|
Two from last night: 15mins  17mins
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2009 01:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 21:07 |
|
|
10sec f/8
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2009 18:32
|
|
|
Just started taking pictures this week and wanted to get some night shots for practice. I'll start with these. Oh and I bought a Nikon D60. I put links to the bigger versions below each one.  http://www.flickr.com/photos/enndr/3932892241/sizes/l/  http://www.flickr.com/photos/enndr/3933670180/sizes/l/  http://www.flickr.com/photos/enndr/3932884123/sizes/l/  http://www.flickr.com/photos/enndr/3932879505/sizes/l/
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2009 08:47
|
|
|
the horizon on 1 isn't level and there's a pipe you should crop out in 2
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2009 15:52
|
|
|
oily posted:10sec f/8 Where is this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2009 20:37
|
|
|
Enndr posted:Just started taking pictures this week and wanted to get some night shots for practice. I'll start with these. Oh and I bought a Nikon D60. Are you standing in Mt. Adams?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2009 20:36
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:Are you standing in Mt. Adams? The shot of Great American Ballpark looks like its from the KY side of the river
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2009 20:44
|
|
|
 One of my first attempts at this sort of thing. I guess if I had to do it again I'd expose it a bit more. I know, long exposures of roads from bridges are cliche.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2009 00:06
|
|
|
TiberiusM posted:The shot of Great American Ballpark looks like its from the KY side of the river True, but the shot of the big mac bridge doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2009 02:03
|
|
|
Man, some of you guys have some fantastic shots. I got a wireless shutter just recently, and this was one of my first uses of it: Without the car: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2009 01:12
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:Are you standing in Mt. Adams? Great American was taken from KY. I setup the tripod on the Roebling Suspension Bridge. The shot of the "Big Mac" Bridge was taken from a small strip park in Mt. Adams. I need to upgrade my Flickr account. I just got finished up with about 10 more shots from around the city. I'm starting to see actual progression in stuff Im taking and post-processing now, which is pretty cool. These are all also done with the new lens I got. (55-200mm DX AF-S Nikon VS, I know. Nothing special.) I took a few more this morning. These were all done with the mono-pod I just bought. I forgot that I took my tripod out of my trunk the night prior. There was REALLY bad fog so Im not sure if these will look that great to everyone. The last one was shot totally free hand.  Click here for the full 1452x972 image.  Click here for the full 651x972 image.  Click here for the full 1452x972 image.  Click here for the full 651x972 image. Enndr fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Sep 27, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2009 02:37
|
|
|
Enndr posted:Great American was taken from KY. I setup the tripod on the Roebling Suspension Bridge. Haha, I always like walking on the Roebling since the whole damned thing shakes when one of the buses rolls over. Cool pictures, though; I think Cincinnati is very pretty at night. I added you on Flickr, fyi. Cool to see someone local taking pics. edit: I never knew there was a flag on there. The second one is the best shot I think. mediaphage fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Sep 27, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2009 02:46
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:Haha, I always like walking on the Roebling since the whole damned thing shakes when one of the buses rolls over. Cool pictures, though; I think Cincinnati is very pretty at night. Im looking at yours then mine.... Im still new to this but I think I'm over exposing my stuff a tad... At least my older ones. Would you say thats a good call? I mean its not like Im using high end equipment.. I shot the first set with a Nikon D60 /w an 16-55mm VR kit lens. The stuff I just put up was with the 55-200 VR which from the charts I've looked at has a far better picture quality. At least in the 55-105mm range. I see your water is more frozen than mine which looks like your shutter was open alot less time than mine. Are you using a fast lens and a camera that can handle higher ISO w/o artifacts?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2009 03:10
|
|
|
Enndr posted:Im looking at yours then mine.... Im still new to this but I think I'm over exposing my stuff a tad... At least my older ones. Would you say thats a good call? I can't remember what settings that was at, but I took that shot using my old Sony DSC-R1 point and shoot (it had a fantastic lens though). Yeah, it wasn't a very long exposure, less than yours. It depends on what the effect is that you're looking for; the lights are a little bright, which makes any of the signs (like the USBank lights) hard to read. I'm no expert either, haha. At the moment I use a Pentax K2000/K-m, and just traded my old Sony to a coworker for a Sigma 24-70/f2.8. I don't own a tripod at the moment, so I can't do any long exposures easily. It might be my next purchase, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2009 04:44
|
|
|
Enndr posted:
But heck, print it anyway! -- Here are my latest: Oklahoma City National Memorial  
quazi fucked around with this message at 08:39 on Sep 27, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2009 08:27
|
|
|
quazi posted:The juxtaposition of warm/cool makes this one the most successful for me. The composition, contrast, and texture are icing. The only thing keeping me from recommending you print a zillion copies is that it isn't quite as sharp as it could be. (The monopod may have something to do with this.) That one is one of my favorites too. I think a good deal of my problem is that I was shooting in 400 ISO.. Maybe it was one notch higher. I did it because I was shooting without a tripod so I needed to get more light somehow without further shutter adjustments. Because of that they turned out with a little less detail and a little more grainy than I wanted them to. (The D60 doesn't handle higher ISOs that great) I'll go back on another morning before dawn when there is fog again and shoot this with a tripod while using 100 ISO. That should help some of these issues. I hope.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2009 18:27
|
|
|
Pyruvate posted:Where is this? I *think* it's Chamonix-Mont-Blanc in France. We were just trying to make it to the tunnel before stopping for the night, and when I saw this view I had to stop and take a pic from the side of the road.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2009 20:59
|
|
|
advion posted:I love love love the tones in this. Nice work!
