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

Babs

Babs

Babs

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

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.

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

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

"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

"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