|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Long exposures can definitely cause noise. How long are we talking about here? Like this thing:  Original/x3 available by clicking 6 seconds, Iso 100, 70-200 2.8 IS (turned off), 90mm @ f/8 Edit: Changed picture to something straight out of camera Greybone fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Sep 30, 2010 |
#
?
Sep 30, 2010 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:08 |
|
|
I don't see any noise, just that your focus is off. But if you do ever need to you can do noise reduction by taking multiple exposures and averaging them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2010 02:33
|
|
|
I took this stuff when I was waiting for the Moon to come up: October-5 by Tom Rintjema, on Flickr  October-2 by Tom Rintjema, on Flickr  October-1 by Tom Rintjema, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2010 07:11
|
|
|
TomR, if you can't focus for whatever reason, you can turn auto-focus on, focus on a distant light and that should set it to infinity, then just turn off auto-focus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2010 14:04
|
|
|
cool mirages
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2010 16:13
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:TomR, if you can't focus for whatever reason, you can turn auto-focus on, focus on a distant light and that should set it to infinity, then just turn off auto-focus. I used live view and zoomed in 10x and manually focused them. I turned the focus ring until the lights were as small and sharp as they would get. I was right on the lake and was taking photos over about 50km of water. You could see the light bending and waving. I'm pretty sure the softness comes from the light distortion and long shutter times. I did a video of the moon too, and you can really see the effect, I'll upload it. Edit: Have a look at the ripples on the bottom of the Moon: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom_rintjema/5044028447/ TomR fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Oct 2, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2010 16:37
|
|
|
  Thoughts? Shiftypenguin fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Oct 2, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2010 17:34
|
|
|
TomR posted:I used live view and zoomed in 10x and manually focused them. I turned the focus ring until the lights were as small and sharp as they would get. I was right on the lake and was taking photos over about 50km of water. You could see the light bending and waving. I'm pretty sure the softness comes from the light distortion and long shutter times. 50km is a lot of air to go through, so you're quite possibly right, but was IS off? My camera had a similar issue when using a lens with IS. I know some of the newer IS lenses detect this and shut off IS automatically, but not sure if the 300mm IS does or not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2010 01:44
|
|
|
IS was off. AF was off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2010 01:58
|
|
|
i just love this 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2010 18:23
|
|
|
These are some old ones... I'm gonna try and get out and take some more. Amsterdam  Avalon Pier, Santa Catalina, CA  Santa Monica, CA 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2010 20:38
|
|
|
I've been trying out different things with long exposures, and their really fun to do! Here's a few of the tests I've done.   I keep getting these "flares", I believe they are caused by the street lights. Is there any way to avoid them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 06:12
|
|
|
I think a polarizer would help, but I'm not actually 100% sure on that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 18:06
|
|
|
Smaller aperture = more streaks. First one is f/16 second one is f/8 and thus less streaky.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 01:16
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:Smaller aperture = more streaks. First one is f/16 second one is f/8 and thus less streaky. Isn't that more just a matter of the exposure being longer (because of the smaller aperture)? I mean, one exposure is people sitting at a light for 8 seconds, the other is people driving by with an exposure of 30 seconds. That's obviously going to be more "streaky" than cars standing still with a short exposure. Now if aperture has something to do with size of flares or whatnot, that could be true, but I don't really think it affects "streaking" aside from just increasing exposure time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 06:50
|
|
|
He doesn't mean the appearance of the street lights themselves, he means the flares: It's the result of the angle that the light enters the lens. If the light causing the flare is outside the frame, you can block it with a lens hood or your hand or similar physical obstruction. If it's in the frame, there's not much you can do other than change your composition to change the angle and reduce the effect. Some subjects are always going to suffer this. Also, as ever, if you're using a filter, take it off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 14:40
|
|
|
 Click here for the full 2048x244 image. Took this earlier tonight, turned out ok for not having a tripod I guess. Botched the focus on a few of the pics though. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 21:40
|
|
|
Thanks a lot of the info guys, I'll go again another night and try it again. Hopefully I can angle around the lights better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2010 06:47
|
|
|
javi posted:I've been trying out different things with long exposures, and their really fun to do! Here's a few of the tests I've done. Only real way to avoid them is to adjust your composition angles. Sometimes a lens is more prone to flares than others.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2010 15:54
|
|
|
