|
I modified my Canon 1000D, replacing the built in IR cut filter with a Baader BCF filter to provide better sensitivity to HA emission, amongst other things, here is the first quick test image. Click here for the full 1680x1076 image. I need to locate a good emission nebula to test it on next night out.
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2010 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:09 |
|
|
J, M33? That's a pretty difficult target. It's really hard to get good images of this spectacular island universe. You've done a pretty good job on it. For us, down here, we're going through a La Nina episode. It's been cloud/rain for the last 2 months, and, it's forecasted to last well into March next year. I've got my FSQ/STL/G11 sitting there doing nothing. Depressing. H Jekub posted:I modified my Canon 1000D, replacing the built in IR cut filter with a Baader BCF filter to provide better sensitivity to HA emission, amongst other things, here is the first quick test image.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2010 15:14
|
|
|
octane2 posted:I've got my FSQ/STL/G11 sitting there doing nothing. Depressing. I just received a box of parts from Orion Optics, so I'm fully expecting a month of miserable weather starting any time now. Still we had another clear night, and for some reason the street lights all stopped working so I did some more testing of the modified camera. This time on something which otherwise would present a significant challenge, the Horse Head and Flame nebulas.  Click here for the full 1680x1117 image. The very bright star is Alnitak, the left hand star of Orions belt as you look at the constellation, and it makes processing this image a pig as I have to desaturate both blue and green channels to reduce the glare from it. Unfortunately the Flame is negatively effected by this as it's a lovely mix of emissions so dropping the blue channel reduces it's impact. I'm not 100% happy with the result, but hopefully I can pull something better out of the data which some different techniques.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 00:31
|
|
|
As it is, it's a phenomenal image.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 02:58
|
|
|
For some reason I consider Sekonic light meter readings to be godly and to always be trusted, yet I always second guess my cameras histogram. In a moment of idiocy I decided to trust my cameras preview over its histogram and ended up with a bunch of pitch black photos. Luckily I was just scouting this location and thankfully the T2i call can push 3 stops easy. This nearly ended up in the oops thread. 12mm - f5.6 - 30s - Iso200 - 13exposures
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 05:02
|
|
|
Wow that must have been a very still night.. the sharpness of the tree compared to the sky behind it kinda makes your head spin when you stare at it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 14:38
|
|
|
One of my first ever, don't mind the watermark, thought I was cool with my Rebel XT  Also, noise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2010 01:27
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:For some reason I consider Sekonic light meter readings to be godly and to always be trusted, yet I always second guess my cameras histogram. In a moment of idiocy I decided to trust my cameras preview over its histogram and ended up with a bunch of pitch black photos. Luckily I was just scouting this location and thankfully the T2i call can push 3 stops easy. This nearly ended up in the oops thread. Does 4 seconds count as long exposure?  #2 (Moonlight Exposures) by Jimperialism, on Flickr Dongsmith fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Nov 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2010 06:08
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Wow that must have been a very still night.. the sharpness of the tree compared to the sky behind it kinda makes your head spin when you stare at it. That's exactly what I love about these kinds of exposures. Your head is spinning, it's spinning at 15 degrees per hour around the Earth's axis and that's what these pics capture. Great work you guys!
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2010 16:00
|
|
|
Ooooh star trails! I have one of those! first one that really came out how I wanted. Expired Velvia 100f. Film is a lot more fun for long exposure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2010 16:16
|
|
|
This is sometimes wayyyyy too dark, sometimes perfect.  pre-dawn by torgeaux, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2010 23:48
|
|
|
Beautiful, beautiful. Love Orion just dangling there. Got more, closer to sunrise? torgeaux posted:This is sometimes wayyyyy too dark, sometimes perfect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 13:14
|
|
|
octane2 posted:Beautiful, beautiful. Yes, but it was very cloudy, that was the only one with any real decent stars. You can see the cloud cover even in this one, and it was moving very fast.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 03:36
|
|
|
 icelandic_city_hall by mr-chompers, on Flickr I made a massive print of this for my wall, 90x120cm 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 10:34
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:
Your picture is awesome, but your picture of the picture seems out of focus 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 16:20
|
|
|
For cityscapes, where do you guys get your meter readings from? Currently I do a lot of trial and error, dialing the shutter until the preview looks right, but there's got to be a better way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2010 20:57
|
|
|
If there is a lot of sky then 2 stops below whatever my camera thinks is right is generally a good starting point. If you set your camera wide open with a high iso you should be able to get a reading, then use equivalent exposures to figure out how long the shot needs to be at the settings you want.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2010 21:30
|
|
|
I'm really just getting into photography. Its so much fun. Here's a couple I took a few weeks back.... Click here for the full 1024x768 image.  Click here for the full 1024x768 image.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2010 22:05
|
|
|
If someone ran for president on the platform of banning sodium lights in favor of actual white lights, I would vote for them no matter what.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2010 03:21
|
|
|
Phat_Albert posted:If someone ran for president on the platform of banning sodium lights in favor of actual white lights, I would vote for them no matter what. There is actually a scientific reason behind why they are used (2 in fact). The first has to do with persistence of night vision which isn't disrupted as much by warm light as it is with shorter wavelengths of light. This is why I can't stand people who swap out their headlights for white ones. The second is for astrophotography which tends to rely on shorter wavelengths. If you are anywhere near an observatory then all the surrounding areas will have sodium street lamps to prevent excessive light pollution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2010 03:59
|
|
|
Right, but they look like poo poo and I'm angry at that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2010 04:03
|
|
|
Phat_Albert posted:Right, but they look like poo poo and I'm angry at that. True, but if you shoot in raw you can normally fix the WB.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2010 04:05
