«

"Tim Conway" <> wrote in message
news:i2ddpe$rj7$...
>
> "George Kerby" <> wrote in message
> news:C86FA051.39A73%...
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/23/10 3:26 PM, in article
>> ,
>> "me" <> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:56:50 -0400, "Peter"
>>> <> 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.
>


But the question was how to do it in a single shot.
I would be happy to learn that myself.
--
Peter

In article <i2ddpe$rj7$>,
"Tim Conway" <> wrote:

> "George Kerby" <> wrote in message
> news:C86FA051.39A73%...
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/23/10 3:26 PM, in article ,
> > "me" <> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:56:50 -0400, "Peter"
> >> <> 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

In article <4c4a3f39$0$21179$>,
"Peter" <> wrote:

RE: http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/d80/DSC_23928w.jpg

> But the question was how to do it in a single shot.
> I would be happy to learn that myself.

You can get them both in focus if the trees are far enough away and both
are at infinity and your lens is powerful enough focal-length-wise. I
would like to get a shot of the full-frame moon rising behind a city
skyline. You have to be many miles away from the city.

I have been able to get a jet plane crossing the moon with both in focus:

http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/d80/DSC_11664w.jpg

The issue with this photo however is not the focus but the exposure. It
is an impossible photo to achieve in a single exposure. The background
took a 2 sec exposure, the moon only needed 1/125.

The photo of the moon indeed had the rocks and trees in front of it but
the background was completely black. So I took an exposure of the rocks
and trees before the moon set behind it and combined the two.

Kudos to Tim Conway (my favorite comedian btw) for realizing this. I
thought the big clue would be the EXIF says 2 sec and there is no way
the moon would stay sharp with that long of an exposure because (a) the
earth is rotating and the moon consequently moves across the frame and
(b) 2 sec would completely overexpose such a bright object.

--
m-m
www.mhmyers.com

In article <>,
"Frank ess" <> 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/30/43...7f5945dc_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

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:25:09 -0400, "Peter"
<> wrote:

>"me" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:56:50 -0400, "Peter"
>> <> 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.?
>
>
>The same way you take a picture of a hummingbird, with its wings frozen,
>with a 28mm f5.6 lens, without strobe.

I don't necessarily see the issue with today's sensors. At iso800 in
bright sunlight you get 1/2000s. I routinely shoot to iso1600 with my
D300.
So there is a possibility, no? 28mm, f/5.6 at 3+ ft also has
sufficient DOF. As opposed to never having enough DOF for the
original shot.

"me" <> wrote in message
news:...


> I don't necessarily see the issue with today's sensors. At iso800 in
> bright sunlight you get 1/2000s. I routinely shoot to iso1600 with my
> D300.
> So there is a possibility, no? 28mm, f/5.6 at 3+ ft also has
> sufficient DOF. As opposed to never having enough DOF for the
> original shot.

With my D300 I start to get significant noise above ISO1600 in low, but high
contrast light such as night harness racing. All the in camera NR settings
did was blur the image. Have you had any experience with that?


--
Peter

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:16:03 -0400, "Peter"
<> wrote:

>With my D300 I start to get significant noise above ISO1600 in low, but high
>contrast light such as night harness racing. All the in camera NR settings
>did was blur the image. Have you had any experience with that?

I haven't shot jpgs since I originally got my D70. These days I use
Bibble to convert raw files from my D200/300. It contains a basic
version of NoiseNinja. I also have the full version of NeatImage and
can process minimally in Bibble and then use the NI filter in PS. You
might consider giving either of the free versions of NN/NI a try if
you don't care to process raw image. That said, I would guess you
would benefit from raw processing given my experience with early
morning/late evening wildlife and indoor Arena Racing.

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:16:03 -0400, "Peter"
<> wrote:


>With my D300 I start to get significant noise above ISO1600 in low, but high
>contrast light such as night harness racing. All the in camera NR settings
>did was blur the image. Have you had any experience with that?


BTW, you are aware that above 1600 on the D300 is nothing but pushing
1600 with additional amplification. So unless you really need it to
get the shutter speed up, you're not gaining snr.

"me" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:16:03 -0400, "Peter"
> <> wrote:
>
>>With my D300 I start to get significant noise above ISO1600 in low, but
>>high
>>contrast light such as night harness racing. All the in camera NR settings
>>did was blur the image. Have you had any experience with that?
>
> I haven't shot jpgs since I originally got my D70. These days I use
> Bibble to convert raw files from my D200/300. It contains a basic
> version of NoiseNinja. I also have the full version of NeatImage and
> can process minimally in Bibble and then use the NI filter in PS. You
> might consider giving either of the free versions of NN/NI a try if
> you don't care to process raw image. That said, I would guess you
> would benefit from raw processing given my experience with early
> morning/late evening wildlife and indoor Arena Racing.


I shoot everything in RAW and use ACR for the conversion. I tried converting
the files using CaptureNX2, but no joy. It seems that the excessive noise
only appears when there is high contrast lighting present.

--
Peter

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:58:25 -0400, "Peter" <>
wrote:
: "GMAN" <> wrote in message
: news:Yuk2o.873794$...
: > In article <4c499fe1$0$5504$>, "Peter"
: > <> wrote:
: >>"M-M" <nospam.m-> wrote in message
: >>news:nospam.m-m-...
: >>> Taken inside Zion National Park from the bottom of the canyon.
: >>>
: >>> http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/d80/DSC_23928w.jpg
: >>>
: >>> --
: >>> m-m
: >>> http://www.mhmyers.com
: >>
: >>
: >>
: >>Interesting effect. I would have liked to see the silhouette sharp. The
: >>blurry outline ruins it for me.
: >>
: > None of you seem happy with anyones effort unless it was "YOU" who took
: > the picture, then its a masterpiece. I enjoyed this photo, flaws or no
: > flaws.
:
: That is neither a fair, nor true comment. With the exception of our resident
: troll, there have been many compliments and hopeful suggestions. Life is not
: a kindergarten and I am not related to the maker. If an image is submitted
: for critique and I am so inclined I will make what I hope are helpful
: suggestions. Just as when I submit an image in the SI, I hope to get honest
: comment.

GMan's comment is absolutely fair. When you say you'd prefer that the
silhouette be sharp, that's a valid criticism, even if that sharpness might,
as someone else suggested, be difficult to achieve. But when you go on to say
that such an insignificant detail "ruins" the picture, that's plain silly. Is
Rich Anderson's attitude starting to infect us all, so that nothing that isn't
perfect is acceptable?

Bob