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2009 22:15
|
|
|
There's some fantastic stuff in this thread. Favorited a bunch over on Flickr. Here's some Vegas. For a while, the city center construction looked like the friggin' Borg.    I was up in NYC for the reopening of the Intrepid museum:   Yet another Philly building: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2009 17:51
|
|
|
I've had no luck taking night pictures on a DSLR yet. Even with a tripod and remote, everything is dark or grainy. I'll have to try stacking to see if that helps. Strangely, I've had better luck with film than digital:   
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2009 19:35
|
|
|
Bit of a cross post from the amateur astronomy thread in DIY & Hobbies, but I figure some people over here may be interested as well. I spend my spare time and clear nights armed with telescopes and camera doing long exposure astrophotography, I'm very much a beginner at this point, but here is my latest effort, the andromeda galaxy. Click here for the full 1600x995 image.And a moon shot from a few months back.  Click here for the full 1680x1050 image.I've got a lot to learn yet, but it's been good to get results.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2009 14:27
|
|
|
Jekub posted:Bit of a cross post from the amateur astronomy thread in DIY & Hobbies, but I figure some people over here may be interested as well. I spend my spare time and clear nights armed with telescopes and camera doing long exposure astrophotography, I'm very much a beginner at this point, but here is my latest effort, the andromeda galaxy. Holy poo poo dude, that shot of the galaxy is pretty awesome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2009 15:30
|
|
|
how are these taken? do you take a picture of what you see in the telescope?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2009 16:18
|
|
|
I use the prime focus method for my imaging, where the camera body is directly connected to the telescope, in essence making the telescope a fixed length manually focused lens. The andromeda image is composed of 92 x 2.5 minute exposures, so nearly 4 hours of data all told, which is aligned, stacked and processed afterwards. On top of that you have dark frames to cancel out noise and light frames to remove vignetting and other aberrations. I use a Canon EOS1000D, which I don't think people in here like much, but it has fantastic low light level performance and is loved by budget astrophotographers (remote live view is heaven sent). No DSLR is perfect for this, for various reasons, but it's a good way to get started. The andromeda picture was taken with a William Optics ZS66SD APO refractor, in normal photography terms it works out to a 388mm F5.9 lens. The moon shot, and most of my other photographs, was taken with a 250mm reflector (1200mm F4.7). Jekub fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Oct 6, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2009 16:48
|
|
|
Jekub posted:I use the prime focus method for my imaging, where the camera body is directly connected to the telescope, in essence making the telescope a fixed length manually focused lens. The andromeda shot was taken with a lens shorter and slower than my 200mm with a 2x extender (400mm f/5.6)?! I assume that with a 2.5 minute exposure, you have it on a tracking system? That's the toughest part for your average astrophotgraphy amateur. torgeaux fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Oct 6, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2009 17:03
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:I assume that with a 2.5 minute exposure, you have it on a tracking system? That's the toughest part for your average astrophotgraphy amateur. I have a Vixen Sphinx computer controlled mount, very accurate tracking but I took that picture on holiday so 2.5 minutes was the most I was happy with. Normally I use two scopes at home where the second one provides an image for software to correct the movement of the mount, exposure times are then only limited by the camera. The information on the lens is correct, though I forgot to mention I used a 0.8 focal reducer / flattener which actually makes it 310mm f4.9. Andromeda is way bigger than people think a galaxy visible from earth would be, having an angular size roughly 6 times that of the moon, it won't even fit on the chip of the 1000D if I tried imaging it with the 250mm reflector. Quick edit, I just found this, demonstrates it better than talking angular size - http://www.noao.edu/image_gallery/html/im0606.html Jekub fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Oct 6, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2009 17:26
|
|
|
In case you guys don't check the dorkroom thread list obsessively like me, I just wanted to pimp the latter half of this month's CC photo contest: Long Exposure. Doesn't close for another week in case anyone wants to shoot some longex.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2009 17:32