Musket posted:Only real way to avoid them is to adjust your composition angles. Sometimes a lens is more prone to flares than others. Also if you're getting flares with a light that is just out of frame but you still want the composition you can flag (block) the flare with your hand/hat/coat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2010 16:12
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:
This is gorgeous. What were your settings?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 10:44
|
|
|
Comet Hartley 2 (103p/hartley) taken on the 6th of October close to the constellation of Cassiopeia, my first attempt at imaging a comet and I'm quite happy with the result. Click here for the full 1680x1119 image. Obviously comets move pretty quickly so there is some trickery involved in this image so as not to get an image of a elongated blob. First the image stack is processed as normal and aligned on the stars to remove any rotation. Then I created a second set of images from the first by aligning on just the comet, these were stacked using a harsh sigma clip to remove star trails and create the comet image. The background image of the stars was an combination of the first stack, again with quite a harsh clip to remove as much of the comet as possible. Both images were then processed in Pixinsight before being moved into photoshop to put the comet back where it should be. It's just a pity that Hartley2 is currently not the most spectacular of comets. On the upside I do have 70 images which once I have found the time to individually process them all will made a decent animation of the comet in motion against the background stars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2010 09:29
|
|
|
javi posted:I keep getting these "flares", I believe they are caused by the street lights. Is there any way to avoid them? Do you use a UV filter? If so, try removing it. They can be caused by light reflecting off the sensor and back out of the camera to be reflected again on the filter and go back in. Any glass element can cause it, but the lens elements are properly coated and spaced to reduce it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2010 11:29
|
|
|
Jekub posted:Comet Hartley 2 (103p/hartley) taken on the 6th of October close to the constellation of Cassiopeia, my first attempt at imaging a comet and I'm quite happy with the result. Fantastic dude, nice freaking picture. I am going out tomorrow (cloudy skies tonight) to try and catch Hartley with my celestron 20x80's. From what I gather, it should be north-east just below Cassiopeia and to the left of Preseus (I live in Ohio). I am also picking up an etx-90 PE this evening from a trade deal and may try to see it with that. Not sure if I will be familiar enough with the scope to find it though. I am going to try my first bit of astrophotography with this scope and a D60. Still need to get the t-mount though. I have been saving for months to get a good mount like a Losmandy G-11 or the new Ioptron mount with an Orion 80mm APO and the Orion guidescope package. I am still a ways off before I have enough and lucked into a trade deal for the etx90PE (With lame tube graphic  ). Figure it will be a good learning tool and I will have a nice portable scope in my lineup. Anyway, nice capture!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2010 17:45
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Do you use a UV filter? If so, try removing it. They can be caused by light reflecting off the sensor and back out of the camera to be reflected again on the filter and go back in. Any glass element can cause it, but the lens elements are properly coated and spaced to reduce it. The problem I was having was just that the light kept bouncing inside the lens, changing the angle helped eliminate the problem I had. Shot these with the Nikon 35mm f/1.8. Here's some more!  (Meteor in this one!)  
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2010 06:40
|
|
|
Choicecut, The Losmandy G-11 is an absolute dream to use. If you get one, make sure you get the Gemini system with it. I've had mine since 2006. Or, if you hold off for a bit, Gemini Level 5 should be released soon. Has a new interface. Looks schmick. No doubt I'll be upgrading to Level 5 once it's released. The ETX might resolve Hartley, but, will not be any good for imaging. It's close to an f/14 system from memory. Way, way too slow. Couple this with the fact it has plastic gears which are very, very imprecise; you will have such poor tracking accuracy (along with long exposure time) that the endeavour will be an exercise in futility (not to mention frustration). But, for the Moon, it should be fine. Need any more info about astrophotography, gimme a yell. I've got an FSQ-106N and an STL-11000M that have been waiting since April to be used properly. :cryface: H Choicecut posted:Fantastic dude, nice freaking picture. I am going out tomorrow (cloudy skies tonight) to try and catch Hartley with my celestron 20x80's. From what I gather, it should be north-east just below Cassiopeia and to the left of Preseus (I live in Ohio). I am also picking up an etx-90 PE this evening from a trade deal and may try to see it with that. Not sure if I will be familiar enough with the scope to find it though. I am going to try my first bit of astrophotography with this scope and a D60. Still need to get the t-mount though. I have been saving for months to get a good mount like a Losmandy G-11 or the new Ioptron mount with an Orion 80mm APO and the Orion guidescope package. I am still a ways off before I have enough and lucked into a trade deal for the etx90PE (With lame tube graphic
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2010 17:54
|
|
|
