Posts for: CraigFair
Sep 10, 2014 15:04:34 #
Robotfighter wrote:
Tried out a Canon EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS lens at ... (show quote)
""Didn't get the shots as tack sharp as I'd like for the planes that were flying"".
What settings did you use for the inflight planes? And Vibration Control? What would you use now? Anybody!
I live under the landing approach to our Airport and want to put together a catalog of the planes.
Craig
Sep 10, 2014 14:57:07 #
romanticf16 wrote:
I'm impressed. Nice work.
I agree, Great shots.
Craig
Sep 9, 2014 15:16:10 #
nervous2 wrote:
I own a Nikon D7000 and would like to attach it to my Meade 125 ETX telescope to try my hand at taking nighttime photos beginning with October 8 lunar eclipse. I could just call Adorama or B&H Photo but I respect the expertise of my fellow hoggers and would appreciate someone letting me know what would be the best setup to attach the two together and start shooting. Any additional thoughts or advice to get me headed in the right direction would be very much appreciated. Thanks very much.
Here's the setup I use on my telescopes for Moon Shots, I shot straight through the Scope. With a DSLR it gives me the best shots to work with in Post Processing.
The Visual Back with T-2 & T Adapters to the Camera Bayonet
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Baader-SCT-T2-Universal-Adapter-for-ETX-NX4-C90-Mak-SCT-Telescope-2958500-/141355937773?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20e9786fed
Craig
Sep 9, 2014 13:50:32 #
brucew29 wrote:
Nice shot Gary,
Hi Gary
I have to agree with Bruce, Great Shot.
Craig
Sep 8, 2014 18:11:08 #
ranchmaster wrote:
I would love to see what you did with my photo. Don't worry about posting, I don't. I am just practicing, and I have a long way to go.
Galen
Galen
Hello Galen,
I hope you don't mind I just tweaked it a little. This may be something to start with. It sounds like you're most interested in the fact it's a point of land and the windmills??? I should have cut out the telephone pole too.
Craig
Sep 8, 2014 16:54:07 #
Rathyatra wrote:
Thanks Craig - will try those settings
:thumbup:
:thumbup:
Those are general setting, depending on your camera and lens as to what will work best for you.
Sep 8, 2014 15:44:51 #
Rathyatra wrote:
Thanks Stef
I saw the shot I wanted but by the time I set the camera up it had changed - you are right - it was fleeting!
I saw the shot I wanted but by the time I set the camera up it had changed - you are right - it was fleeting!
Use settings for bright sunlight. I used manual f/4, 1/250 sec, ISO 200, spot settings on focus, auto white balance.
Craig
f/4, 1/250 sec, ISO 200
Sep 8, 2014 12:02:19 #
Greenguy33 wrote:
I'm sure that my photo's will be much better now since the firmware is updated. :lol:
I've attached one pic I took last weekend. Hoping to do better this weekend! :thumbup:
I've attached one pic I took last weekend. Hoping to do better this weekend! :thumbup:
Greenguy33 thanks for posting, very nice shot and good location. I'll bet you had fun there.
Craig
Sep 6, 2014 19:30:02 #
CraigFair wrote:
This butterfly was totally cooperative
Nikon D600, Nikon 60mm f/2.8 Micro
60mm
f/4.2
ISO 100
1/200 sec
4.5"
Nikon D600, Nikon 60mm f/2.8 Micro
60mm
f/4.2
ISO 100
1/200 sec
4.5"
Anybody have more Please post them, this is open to everyone.
Craig
Sep 6, 2014 06:46:12 #
This butterfly was totally cooperative
Nikon D600, Nikon 60mm f/2.8 Micro
60mm
f/4.2
ISO 100
1/200 sec
4.5"
Nikon D600, Nikon 60mm f/2.8 Micro
60mm
f/4.2
ISO 100
1/200 sec
4.5"
Sep 5, 2014 19:15:18 #
Griff wrote:
Keenan.
Your use of the rather intemperate word 'spewing' suggests to me that you are committed to your position emotionally more than intellectually.
Climate change is not a subject for rhetoric, but of science.
Honest scientists do not attempt to brow-beat those who hold a different view, but let the data speak for them.
To iterate my previous answer to your question: Lennart Bengtsson, merely as a start.
Your use of the rather intemperate word 'spewing' suggests to me that you are committed to your position emotionally more than intellectually.
Climate change is not a subject for rhetoric, but of science.
Honest scientists do not attempt to brow-beat those who hold a different view, but let the data speak for them.
To iterate my previous answer to your question: Lennart Bengtsson, merely as a start.
Reto Knutti of the ETH Zürich technical university is also critical. "Organizations like the GWPF contribute to whipping scientific debate into a religious war," he argues. "They distribute pseudo-scientific reports, even though they are actually pursuing a political aim," says Knutti. Jochem Marotzke, who is Bengtsson's successor at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, says, "GWPF works deliberately in a selective way. They mention only arguments that suit their purposes. Counterarguments are kept under wraps."
Sep 5, 2014 17:30:06 #
brucew29 wrote:
For a Meade 8" I would expect a better image... see image that I took with my 33 year old Dynamax 8" below... it is cropped in close!
P.S. I took many photos over an extended period to get this shot!
P.S. I took many photos over an extended period to get this shot!
Real nice clarity. Did you stack this shot? My problem is getting a good focus with the 3.2" LCD on the camera. And I have had only a couple hours of fogless time.
I have not dialed in the Polar Alignment or my Collimation yet. When I get a clear sky I just shoot everything I can as fast as I can. All excuses aside I should be doing a lot better.
I live on the Calif. Coast, lots of fog at night.
Sep 5, 2014 16:36:13 #
brucew29 wrote:
It is a pretty good shot... If you had a program like "Topaz Denoise" you could clean up some of the noise I can see on "Download"... what did you use to take the photo and also the "EXIF" info...
P.S. See quick Topaz Denoise and sharpening below... need original for best results...
P.S. See quick Topaz Denoise and sharpening below... need original for best results...
Sep 5, 2014 16:05:04 #
Griff wrote:
Keenan,
Why do you persist in your contention that all who do not accept carbon dioxide as the source of global warming - sorry 'climate change' as we must call it now - are mentally defective?
Do they not have a right to their informed interpretation of the observations?
Why do you persist in your contention that all who do not accept carbon dioxide as the source of global warming - sorry 'climate change' as we must call it now - are mentally defective?
Do they not have a right to their informed interpretation of the observations?
Good comment, now let's see some "Expert" Paperwork
Sep 5, 2014 15:26:04 #
Keenan wrote:
Wow, thanks for the compliment. So humble of you to admit that just 2 of my brain cells can run circles around your entire collection of millions of retarded brain cells, and that of your cousin Neil. :lol:
Can we all get off this moronic banter and get back to Climate Change & Global Warming???