Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Photo Analysis
Another night shot
Page <prev 2 of 2
Jan 10, 2012 22:13:54   #
Cappy Loc: Wildwood, NJ
 
Merlin1300 wrote:
Tripod and HDR. I suppose I could have reduced the moon blur by using higher ISO (see the star streaks) - - I think the longest exposure for the dark shot was about 20 seconds - -


Merlin, do you think if you had shot just after dusk, while the sky is still lighter, for 3/6/ or 10 seconds maybe the moon and house lights wouldn't be as blown out??? Just an idea.

Reply
Jan 10, 2012 22:19:16   #
Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX
 
It woulda been hard to get the moon to come up any earlier that night :-)
.
But I see what you're getting at - reducing the background contrast by increasing the general illumination level around the lights would certainly reduce their prominence.

Reply
Jan 10, 2012 22:20:46   #
Cappy Loc: Wildwood, NJ
 
For a few nights during the month it may (???) work out.

Reply
 
 
Jan 11, 2012 02:29:39   #
suntomoon Loc: Virginia Beach, Va.
 
emrob62 wrote:
rayjay wrote:
Let us not forget the moon moves! Ray


especially on a large streaker :mrgreen:


Hahaha!

Reply
Jan 12, 2012 15:14:15   #
Silvertone Loc: Chopin, La.
 
I copied this from an article ...easy way to explain...
All lenses have a built in star filter. To get the star effect stop your lens down to a very small aperture opening (large f-stop number). Any small pinpoint of light will become a star.


Lens apertures are constructed of blades and the number of blades determines the shape of the aperture. The number of points on the star reflects this shape. By counting the number of points you can tell how many slides the aperture opening has. If you’re star has eight points then the aperture opening is an octagon. More expensive, better quality lenses have more blades in the aperture, to keep the aperture as round as possible. This helps make the boca (out of focus areas in a photograph) more pleasing. Wide-angle lenses seem to work best for this technique because the light source has to be small or a pinpoint in the photograph.

Reply
Jan 14, 2012 00:11:00   #
suntomoon Loc: Virginia Beach, Va.
 
Silvertone wrote:
I copied this from an article ...easy way to explain...
All lenses have a built in star filter. To get the star effect stop your lens down to a very small aperture opening (large f-stop number). Any small pinpoint of light will become a star.


Lens apertures are constructed of blades and the number of blades determines the shape of the aperture. The number of points on the star reflects this shape. By counting the number of points you can tell how many slides the aperture opening has. If you’re star has eight points then the aperture opening is an octagon. More expensive, better quality lenses have more blades in the aperture, to keep the aperture as round as possible. This helps make the boca (out of focus areas in a photograph) more pleasing. Wide-angle lenses seem to work best for this technique because the light source has to be small or a pinpoint in the photograph.
I copied this from an article ...easy way to expla... (show quote)

excellent info!! Thankyou!

Reply
Jan 30, 2022 19:28:35   #
goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl
 
slclog wrote:
There is a lot wrong with this shot but I am trying to understand what caused all the issues. Things I know: That really is the moon up there. Canon 20D, f10, 50mm, ISO 200, Manual focus, crooked tripod, basketball hoop still in picture white line that is an airplane going by.
In the lighter picture 25 second exposure
In the Darker picture 8 seconds with a minor re-positioning of the lens.
Aside from fixing the obvious framing issues, how would you expose a shot like this? What settings and what do you focus on. My eyes aren't the greatest, but I'm pretty sure the moon was in focus in the viewfinder
There is a lot wrong with this shot but I am tryin... (show quote)

================================================

slclog-- I posted the below for another person with a similar problem.. and this might work for you

As a long-time landscape shooter, I would like to offer you a different approach for your shot... YES, there are many ways to do this... and other people do have solutions that will work... but, this is what works for me.

First, I will agree with others here and state that the "F/16 Rule" or the "Sunny f/16" rule just does not apply... That rule is for 'daylight' shots, where lighting is 'somewhat' even through the entire frame of the image..... Here, you actually are dealing with - two lighting conditions.

The first is the 'dark' image which is your landscape, and the foreground of the image which is light at 'night time' conditions....... Second, you have the brightness of the moon, which is very much closer to 'real daylight' conditions... Just remember, the moon is a planet, where the source of light is solely the sun... So, this is actually closer to 'daylight' conditions... NOW, what will change this is, atmospheric pollution, clours and or dust, or microparticles in our earth's atmosphere...

With that said, you must look at it as if you are actually shooting two different pictures...

NOW... for the solution... -- Bracketing and them blending of 2 or more of the captured images.

The objective is to have one image which has good exposure for the foreground, and to have a second image for the exposure of the moon itself... and 'blend' or 'photo merge' in lightroom...