octane2 posted:Choicecut, Yeah, I am really looking forward to getting the Losmandy and the APO. I have been saving for a long time and still have a ways to go. I follow you and Jekub and your astrophotography stuff quite a bit. I can't wait for the day I can produce shots like you guys are getting. I have seen some "ok" images taken with the ETX 90 and DSLR, so I figure I will give that a go and try to learn as much as I can until I can get the good stuff. I took it out Friday night and was pretty impressed with the views of Jupiter and the moon I was able to see. It's the first time I have ever seen Jupiter's color bands clearly like that. Pretty freaking awesome!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2010 18:57
|
|
|
Messed around with the new ETX90 on Sunday. Stuck the wifes casio point and shoot up to the eyepiece just to see what I could get. Turned out halfway decent. Going to capture Jupiter this weekend through it. My Nikon adapters might possibly be here by then, gonna see how well the little scope tracks. I have found a few websites out there where dudes are getting some decent DSO images out of the ETX lineup. Moon: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2010 17:49
|
|
|
My first attempt at night time long exposure fire photography. Comments are appreciated. http://fjord.smugmug.com/Events/Playa-del-Fuego/    
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2010 03:06
|
|
|
Another Moon image, this one taken on my 250mm reflector with the Canon 1000D at prime focus, grey scale only as I forgot to take out the light pollution filter which causes lots of headaches for colour correction in my unmodified camera. Click here for the full 1920x1080 image. I always love what a good fit the scope and camera are for Moon shots. This one is a stack of 100 images, aligned, integrated and processed in Pixinsight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2010 23:26
|
|
|
Here's a few of mine. Still trying to get night shooting down pat. I more or less just try random settings and experiment, but always seem to have issues with focus and getting the shot sharp. Ollantaytambo, Peru The mountains out the back of my hotel window.  Brooklyn Bridge, NY  Another Brooklyn Bridge 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 03:47
|
|
|
Jekub posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 08:39
|
|
|
Fjord posted:My first attempt at night time long exposure fire photography. Comments are appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 08:40
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Jesus gently caress. How much work is that? Well, taking the shots isn't much work really, set scope to track at lunar rate, tell the camera to take 100 shots, leave it to it. And really again the job of compiling the image is not that hard, just time consuming. I use the dedicated Pixinsight astrophotography platform, and the star alignment tool in that works perfectly on lunar images. So the software does the alignment and stacking. Then is just a matter of playing with the sharpening tools and levels. When I next do an image like this I need to remember to remove the filter I use for deep sky work so I can get a nice colour saturated moon image, which will show up the geography of the surface. Something a bit different :  Jupiter from the 20th, showing Io in transit. I've not done gif's before and wasn't sure of the size for posting so the image quality is a bit poor. Plus I'm very new to planetary imaging, still working out the best settings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 23:01
|
|
|
This is the first time I tried long exposure, just went out into the back yard and put the camera LCD-down on a towel since I don't have a tripod. I live between two major cities and can see the sky glow in both directions, so I was surprised how much the camera could see. Took this a few days ago, though I had to be all  and jump over some fences to get there  . Still no tripod, so I used the camera bag to try to keep the lens pointing the right way. This was supposed to be your typical creepy graveyard pic with me being semi-transparent, but it didn't really work out.  Click here for the full 800x534 image.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 00:17
|
|
|
A tripod shot of a beach in Ventura, CA. An 8 second exposure in a park. I adjusted the color temp to get interesting colors from the sodium vapor streetlights and passing car beams.  I went outside at dusk after the rain and waited for all cars to clear as to not cause motion blur. I was waiting a good 20 mins since it was a busy road.  Some light play. 30 second exp at F5.6.  I have plenty more in a folder, but I don't want to take up a quarter of the page. If anyone wants to see more I'll post again with additions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2010 22:56
|
|
|
Brought the camera into work today.  
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2010 16:53
|
|
|
Took my cam out for a night on the town in Downtown Mannheim. My favorites are the Castle and the Water Tower shots, still have to work on a few more but I'm pretty happy with these. Wasserturm  Click here for the full 683x1024 image. Schloss  Click here for the full 1024x683 image. There are a few more from the same night on my Flickr DCRat's Flickr Page
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2010 21:48
|
|
|
Never done much astrophotography, but I took a course and we got to use the instructor's monster autotracking rig for a bit. Tried applying some of the post-processing techniques he talked about, hopefully I didn't go too far. M42 a couple of nights ago. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 06:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:08 |
|
|
I was at a Sake festival in Hiroshima and the when it got too dark to shoot hand held, I decided to try a long exposure. Setting the camera on a plastic table, I focused on a lantern and counted to a minute and a half. I was acting all professional in front of my mates, but I really didn't think I would get a usable picture; at least it seems well exposed. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2010 15:16
|
|
