise. If you set the exposure for the Moon the Clouds suffer. If (as in your shots) you go for detail in the Clouds the Moon will be overexposed. The sad reality short of "stacking images to combine 2 exposures where each is set for the best of one or the other is until the folks that make the Chips for Digital Cameras (I've long given up on any more advances in Film Technology) can make Chips that have the Dynamic Range of the Human Eye what you got is about as good as it gets. But does the human eye have a bigger dynamic range? If you are looking towards the sun, you cannot see other things very well. -- This message has been brought to you by solar and wind power. Who needs the national grid? http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com Q: Why can't you have a circumcised Morris dancer? A: Because you have to be a complete prick to be a Morris dancer. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Edward Erbeck wrote: Babs Liked the Pictures. #1 is my favorite of the series. Moon and Cloud shots are always a compromise. If you set the exposure for the Moon the Clouds suffer. If (as in your shots) you go for detail in the Clouds the Moon will be overexposed. The sad reality short of "stacking images to combine 2 exposures where each is set for the best of one or the other is until the folks that make the Chips for Digital Cameras (I've long given up on any more advances in Film Technology) can make Chips that have the Dynamic Range of the Human Eye what you got is about as good as it gets. Crazy Ed 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. 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. Photoshop is good but not yet equivalent to film/lab with regards to highlight vs. shadow detail. JT |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
"BubblyBabs" wrote: Babs begin 666 NashvilleTNmoonclouds2.jpg [Image] end Dramatic, picture, Babs. I like it. As others have said, the dynamic range of the CCD is not big enough to encompass the light of the moon and the dark of the clouds, so you usually have to pick one or the other. You can see how the camera meters the moon (which would be a shorter exposure time) and the clouds (a longer exposure time) and then try some setting in the middle. You might get some worthwhile results that way. Another option is to wait for a time when the moon is, say, half occluded by the clouds, which would probably bring the range of lights and darks into the dynamic range of the CCD. Using a longer lens will make the moon bigger. I assume you're using a tripod, right? Dave |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dave Moorman" wrote in message ]... In article , "BubblyBabs" wrote: Babs begin 666 NashvilleTNmoonclouds2.jpg [Image] end Dramatic, picture, Babs. I like it. As others have said, the dynamic range of the CCD is not big enough to encompass the light of the moon and the dark of the clouds, so you usually have to pick one or the other. You can see how the camera meters the moon (which would be a shorter exposure time) and the clouds (a longer exposure time) and then try some setting in the middle. You might get some worthwhile results that way. Another option is to wait for a time when the moon is, say, half occluded by the clouds, which would probably bring the range of lights and darks into the dynamic range of the CCD. Using a longer lens will make the moon bigger. I assume you're using a tripod, right? Dave 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 |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 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. 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........... Crazy Ed |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Old moon in the new moon's arms [1/1] | alt.binaries.pictures.weather (Weather Photos) | |||
Nashville Anvil 2 | alt.binaries.pictures.weather (Weather Photos) | |||
Nashville Anvil cloud | alt.binaries.pictures.weather (Weather Photos) | |||
Moon and Clouds (1) | alt.binaries.pictures.weather (Weather Photos) | |||
Nashville TN Moon and Clouds | alt.binaries.pictures.weather (Weather Photos) |