|
|
|
Jekub posted:I have a Vixen Sphinx computer controlled mount, very accurate tracking but I took that picture on holiday so 2.5 minutes was the most I was happy with. Normally I use two scopes at home where the second one provides an image for software to correct the movement of the mount, exposure times are then only limited by the camera. You are seriously blowing my mind here. However there's one thing: I have a EOS1000D and its maximum shutter time is 30 seconds, so how did you get the 2.5 minutes?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2009 20:39
|
|
|
Touchdown Pope! posted:I have a EOS1000D and its maximum shutter time is 30 seconds, so how did you get the 2.5 minutes? Put it in any manual (creative) mode that allows you to set exposure and set it to bulb, click once to start the exposure and again to stop it. I use the remote control software the camera comes with as you can program multiple exposures with that by clicking on the stop watch.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2009 20:50
|
|
|
First real attempts at night photography. It was a full moon so imaging the stars didn't work out too great but any shots including the landscape came out bright as day (the last was taken about 2.5 hours after sunset).    Maybe I should try again when there's less moonlight, cause I couldn't do more than 25 seconds at 17mm (widest lens) without getting visible star movement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2009 20:51
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:I assume that with a 2.5 minute exposure, you have it on a tracking system? That's the toughest part for your average astrophotgraphy amateur. it was 92 2.5 minute exposures combined (!).
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2009 22:04
|
|
|
evensevenone posted:it was 92 2.5 minute exposures combined (!). That's not as difficult. I stack exposures now, but the time for motion shift is much shorter than 2.5 minutes. I'm curious if anyone here has tried a barn door tracker.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2009 01:15
|
|
|
Here's a shot of the Hong Kong skyline I took a while back. Man oh man would ya look at that pollution. No chance of ever getting as clear of a star shot as some of you guys have shown. What a pit. Man, the preview of it makes it look terrible. Any idea how to fix that? Edit: Fixed the image so it looks not like rear end. DeusVult fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Oct 9, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2009 06:28
|
|
|
I went out last night walking around an area of the city I live in to work on an "available light" assignment for the course I am doing. This is the first long exposure work I have done and I must say it was much more tricky than I thought it was going to be. I am far more impressed you have all taken after having tried myself.  
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2009 11:15
|
|
|
DeusVult posted:Man, the preview of it makes it look terrible. Any idea how to fix that? Use flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2009 18:05
|
|
|
I think this turned out ok for a first time long exposure landscape photo even though some areas are more overexposed than they should be. I just wish I remembered to bring my 10-22 instead of my 50mm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2009 07:15
|
|
|
dunos posted:I went out last night walking around an area of the city I live in to work on an "available light" assignment for the course I am doing. This is the first long exposure work I have done and I must say it was much more tricky than I thought it was going to be. I am far more impressed you have all taken after having tried myself. These are really impressive for available lighting. Good work!
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2009 21:13
|
|
|
Jekub posted:Bit of a cross post from the amateur astronomy thread in DIY & Hobbies, but I figure some people over here may be interested as well. I spend my spare time and clear nights armed with telescopes and camera doing long exposure astrophotography, I'm very much a beginner at this point, but here is my latest effort, the andromeda galaxy. Amazing. I had no idea Andromeda is that big, and could be photographed with such relatively obtainable equipment. Where did you take the shots though? I imagine somewhere remote and high? With a little air pollution, light pollution and atmosphere getting in the way?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2009 12:01
|
|
|
  
Ric fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Oct 11, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2009 15:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 21:07 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2009 21:09
|
|
