Moonset Over Zion
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: David J. Littleboy on 23 Jul 2010 23:03 "me" <me(a)mine.net> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:56:50 -0400, "Peter" > <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > > >>Interesting effect. I would have liked to see the silhouette sharp. The >>blurry outline ruins it for me. > > > How would you propose to have both the moon and the silhouette both be > sharp in a single shot with 1000mm f.l.? It's unlike to be f/1.0: that lens would require a 1000mm diameter front element. F/5.6 or f/8 is more likely. The pixel count in that jpg is rather low, so it shouldn't be too hard at all. You might want to take two shots, though. At 1000mm and f/5.6, the 12MP FF hyperfocal distance is 7,000 meters, so you aren't going to get the silhouette and the moon both in critical focus. An image with both equally blurred would downsample to a nice sharp screen-sized jpg, but you'd want the moon in focus for a 12x18" print. Still, the moon's pretty bright, so f/8, or even f/11 might be possible. (Of course, at 1000mm, even playing careful hyperfocal games at f/11 only gets your near focus to 1800 meters. That DoF goes down with the square of the focal length really hurts.) -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan
From: Joel Connor on 23 Jul 2010 23:26 On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 12:03:37 +0900, "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote: > >"me" <me(a)mine.net> wrote: >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:56:50 -0400, "Peter" >> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >> >> >>>Interesting effect. I would have liked to see the silhouette sharp. The >>>blurry outline ruins it for me. >> >> >> How would you propose to have both the moon and the silhouette both be >> sharp in a single shot with 1000mm f.l.? > >It's unlike to be f/1.0: that lens would require a 1000mm diameter front >element. F/5.6 or f/8 is more likely. > >The pixel count in that jpg is rather low, so it shouldn't be too hard at >all. You might want to take two shots, though. At 1000mm and f/5.6, the 12MP >FF hyperfocal distance is 7,000 meters, so you aren't going to get the >silhouette and the moon both in critical focus. An image with both equally >blurred would downsample to a nice sharp screen-sized jpg, but you'd want >the moon in focus for a 12x18" print. > >Still, the moon's pretty bright, so f/8, or even f/11 might be possible. (Of >course, at 1000mm, even playing careful hyperfocal games at f/11 only gets >your near focus to 1800 meters. That DoF goes down with the square of the >focal length really hurts.) Read the EXIF, he was using f/13. The lit moon is the same brightness as light pavement on earth in daylight. Why anyone wasted their time playing the cutting and paste game and taking two photos to create such a simple to accomplish one-shot photograph I'll never know. This is the very same reason so many of you depend on RAW too. You can't do it right the first time, so see if you can save your talentless disasters in editing. What amazes me even more is why shoot such a dismal silhouette to patch with the moon if that's what you were going to do? (As he claimed.) He was in no way limited to taking the foreground from the same place the moon was going to set. This image is a royal-fuckup from beginning to end. Camera skills suck, reasoning skills suck, composition skills suck, editing skills suck.
From: Joel Connor on 23 Jul 2010 23:30 On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 12:03:37 +0900, "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote: > >"me" <me(a)mine.net> wrote: >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:56:50 -0400, "Peter" >> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >> >> >>>Interesting effect. I would have liked to see the silhouette sharp. The >>>blurry outline ruins it for me. >> >> >> How would you propose to have both the moon and the silhouette both be >> sharp in a single shot with 1000mm f.l.? > >It's unlike to be f/1.0: that lens would require a 1000mm diameter front >element. F/5.6 or f/8 is more likely. > >The pixel count in that jpg is rather low, so it shouldn't be too hard at >all. You might want to take two shots, though. At 1000mm and f/5.6, the 12MP >FF hyperfocal distance is 7,000 meters, so you aren't going to get the >silhouette and the moon both in critical focus. An image with both equally >blurred would downsample to a nice sharp screen-sized jpg, but you'd want >the moon in focus for a 12x18" print. > >Still, the moon's pretty bright, so f/8, or even f/11 might be possible. (Of >course, at 1000mm, even playing careful hyperfocal games at f/11 only gets >your near focus to 1800 meters. That DoF goes down with the square of the >focal length really hurts.) Read the EXIF, he was using f/13. The lit moon is the same brightness as light pavement on earth in daylight. Why anyone wasted their time playing the cutting and paste game and taking two photos to create such a simple to accomplish one-shot photograph I'll never know. This is the very same reason so many of you depend on RAW too. You can't do it right the first time, so see if you can save your talentless disasters in editing. What amazes me even more is why shoot such a dismal silhouette to patch with the moon if that's what you were going to do? (As he claimed.) He was in no way limited to taking the foreground from the same place the moon was going to set. This image is a royal-fuckup from beginning to end. Camera skills suck, reasoning skills suck, composition skills suck, editing skills suck. I forgot to mention. All of you who fail to realize any of this also suck just as bad, if not worse.
From: Frank ess on 24 Jul 2010 00:21 M-M wrote: > In article <i2ddpe$rj7$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > "Tim Conway" <tconway_113(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> "George Kerby" <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:C86FA051.39A73%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com... >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/23/10 3:26 PM, in article >>> fluj465l2ti01muthbuq2b7clon73n3kkh(a)4ax.com, "me" <me(a)mine.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:56:50 -0400, "Peter" >>>> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Interesting effect. I would have liked to see the silhouette >>>>> sharp. The blurry outline ruins it for me. >>>> >>>> >>>> How would you propose to have both the moon and the silhouette >>>> both be sharp in a single shot with 1000mm f.l.? >>> >>> Careful planning. >>> >> Two separate exposures. One focused on moon, other on >> rocks/trees. Combine two in photoshop - masks, layers, combine >> layers. Voila. > > Bingo! > > m-m > www.mhmyers.com Voila! http://farm1.static.flickr.com/30/43193577_907f5945dc_o.jpg
From: M-M on 24 Jul 2010 00:32
In article <oKKdnV0aPrTC99fRnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, "Frank ess" <frank(a)fshe2fs.com> wrote: > >>> Careful planning. > >>> > >> Two separate exposures. One focused on moon, other on > >> rocks/trees. Combine two in photoshop - masks, layers, combine > >> layers. Voila. > > > > Bingo! > > > > m-m > > www.mhmyers.com > > Voila! > > http://farm1.static.flickr.com/30/43193577_907f5945dc_o.jpg This one is a single exposure. No photoshop at all. Full frame but reduced to 25% of original: http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/d80/DSC_23907w.jpg -- m-m http://www.mhmyers.com |