As for me.... I am lucky in that now I own the Canon EOS R5 and I can use 'exposure simulation' which means... this is the 'live-view' of other DSLR cameras, and what I see of my screen is actually what is being seen by the camera sensor...

If you don't have 'exposure simulation' -- Try this...... Experiment which you shooting/exposure of the landscapes.. Them, using that as a 'beginning for you lower exposure of the bracketed shots... do a 7 or 9 exposure of the scene with the moon in it.... then check you last images to see if the exposure for the moon is close....... you may need to vary your amount between each of the 7 or 9 shots either 1 stop or more. to cover the range........ Which is called the 'Dynamic Range' of your target image..

Then, do home, find the images you like for the foreground, then the image for the moon, and them do a photo merge of these selected shots......

In closing, I will attach one such shot done in this fashion of one of our Tampa landmarks which was taken back last Jan of this year.....

Let me know if I can help

Cheers
George Veazey
####


(Download)

Reply
 
 
Jan 30, 2022 20:38:26   #
Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX
 
goldstar46 wrote:
Then, go home, find the images you like for the foreground, then the image for the moon, and them do a photo merge of these selected shots ...... In closing, I will attach one such shot done in this fashion of one of our Tampa landmarks which was taken back last Jan of this year.....
George: Nice effect - but the shot of the moon is obviously at a much higher magnification than the shot of the tower. Your other suggestion is to essentially take an autobracket of the scene - such as -1.5, 0.0, +1.5 and merge those in an HDR program such as NIX or Photomatix. The former suggestion - essentially photoshopping an image of the moon next to an image of the tower does convey the overall artistic concept at the cost of suspension of disbelief. The HDR option would be true to life, but would be lacking in the lunar image. I think I'd have gone for the photoshopping process but resizing the moon to a smaller, more believable version.

Reply
Jan 30, 2022 20:48:30   #
goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl
 
Merlin1300 wrote:
George: Nice effect - but the shot of the moon is obviously at a much higher magnification than the shot of the tower. Your other suggestion is to essentially take an autobracket of the scene - such as -1.5, 0.0, +1.5 and merge those in an HDR program such as NIX or Photomatix. The former suggestion - essentially photoshopping an image of the moon next to an image of the tower does convey the overall artistic concept at the cost of suspension of disbelief. The HDR option would be true to life, but would be lacking in the lunar image. I think I'd have gone for the photoshopping process but resizing the moon to a smaller, more believable version.
George: Nice effect - but the shot of the moon is... (show quote)

=========================

Merlin.......

That image is actually an intentional "In-Camera" double exposure, with the foreground @ 400mm, and the moon @ 600mm... using two different lenses on the same camera body, at the same location, on the same date, about 10 min apart... BUT, done in camera on the same CRaw "digital file space". Something the R5 can do. Yes, Tripod and Shutter Release. AND, if it works, then it works...

Tks for your comment

Cheers
George Veazey
####

Reply
Jan 31, 2022 00:44:39   #
Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX
 
George:
The R5 technology must be amazing !!
Things my ancient 80D can never accomplish (without a little help from PS).

Reply
Jan 31, 2022 02:32:21   #
Orphoto Loc: Oregon
 
George, you just offered copious advice to a problem posed 8 years ago.

Reply
 
 
Jan 31, 2022 04:21:31   #
goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl
 
Orphoto wrote:
George, you just offered copious advice to a problem posed 8 years ago.


Yes I know but, once I noticed the mistake there's no Provisions within this blog to delete something that somebody is posted. Therein lies a problem a very slight problem with this site

Reply
Jan 31, 2022 04:27:10   #
goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl
 
Merlin1300 wrote:
George:
The R5 technology must be amazing !!
Things my ancient 80D can never accomplish (without a little help from PS).


=========
Yes Merlin it does.

I personally, actually own four Canon EOS cameras. The newest is the R5. The menu on this camera is so extensive it took me an extremely long time to get comfortable where everything was at and what it was able to do.

Yes, you can do in camera double exposures, with actually nine images sandwiched in 1 image space.... It is quite an amazing camera.

Cheers
George Veazey

Reply
Jan 31, 2022 06:42:30   #
Orphoto Loc: Oregon
 
You have an hour to edit. The usual protocol is to delete your text and leave only a period.

Reply
Jan 31, 2022 18:10:14   #
Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX
 
goldstar46 wrote:
Yes, you can do in camera double exposures, with actually nine images sandwiched in 1 image space.... It is quite an amazing camera. Cheers George Veazey
For better or worse - most of my lenses - with a couple of exceptions - are only suited for crop-frame (1.6) sensors. So upgrading to a full frame, or an R5 camera body just aren't in the cards for me. That being said, my 80D and 7D are probably more camera than I'll be able to competently use - and I'm OK with that :) :)

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 2
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Photo Analysis
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.