|
|
|
One of these is from ages ago - I think I may have posted it somewhere but evidently not in this thread. It had so much potential, but I didn't have a tripod & the white balance is pretty terrible (and as far as i can remember unfixable in pp) And this other one was experimenting with a strobe, I really like the bright white (minus the fact it looks a bit kkk) and the blurred stars in the background whose array of different colours pop out. Again it would have been nice to have had a wider lens but other than that I can't complain  edit: what the heck this one is cool too, I love how fast the river looks 
ElroySmin fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Dec 15, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2010 07:38
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:The second is for astrophotography which tends to rely on shorter wavelengths. If you are anywhere near an observatory then all the surrounding areas will have sodium street lamps to prevent excessive light pollution. Well sure the astrophotography guys can just use their expensive narrow-band filters, but what are regular photographers supposed to do with stupid mixed lighting ?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2010 21:22
|
|
|
Most of the western hemisphere is going to see a lunar eclipse this Tuesday (on the winter solstice!  ).I've seen a good number of eclipses in my life, but I've never tried to photograph one. Does anyone have any tips for doing something interesting with it? I don't have the gear for shooting through a telescope but I'm thinking maybe a timelapse movie with an interesting setting could be fun. I'm not going to be able to escape city glow but I do have access to a pretty big prairie preserve I might use for a background. The biggest downside is the midpoint of the eclipse is at 2am local time.. staying awake seems like it'll be an issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2010 21:43
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Most of the western hemisphere is going to see a lunar eclipse this Tuesday (on the winter solstice! thanks for the heads up! I'm kind of keen to hear any tips as well. And you said prairies.. if you're in alberta you can check up on http://corona-gw.phys.ualberta.ca/AuroraWatch/ to see if there'll be any aurora activity - it's supposed to be really clear on tuesday (although at 6 days away I don't give the forecast much credence) Is a 200mm on a dx sensor long enough to catch good shots of the moon?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2010 23:49
|
|
|
Nope, I just have the inferior Illinois type of prairie. All the cold and winds of the north, but none of the fun stuff like heavy snow or auroras.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 00:15
|
|
|
ElroySmin posted:thanks for the heads up! I'm kind of keen to hear any tips as well. Last eclipse I saw I show at 200mm, yes you can do it but not really ideal. http://www.flickr.com/photos/bryntassell/2281396482/ (this is not cropped).
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 00:42
|
|
|
Uuuuh, I didn't know there was a thread here for this stuff. Check out my latest pics of Orion. Basically it's my first real HDR attempt. 4 min subexposures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/geza_kurczveil/5262886116/ HDR version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/geza_kurczveil/5262342411/
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 05:24
|
|
|
That HDR version is really sweet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 21:18
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:Last eclipse I saw I show at 200mm, yes you can do it but not really ideal. http://www.flickr.com/photos/bryntassell/2281396482/ (this is not cropped). I think the same night, 200mm w/ 2x teleconverter.  eclipse by torgeaux, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 01:35
|
|
|
This is excellent. I'm looking forward to it, i'm going to inquire at the local shop tomorrow to see if their 80-400 is rented out yet
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 01:51
|
|
|
Is there any way to photograph the moon and still get some glow from nearby scenery? Or is pick one or the other? I know the moon gives off a shitton of light so it's gonna dominate any nighttime image it shows up in.. but are there any subtle tricks? Just take two exposures and combine in post?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 02:27
|
|
|
I'll play. Hyatt via Charles by Nick Gillham, on Flickr  oh boston by Nick Gillham, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 03:25
|
|
|
ATF posted:I'll play. I've stayed there. gently caress that place. Nice shots though. I can't wait until I have to go back to Cambridge for work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 03:43
|
|
|
ATF posted:I'll play. You live where I live.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 14:16
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Is there any way to photograph the moon and still get some glow from nearby scenery? Flash. Or, shoot when it's not full dark out, and the moon doesn't dominate the lighting. Like most photography, it's good around sunset/sunrise. Sunlight on the other objects, expose for the moon. Otherwise, take two photos and comp the moon into the one exposed for the background. Two different comp shots. In each moon shot, followed by reflection shot a few seconds later:  moon2 by torgeaux, on Flickr  compositemoon1 by torgeaux, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 22:26
|
|
|
thefreshmaker posted:You live where I live. Where do you live?  boa pavillion by Nick Gillham, on Flickr This one kind of makes me sad, a bit blown out.  s boston, what up by Nick Gillham, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 00:33
|
|
|
There's a lunar eclipse tomorrow morning, going to try getting some shots. I've got an Oly E-420, 14-42 and 40-150 kitlenses and cheap rear end tripod and intervalometer from China. I'm trying to choose between: 1. Wide shot, intervalometer and time lapse (could also do this as a layered pic with 15 different moons) Pros: Easier to get something worth looking at. Cons: Easier to gently caress it up and I'm not sure exactly where the moon traverses. 2. Single shots at max focal length, going for detail Pros: Easier to not gently caress up as only one pic needs to be good. Cons: 150 mm (300 mm FF eq.) not really long enough to get good detail. Some general issues: - Where the moon traverses, as mentioned. Can Google Earth simulate this? - Fogging up lens in low temp. Do I take them out abit early to chill? Leave camera in fridge over night? - Getting my rear end up at oh dark thirty. Tips, tricks, experiences?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:09 |
|
|
Ola posted:There's a lunar eclipse tomorrow morning, going to try getting some shots. I've got an Oly E-420, 14-42 and 40-150 kitlenses and cheap rear end tripod and intervalometer from China. I'm trying to choose between: I spent a good chunk of the weekend setting up a rig for a time lapse panning movie of the eclipse.. only to check the weather this morning, and a snow storm is moving in. Which might be for the best. I'm not 100% sure I'd be able to get the shot and not trying at all is easier on the ego than trying and failing! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 20:42
|
|